Delhi Court April 2000 Judgments

Monica Electronics Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(92)LC57Tri(Delhi)

1. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi by Order-in-Original dated 10.2.1999 disallowed modvat credit to the appellants to the tune of Rs. 23,55,581/- under Rule 57U(3) of the Central Excise Rules in respect of moulds supplied by the appellants to M/s. Showpla India Ltd. for manufacture of TV cabinets and their supply to the appellants who are manufacturers of coloured TV sets. Penalty of an equal amount was also imposed upon them apart from confiscating the moulds with redemption fine of Rs. two lakhs.2. The appellants' contention was that the moulds having been supplied to M/s. Showpla India Ltd. with the prior permission of the Department in accordance with the provisions of Rule 57S(8), the credit taken in respect of moulds had been debited in the PLA. They had also sought to interpret the word "job worker" in Rule 57S(8) to mean any person using the moulds for production of goods in accordance with the specifications given by the supplier of the moulds and nothing more.The C...

Hind Murti Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT144TriDel

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 11-10-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. Arguing for the appellant, Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate submitted that the issue relates to Modvat credit. Modvat credit has been disallowed by the department on the ground that they have availed credit on the strength of invoice which do not contain particulars as required under Notification No. 33/94-C.E. (NT) dated 4-7-1994 and the particulars supplied during adjudication proceedings are not co-relatable as the impugned invoices do not contain corresponding particulars.3. The Adjudicating authority/Assistant Commissioner has disallowed the Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 1,20,511.53 in addition to imposing penalty of Rs. 85,000/-. On an appeal filed by the party and considering the facts and circumstances the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that such an approach on the part of the lower authority is tot...

Crystal Sanitary Fittings P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC347

1. In these three appeals filed by M/s Crystal Sanitary Fittings Pvt.Ltd., arising out of two Orders No. 122 & 123/98 dated 8.9.98 and No.7/99 dt. 15.3.99, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, the issue involved is whether the process of fixing their brand name on tickli on taps, cocks and valves amounts to manufacture in terms of Note 6 to Section XVI of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri Shiv Das, Learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the activity of buying and selling of taps falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff; that they receive fully manufactures (sic) [manufactured] cocks & valves duly fitted with the ticklies on top of the items; that they merely embossed/affixed their brand name on the tickli of the tapes; that they did not purchase the tickli separately; that the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty holding that the process of reaffixing of ticklies after embossing the br...

Rungta Irrigation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT484TriDel

1. Appellant manufactures rigid HDPE and PVC pipes and their fittings.They were classifying the produce under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 3917. Duty was being paid accordingly. Show cause notice dated 27-5-1998 was issued calling upon them to show cause why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 64,85,956.00 should not be recovered under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, why interest at 20% on the duty so claimed should not be recovered under Section 11AB of the Act and why penal action should not be taken against them for violation of the provisions contained in Rule 173Q of the Rules. The appellant disputed the claim made in the show cause notice. After considering the contentions, Commissioner by order in-original No. 22/CE/99, dated 31-3-1999 confirmed the demand made in the notice, directed payment of interest as claimed in the notice and also imposed penalty of a like sum under Section 11AC of the Act read with...

Kohinoor Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT145TriDel

1. This is an application filed by M/s Kohinoor Impex Pvt. Ltd for restoration of their Appeal which has been dismissed vide Final Order No. 143/99-B dated 16-11-1999 for non-compliance with the stay Order No. 15/99-B dated 24-8-1999.2. Shri M. Chandrashekharan, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri A.S.Sundarajan, learned Advocate, submitted that their application for waiver of pre-deposit was dismissed for want of prosecution and they were directed to deposit the whole of the duty demanded; that an affidavit dated 24-9-1999 of Mrs. Vimla Devi, Director, was filed giving out the reasons as to why the Stay Order No. 15/99 was erroneous and contrary to the material on record and on this ground alone the Order dated 24-8-1999 requires to be recalled; that this affidavit was not considered by the Tribunal and without passing an order therein has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act.3. Opposing the restoration of Appeals, Shri A.K....

Pratap Rajasthan Spl. Steel Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT246TriDel

1. The issue involved in these appeals is whether parts of machinery are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules as inputs in view of the Exclusion Clause in Explanation to Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.2. In Appeal No. E/4890/92-NB, the benefit Modvat credit on garness board, garseal and garpack is denied on the ground that these are parts of electric furnace, hence, being parts of plant and machinery, are not entitled for/the benefit of Modvat credit as inputs in view of the Exclusion Clause to Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.3. In Appeal No. E/144/91-CAL, the benefit of Modvat credit is denied on coated abrasives/aloxide paper belt metalite is denied on the ground that it is used for sanding of plyboard to bring about smoothness to the surface of plywood, hence, it is an appliances and, therefore, hit by the Exclusion Clause of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.4. Ld. Counsel, appearing for M/s. Pratap Rajasthan Spl. Steel Ltd. submits t...

Nand Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Learned proxy Counsel on instructions from the regular Counsel of the applicant submits that the respondents have not filed any reply to the O. A. and the present case can be disposed of on the basis of materials papers available on record. Learned proxy Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Counsel has no objection to the same. In the circumstances, this O. A. is being disposed of on the basis of the pleadings and material papers available on record.2. The applicant, Nand Lal, is a retired Government employee. He retired from railway service from the post of Cashier on 31.1.98 after attaining the age of superannuation. His grievance as per the submissions made in the O.A. is that the respondents have with-held the payment of his gratuity and pension commutation for a long time illegally without jurisdiction and have not paid any interest on the said payments payable to him on the due date.3. According to the applicant, the death-cum-retirement gratuity was paid to him on 15.2...

Emma Charlotte Eve Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)65

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and the order of conviction dated 11.12.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 74/96 convicting the appellant under Sections 21/23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 3.4.1996, two postal parcels bearing Nos. R-250012 and R-250013 arrived at Frankfurt Airport, Germany, with flight No. AV018 from Bogota, Columbia destined for further transport to India. At Frankfurt Airport, both the parcels were intercepted by the Custom Officer Mr. Rabolt, who had handed over them to the Chief Inspector Customs Mr. Prior. Both the parcels, when opened in the presence of the Custom Officer Mr. Hilder Brand, tested positive for cocaine. Co...

A.P.S. Star Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT121TriDel

1. Shri J.S. Sinha, along with Shri Randhir Singh, ld. Advocates arguing the above ROM Application submits that while passing Final Order No. 926/98-B.2, dated 18-12-1998 the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration additional written submissions filed by the appellant at the time of final arguments before the Tribunal on 28-9-1998. It is further submitted that the Tribunal had not interpreted the scope of the word 'manufacture' used in the Exemption Notification No. 26/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 in the light of the submissions made by the appellants in their written submissions.2. Opposing the ROM Application, ld. JDR, Shri M.P. Singh argued that the scope of ROM Application was a limited one and when the Tribunal had passed an order giving its reasons for arriving at the conclusions recorded therein after considering the submissions made by both the sides, it cannot be argued that there was a mistake in the order requiring rectification only for the reason that the Tribunal had n...

Metal Tubes Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC89

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Metal Tubes is whether the process undertaken by them for making Brass Barrels and Brass Liners amounts to manufacture in terms of Note 2 to Chapter 74 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and whether extended period of limitation is invokable for demanding Central Excise duty in facts of the matter? 2. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants make brass barrels and brass liners out of brass pipe/tubes purchased in auction conducted by Sugar Mills and Thermal Power Plants; that they heat up tube upto the temperature of 700C, soak them in Sulphuric Acid and thereafter in Nitric Acid in order to remove the impurities and other foreign materials present in the tubes, then the tubes are taken to tube pointing machine where the edges are pointed manually, finally the tubes are taken to straight benches wherein these are straightened, here the diameter of tube is increased to suit the requirement ...