Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 1 of about 254 results (0.010 seconds)Goyal TIn Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT525TriDel
1. The Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division-I Ghaziabad vide his Order dated 7-12-1998 disallowed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 8,88,652/- to the appellants as per the particulars below: -1.2,81,828 Modvat Credit obtained on duplicate copy of B.E. whereas only triplicate copy is ad- missible.2.1,42,820.00 Triplicate copy of B/E endorsed in the name of party but no highsea sales.5.1,43,174.00 Modvat documents neither original nor at- tested 2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order dated 23-8-1999 has observed that the credit disallowed on the endorsed invoices is correct. Similarly in respect of issue at Sl. No. 3, appellant neither produced the original copy nor attested copy from Income Tax department. Hence the credit is rightly disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner. He has, however, allowed the Modvat credit where the duplicate copy for the invoice did not bear the pre-printed word like duplicate for transporter. The appellant has filed the appeal and...
Tag this Judgment!Garlon Polyfab Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT439TriDel
1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 15,53,867/- against the appellants. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on the appellants. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of filament yarn and nylon filament yarn. The products of chapter sub-heading 5403.00 became eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93, dated 26-2-1993 as amended by Notification No. 90/94, dated 25-4-1994. Scrutiny of the records revealed that though Notification No. 90/94 was issued on 25-4-1994, the appellants were paying full duty and availing the benefit of modvat credit upto 6-6-1994. On coming to know of the amendment of Notification No. 1/93 on 6-6-1994 when they had cleared textured and non-textured yarn valued at Rs. 26,38,525.00 from 1st April, 1994 to 6th June, 1994. They claimed that they will be availing the benefit of exemption under Not...
Tag this Judgment!Jamuna Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT441TriDel
1. The appellants availed the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 3,09,108.75. The proceedings were initiated against them by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gwalior vide show cause notice dated 14/15-12-1994 alleging that the stated amount of modvat credit was not available to them on the grounds that they had not intimated to the Range Superintendent regarding the receipt of the goods in their factory in terms of the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of rule 57T of Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is also alleged that the Bill of entry dated 15-10-1993 on which modvat credit of Rs. 1,50,257.70/- had been taken, was not in favour of the party as it was in favour of M/s Jamuna Auto Ind. Ltd., Nehru Place, New Delhi whereas the credit has been availed by M/s Jamuna Auto Ind. Ltd., Malanpur and no declaration/certificate was given on Bill of entry that the goods will be used for the manufacture of excisable goods at the latter's premises. Another amount of Rs. 1125 has been disallowe...
Tag this Judgment!Arora Manufacturing Company Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT444TriDel
1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of pipe fittings. On 11-1-1997 Central Excise (Preventive) officers who visited the appellants' factory premises detected an excess stock of 23,177 pieces of G.I. Pipe fittings and a shortage of 6.180 MTs. of pig iron (input).The goods found in excess were seized. The party was directed, by show-cause notice, to show cause why the seized goods should not be confiscated, why an amount of Rs. 7880/- shall not be recovered as duty on the goods found in shortage and why penalty shall not be imposed on them. The appellants contested the show cause notice. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner ordered confiscation of seized goods, confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 7,880/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-, in adjudication of the dispute. This order of adjudication was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal filed by the party. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. I have carefully examined the orders of the lowe...
Tag this Judgment!R.D. Digitronix Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT513TriDel
1. The appellants, M/s. R.G. Digitronix (P) Ltd. have prayed for decision on merits.2. The matter relates to the availment of small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE., dated 28-2-1993 and simultaneously availing of the benefit of Notification No. 70/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 which was a general exemption notification providing exempted/concessional rates in respect of a number of specified items of Chapter 90 of the Tariff. The appellate authority, the Collector (Appeals) had taken a view that after availing of the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E.at the same time simultaneously the assessee could not avail of the benefit of this Notification.3. We consider that a correct view has been taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and that simultaneously the benefit of both the Notifications could not be availed of. Of course, there is no bar after exceeding the limit of the exemption to avail of the benefit of any applicable notifications, which is not the case i...
Tag this Judgment!S.K.N. Gas Appliances Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT732TriDel
1. The above appeals arise out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs.67,04,555/- on goods cleared by M/s. S.K.N. Associates P. Ltd. and M/s. S.K.N. Gas Appliances during the period from October 1992 to March 1996, April 1997 to September 1997 and October 1997 to February 1998, holding that M/s. S.K.N. Associates had deliberately created another unit which was fully owned and controlled by them in order to circumvent monetary limit of aggregate value of clearances specified under SSI exemption Notification and that, therefore, the value of clearances of both appellants are to be clubbed for computing the aggregate value of clearances under Notification 175/86 dated 1-3-86 and Notification 1/93 dated 28-2-93. He has also imposed a penalty equal to duty amount on M/s. S.K.N. Gas Appliances under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant No.2 (M/s. S.K.N.Associates P. Ltd.) (established in ...
Tag this Judgment!Swarup Fibre Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT510TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s Swarup Fibres Industries Ltd., is whether the bar of unjust enrichment will apply in cases where the price has remained the same inspite of increase in the rate of duty.2. Shri Ashok Sagar, ld. Advocate submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Vulcanised Fibre Sheet which was classified by them under Heading 3913.30 of the Central Excise Tariff which was changed by the department to 3920.22 carrying a higher rate of duty. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal classified their product under Heading 3913.30 and consequently they filed the refund claim which has been rejected on the ground that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the customers. The ld. Advocate submitted that as the price structure after enhancement of the rate of duty has not been changed the excess duty paid by them has been absorved by them and not passed on to the customers. In support of his contention he relied upon the decisions in the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Wood Fun Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT495TriDel
1. The applicants filed this application for recalling the Tribunal's Final Order No. 1105/99-B, dated 8-10-1999 whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed for non-prosecution.3. The contention of the applicants is that their factory was closed and the notice for hearing was received by some chowkidar of the factory and he handed over the notice to the concerned officer after some time. In the meantime, the appeal was dismissed. In view of the reasons explained in the application, the application is allowed and the Final Order No. 1105/99-B, dated 8-10-1999 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. Adjourned to 26-7-2000 for arguments....
Tag this Judgment!New Decent Footwear Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT141TriDel
1. These interconnected Appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Original dated 30-3-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur. A duty demand of Rs. 34,24,393.00 was confirmed against the appellants, M/s. New Decent Footwear Industries, 4/33,1st Floor, Reshham Katra, Tajganj, Agra, apart from a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Rule 173Q. Penalties of Rs. 1 lakh each on the three partners of the said firm namely, S/Shri Mohd. Suhail, Mohd. Zubair and Mohd. Tariq were also imposed. Another penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was also imposed on M/s. Bata India Ltd. by the said Order under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. We have heard Shri L.P. Asthana for M/s. New Decent Footwear Industries and its partners and Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s. Bata India Ltd. Shri R.S. Sangia, ld. JDR argued the case of the Respondent Commissioner. We deal with the Appeals as under: Re: Appeal No. E/1821-24/98-D - New Decent Footwear Industries and its three partners v. C.C.E....
Tag this Judgment!Chandan Metal Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT506TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellants, M/s. Chandan Metal Products Pvt.Ltd. have challenged the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 10-11-1994 vide which he had affirmed the order of the Asstt.Collector regarding the classification of their products as detailed in the order itself except one product known as 'Letter Rack with Shelves'.2. The appellants filed four classification lists bearing Nos. 31, 36, 37 & 40 of 92 classifying their various products as detailed in the impugned order itself, under various tariff headings attracting different rates of duty. The Asstt. Collector classified their products - Letter Rack with Shelves under Tariff subheading No. 9403.00, Bin Cabinet and Bin Cabinet set under Tariff Heading No. 83.03/ Cab Steel Fronts (frame with doors) under Tariff Heading No. 94.03, Single Shutter Grill Gate under Tariff Heading No. 83.03 and Corner plates/gussets/panels, panel plates, partitions, partition plates and slotted angles, slotted channels, et...
Tag this Judgment!