Delhi Court April 2000 Judgments

Amrit Papers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT609TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order in original dated 27-8-1999 passed by the Commissioner who had confirmed the duty of Rs. 20,24,780/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 20,25,000/- on them.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of newsprint falling under sub-heading 4801.90 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. The scrutiny of their monthly returns filed in Form RT 12 for the month of April, 1995 revealed that they had cleared newsprint weighing 1141.179 MT valued at Rs. 4,04,88,556/- without payment of duty under Notification No. 60/88, dated 1-3-1988. But they were entitled to claim the benefit of this notification only if they had produced entitlement certificate issued by the Registrar of Newsprint before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner within a period of one month from the date of clearances. They rather failed to produce the entitlement certificate/purchase certific...

Bhawani Castings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT591TriDel

1. Stay matters are posted for hearing. On hearing I felt that the appeals can be disposed of. Accordingly, the matters were taken up for regular hearing.2. It was submitted by Shri Anand that by impugned order 41 appeals have been disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals). Out of that 17 appeals which have come before the Tribunal and at the time of hearing stay matter issue involved hearin has already been considered and disposed of as per Order No. A/552-568/99-NB (Stay Order No.S/260-276/99-NB), dated 30-6-1999.3. Shri Anand submits that in all these cases though the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that there was nothing wrong in availing Modvat credit and infact the Modvat credit has been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) still he upheld the imposition of penalty for wrong availment of Modvat credit in terms of Rule 173Q which is totally wrong. In view of this position, the Tribunal has observed particularly in para 6 of the order as under :- "6.I have considered the arg...

Shiv Shakti Tubes Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT126TriDel

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice issued. On earlier two occasions i.e. on 17-1-2000 and 2-3-2000 also the appellants were unrepresented. Therefore, appeal is being heard in the absence of the appellant.2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 26-5-1993 passed by the Collector of the Central Excise confirming the demand of Rs. 14,800.50 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- after denying the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E.4. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of steel pipes classifiable under sub-heading 7306.90 of the Central Excise Tariff.The appellants were claiming the benefit of Notification No.202/88-C.E., dated 20th May, 1988 which provides the exemption to the steel pipes and tubes manufactured out of Flats, Strips and hooks.5. The contention of the appellant in their appeal memo is that they were manufacturing the steel pipes and tubes from the M.S. Flats, therefore, e...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Adarsh Guar Gum Udyog

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT138TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The department has come in appeal on the following grounds :- "(1) The Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the facts of the case that the assessee had charged the duty amount from his customer through the invoices including the price of the impugned goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also mis-applied the ratio of the judgment given by the CEGAT in the case of CCE v. Oswal Cotton Spinning Mills reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 741 (T) on the count that he could not appreciate the judgment of the Tribunal given in the case of Raj Processors (India) and Anr. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 989 (T) wherein it was held that charging of duty at the time of clearance of goods and issue of credit notes at the subsequent stages would not alter the position that incidence of duty has not been passed on to the customers. The refund was held liable to be credited to CWF. This order of the CEGAT has also been upheld by the Supreme ...

S.T.P. Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT411TriDel

1. The applicants filed these Stay applications for waiver of the pre-deposit of duty and penalty.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the issue involved in these appeals is already settled by the Tribunal in the applicants' own case vide Final Order Nos. 129-137/2000-C, dated 10-3-2000 [2000 (118) E.L.T. 468 (T)]. He submits that the Tribunal held that conversion of straight grade bitumen into air blown grade bitumen by process of air blowing does not amount to manufacture and in absence of any note under the relevant section of chapter, the process of repacking into smaller container also does not amount to manufacture.4. In view of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Vadodara v. Tikitar Industries and Ors. Final Order Nos.129-137/2000-C, dated 10-3-2000 [2000 (118) E.L.T. 468 (T)] the pre-deposit of whole of the duty and penalty is waived for the hearing of the appeals.5. With the consent of the parties, the appeals are being...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. P.G. Foils Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT127TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The issue relates to availing Modvat credit on cylindrical vertical tank to be used for storage of different chemical. The Assistant Commissioner has disallowed the credit on the ground that cylindrical vertical tanks are used as a container for storage of chemical used by the party. These containers cannot be termed as capital goods as these do not take part either directly or indirectly in the manufacture of final product. On an appeal filed by the party the Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dabur India Ltd. v. CCE Meerut reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 674 (T) held that these tanks are used for keeping materials during the process of manufacture of final product are eligible capital goods for Modvat credit being equipment or part of plant used for processing goods.2. Shri A.K. Jain, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the cylindrical vertical tanks are not used in processing the goods as...

Bee Chem Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT527TriDel

1. The applicants, manufacturers of Silica Gel etc. falling under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, were availing the facility of Modvat credit on inputs during the financial year 1994-95. They had opted out of the Modvat scheme and switched over the scheme of SSI exemption for annual clearances up to Rs. 30 lakhs w.e.f. 1-4-1995 under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. as amended. At the time of such switch-over from the Modvat scheme to the SSI exemption scheme, certain quantities of inputs were lying as such in stock. Certain other quantity of inputs were also there as contained in the finished products in stock at the time. Again certain quantity of inputs were also contained in the final products which were under processing at the time. The party had taken Modvat credit of the duty paid on all these three categories of inputs and the amounts were Rs. 520.00, Rs. 430.40 and Rs. 83,188.80 respectively. Department proposed to recover these duties and, therefore, issued a show cau...

Canbank Mutual Fund Vs. R.N. Mittal and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. All the above mentioned appeals arise out of a common order dated 31.1.1997, passed by District Forum-II, in Complaint Case Nos. 504/1996 entitled Shri R.N. Mittal v. Canbank Mutual Fund and Anr.; 505/1996 entitled Smt. Rukmini Devi v. Canbank Mutual Fund and Anr.; 506/1996 - entitled Shri Anand Kumar Gupta v. Canbank Mutual Fund and Anr.; 507/1996 entitled Shri Anand Kumar Gupta v. Canbank Mutual Fund and Anr.; 508/1996 entitled Smt. Veena Gupta v. Canbank Mutual Fund and Anr.; 509/1996 entitled Shri Rajesh Kumar Mittal v. Canbank Mutual Fund and Anr.; 510/1996 entitled Ms. Parveena v. Canbank Mutual Fund and Anr.; 511/1996 entitled Ms. Padmini v. Canbank Mutual Fund and Anr.; 512/1996 entitled Ms. Prabhati v. Canbank Mutual Fund and Anr. 2. Initially, the Canbank Mutual Fund (hereinafter referred to as Canbank) had filed a consolidated appeal against the respondents but later on filed nine separate appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. L and T (Gould) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT916TriDel

1. Both the sides agree that the classification of the product, signal conditioning amplifiers has already been settled by the Tribunal in the respondents' own case in Final Order No. E/194/94-B1, dated 30-3-1994 in Appeal No. E/1319/92-B 1994 (71) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal). Shri R.S.Sangia, DR submits that against this order of the Tribunal the Department has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. There is nothing on record that the Tribunal's aforesaid order has been stayed or any order has been passed by the Apex Court reversing that order.2. The period involved is from 1-11-1991 to 23-2-1992. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has passed the order following the Tribunal's aforesaid decision.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is dismissed. Ordered accordingly....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Coolade Beverages Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT356TriDel

1. Arguing the Reference Application, Shri R.D. Negi, ld. SDR submits that a point of law reading as, "whether the value of glass bottles and plastic crates can be apportioned to the value of the aerated water on proportionate basis on their clearances, as having been included in the assessable value, when the party has claimed 100% depreciation at the cost of glass bottles and crates and recovered separately their value by way of rent". Ld. DR submits that the aerated water glass bottles are used repeatedly. More over, the repeated use of every bottle is not the same. He submits that aerated water manufacturers collect rent, if the bottles were retained beyond a certain time. He submits that the cost of the glass bottles is recovered by the manufacturers of aerated water. He submits that their claim of depreciation of 100% in respect of "glass bottles" means that they cover the entire cost in one year.He submits that since depreciation is claimed by the aerated water manufacturer of ...