Delhi Court June 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 1 of about 106 results (0.017 seconds)S.A. Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT393TriDel
1. In these two appeals arising out of common Order No. 60/91 dated 29-6-1991, passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 is available to the Excisable goods manufactured by M/s.S.A. Industries, Appellant No. 1.2. Shri C. Harishankar, ld. Advocate, submitted that M/s. S.A.Industries manufacture moulded articles of plastics like Textiles Bobbins, T.V. and Radio Parts, Trays and Containers etc; that they are Supplying Colour T.V. Back Covers and embossed with marking "CROMA COLOUR CC" to M/s. TV and Components Ltd., Appellant No. 2, who were using the same in manufacturing their TV Sets; that Textile Bobbins bearing brand name 'Garden' was supplied by them to M/s. Garden Silk Mills through M/s. Honest Sales Agency; that they also supply textile Bobbins with brand name 'Honest' mentioned thereon to M/s. Honest Sales Agency; that the Additional Collector confirmed the demand of Central Excis...
Tag this Judgment!Suraksha Flexo Packs Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC493
1. Today, petition filed by the appellant praying for dispensing with pre-deposit came up for orders. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, we heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative. We dispose of the appeal itself.2. Adjudicating Authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner ordered the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 26,031 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Act, imposed a penalty equal to the duty amount under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act and penalty of Rs. 2,000 under Rule 9(2) read with Rules 52A, 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules. A further penalty of Rs. 5,000 was also imposed on Shri Rakesh Gupta, Director of the Company invoking the powers under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, by Order-in-Original No. 3/CE/JP-II/99 dated 18.02.99. Aggrieved by that order, the company went in appeal bef...
Tag this Judgment!Euro CotspIn Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT85TriDel
1. Arguing the case for the three appellants Shri G. Shiv Das, ld.Counsel submits that the appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit manufacturing Polyester/Synthetic Yarn, Cotton Yarn and Blended Yarn; that the appellant maintains a running bond account which at the time of clearance of goods meant for export, is debited with an amount equivalent to the Central Excise Duty payable on the goods cleared; that the appellants in the month of June, 1996 cleared five consignments for export after debiting the requisite amount in the running bond account; that the samples of the goods sent to foreign purchasers were not approved and therefore, the goods cleared were diverted to the Domestic Tariff Area. He submitted that the Officers of Central Excise Department visited their warehouse and seized the yarn; that the departmental authorities conducted detailed investigations; that the appellants calculated the amount of duty and paid the same; that a SCN was issued on 3-1-1997 to confirm the a...
Tag this Judgment!Oswal Knitting and Spg. Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT327TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Oswal Knitting & Spinning Industries, is whether the Graphic Design System, imported by them, is classifiable under Sub-heading 8447.20 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, as claimed by them or has to be classified on merit without the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 16/85, as confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), in the impugned order dated 21-12-1994.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants imported one Graphic Design System and one Electronic Jacquard Flat Knitting Machine with full set of accessories and spare parts; they sought classification of the Graphic Design System under Sub-heading, 8447.20, which, as per Revenue, is nothing but a computer having central processing unit, colour display monitor, 12" diginitising tablet, 24 dot matrix printer with 8 colour paper for printer, alongwith Jacquard Machine and claimed exemption under Notification No. 16/85; that the Additiona...
Tag this Judgment!Kesar Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT295TriDel
1. These appeals have been referred to Larger Bench to resolve the conflicting decisions given by two benches of co-ordinate jurisdiction in National Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Madurai, 1999 (33) RLT 978. In the first decision the Bench took the view that rebate allowable to manufacturers of sugar as per Notification No.108/78 comes under the provisions contained in Section 11B of the Act are hit by the principle of unjust enrichment. In the second decision in National Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. the South Regional Bench took the view that incentive provided to manufacturers of sugar under Notification No. 237/87 (successor notification to Notification 108/78) is in the nature of subsidy falling outside the purview of unjust enrichment and hence not falling under Section 11B of the Act.2. The facts of the two cases before us are virtually identical.Appellants in both the cases are manufacturers of sugar. Contentions raised by them are also identical. So we refer to the fac...
Tag this Judgment!Siyarco Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT248TriDel
1. Appellant imported goods describing them as "Zinc Ore Concentrate'.The assessable value of the consignment containing a quantity of 99530 kgs. was stated to be Rs. 17,63,388/-. On examination the total weight of the consignment was found to be 110380 kgs. Department became suspicious about the nature of the goods imported. They referred the matter to the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board. Board reported that the imported goods was of zinc residue falling under the category of Hazardous Waste as per Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 issued under Environment (Protection) Act 1986. They also reported that in the light of the Order of the Supreme Court dated 05.05.1997 in Writ Petition (C) 657/95, Research Foundation for Science and Technology etc. v. Union of India, it has been indicated that no import of Hazardous Waste should be allowed by the authorities.2. Appellant herein, had earlier imported one consignment of similar goods and cleared the same describ...
Tag this Judgment!L.M.L. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT480TriDel
1. Today the matter is posted for consideration of Stay Application only. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case we feel that the appeal itself can be disposed of after waiving the requirement for pre-deposit of penalty. Accordingly we pass the following order after hearing the ld. D.R.2. The dispute involved was about valuation of the goods. The Adjudicating authority has dropped the duty demand. However, a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed on the appellant under Rule 173Q.3. It is settled law that when there is no duty demand, there could be no penalty. Therefore, the penalty imposed is liable to be set aside.We do so and allow the appeal itself with consequential relief if any to the appellant....
Tag this Judgment!Rekan Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT419TriDel
1. Shri R. Santhanam, ld. Counsel arguing the Stay Petition for the appellants submits that there has been total violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity was provided to the appellants for presenting their case. He submits that the appellants had requested for a personal hearing which was not given. Ld. Counsel also submits that though in the declaration the applicant had given certain data but while determining the annual capacity or production the authorities below adopted an entirely different data. He submits that thus the annual production capacity is not assessed by the rules on the issue and the formulae prescribed for such determination. He submits that the applicant also had given expert opinion regarding capacity of furnace which was neither considered nor examined by the adjudicating authority. He therefore submits that though the amount of duty has not been quantified, hence his request for remanding the matter to the authorities below may be a...
Tag this Judgment!Sunrise Structurals and Engg. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT482TriDel
1. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 8,38,922.13 under Rule 9(2) read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period 1981-82 to October, 1984 as per order-in-original No. 9/88 dated 22-2-1988. This liability was imposed on the basis of show cause notice dated 11-3-1985. Grounds urged in the show cause notice were that the assessee, appellant in this appeal, wrongly availed the benefit of Notification Nos. 105/80 and 77/83.2. In order to understand the stand taken by the department, it is worthwhile to deal with Notification No. 105/80 at the outset itself.Notification No. 105/80 dated 19-6-1980 gave certain benefits to small-scale manufacturers of goods falling under Item 68 on clearances not exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs in a year. As per that notification, Central Government exempted goods falling under Item 68 of the First Schedule in respect of first clearances for home consumption by or on behalf of the manufacturer from one...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Paints (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT829TriDel
1. These three appeals were heard together since the point to be decided in all the three appeals were common. They are being disposed of by this common order.2. The matter relates to the correct interpretation of Explanation I given at the end of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. We have heard Shri R.C. Gupta, ld. Advocate in the appeal filed by M/s. C.M. Paints (P) Ltd. and Shri L.P. Asthana, and Shri Y.K. Kumar, ld. Advocates in the appeals filed by M/s. Orphic Dyeing and Printing Mills (P) Ltd. and Shri K.K. Kohli and Brothers. For the Department S/Shri Mewa Singh, R.D. Negi, ld. SDRs argued the Departments' case.4. The appellants are operating hot air stenters in their plants and are governed by the Hot Air Stenter Independent Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The common issue raised in all the three appeals is whether a 'gal...
Tag this Judgment!