Delhi Court June 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sunrise Structurals and Engg. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
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...
C.M. Paints (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
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...
Synpro Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT211TriDel
1. Appellants are manufacturers of paints and varnishes. They were selling their goods both on ex-factory basis to dealers and on contract basis to other parties. In respect of contract sales, the delivery was to be effected at the premises of the buyer. The appellants filed price lists in part I proforma in respect of ex-factory sales and in Part II proforma in respect of contract sales. In respect of contract sales, they sought deduction at a uniform rate towards cost of transportation of goods. This deduction has been denied in the orders of the authorities below. The appellants challenge those decisions and submit that equalized freight is eligible for deduction and that the sales under contract were sales to different class of buyers, then the wholesale dealers and each of those contract prices, after deduction of freight, should constitute the assessable value.2. When the appeals were called today, none appeared for the appellants. Therefore, we are deciding the case after heari...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Stallion Power Equipments (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT745TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in appeal dated 20-1-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal.2. Arguing for the Revenue, Dr. Ravinder Babu, ld. JDR submitted that issue relates to Modvat credit. The party is claiming Modvat credit in respect of raw materials which were used in coil. He said that coil was neither sold nor marketed in the instant case. What the party has done in this case is repairing of the transformer supplied by the Electricity Board. Transformer as such was not manufactured by the assessee and accordingly the party is not entitled to take Modvat credit in respect of raw materials which were used in the coil.3. It was also contended on behalf of the Revenue that coil as such is not a marketable product nor capable of being marketed. On the other hand, the respondent's Counsel submitted that what the party has claimed in this is Modvat credit in respect of the raw material used in the coil. The defe...
Bhagat Singh and Virender Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: (2000)75ITD1(Delhi)
1. This is assessee's appeal directed against the order of CIT(A) X, New Delhi, dt. 24th January, 1997, relating to asst. yr. 1993-94 and following grounds have been raised : "(1) That the learned AO as well as learned CIT(A) have failed to appreciate the fact available on record. The authorities below have neither accepted nor denied that the abovementioned lands vested in the Land Acquisition Act only on 16th March, 1990 (the date of original award) not on 20th August, 1974 (the date of possession taken over from the assessee). (2) That the authorities below have also erred while taxing the interest amount during the period under assessment in spite of the fact that the same should have been taxed on mercantile basis. (3) That the authorities below have also failed to take note that these amounts were received on 17th May, 1993, and even on receipt basis the same cannot be taxed during the period under assessment. (4) That the learned AO as well as learned CIT(A) have also failed to...
Atul R. Aggarwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)78ITD343(Delhi)
1. These appeals, preferred by the assessee, relate to assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1994-95 and 1995-96. Since common issues are involved for consideration, all the appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a composite order for the sake of convenience.2. The main ground involved in all these appeals relates to interest income worked out by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to "AO") on accrual basis.2.1 The facts as transpired from the record relating to assessment year 1990-91, giving out the above controversy, are as under.2.2 On 2-5-1987 an association of persons (AOP), comprising of assessee alongwith twelve other persons, titled as Devidayal Builders and Developers (Vikas Marg Project) (hereinafter referred to DDB&D) came into existence vide agreement dated 2-5-1987 itself. This AOP entered into an agreement on 15-7-1987, copy of which is appearing at pages 78 to 90 of the paper book of assessee, with Shri Sitaramji Bhandar, a soc...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Wood Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT81TriDel
1. In this appeal preferred by Revenue the issue involved is whether refrigerator top and table top manufactured by the respondents M/s.Hindustan Wood Works are classifiable under headings 84.18 and 94.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act respectively as claimed by the Revenue or both products are classifiable as parts of furniture under heading 94.03 as decided by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. We heard Shri R.S. Sangia, learned D.R. and Shri K.V. Sahasrabudhe, learned Consultant. Learned Consultant submitted that the issue regarding classification of refrigerator tops has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Yanarpaks, 1999 (107) E.L.T.744 (T) and CCE, Bombay v. Novaluxe International (P) Ltd., 1999 (108) E.L.T. 160 (T).3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The Collector (Appeals) has given clear findings in the impugned order that refrigerator tops are nothing but prelaminated particle board of required th...
C.H. Herbs Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT467TriDel
1. Appellant claims to be manufacturers of ayurvedic medicines. By adjudication Order No. 178/DC/IND-1/CEX/98-99, dated 10-3-1999, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise imposed a duty of Rs. 2,13,888/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Mandatory penalty of similar amount under Section 11 AC and penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Rule 173Q is also imposed. Interest under Section 11AB was also levied.Aggrieved by that order appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. Along with that appeal an application for stay of operation of the order impugned was also filed. That application was disposed of by Interim Stay Order No. 273-CE/BPL/2000, dated 10-3-2000. Commissioner ordered the appellant to deposit the entire amount within three weeks from the date of that order failing which, it was ordered that the appeal shall also stand rejected without any further reference to them. This order is under challenge.2. Before going into the details, we expr...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Chandra Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT385TriDel
1. The only issue in dispute in the present appeal relates to the eligibility of the respondents herein to exemption in terms of Notification No 75/87 for goods falling under heading 84.18 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. According to the Revenue which has filed the appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), the respondents are ineligible to the exemption since the aggregate value of clearances of all goods manufactured by the respondents herein which were exempt under Notification No 1/93 which is past clearance value, is required to be taken into account for the purpose of computation of clearance value under Notification No 75/87 and the aggregate value "of clearances of all goods manufactured by the respondents namely goods falling under Chapter 84 as well as goods falling under Chapter 90 and 94 exceed the ceiling limit prescribed under Notification No 75/87.2. The relevant notification No. 75/87 Explanation II according to which aggregate value of clearances of goods exem...
Karan Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT399TriDel
1. This is an application filed by Shri Balvir Singh, Managing Director of M/s. Karan Industries Ltd. The main prayer is to direct the Assistant Commissioner to refund the amount deposited by him pursuant to order of stay passed by this Tribunal on 18-12-1998 in appeals E/2591-2594/98-A. Adjudicating authority, namely, Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Indore by Order-in-Original No. 23/Corrunr/CEX/IND-II/98-99, dated 19-6-1998 imposed duty liability of Rs. 86,13,064 on M/s. Karan Industries Ltd. Over and above that duty liability penalties under various heads were also imposed on the company. While doing so, a personal penalty of Rs. 20 Lacs was imposed on Shri Balvir Singh, Managing Director of the company invoking the provisions contained in Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. Appeals were filed challenging the said order before this Tribunal as E/2592/98-A to 2594/98-A. E/2594/98 was appeal filed by Balvir Singh challenging the personal penalty imposed on him. Stay pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »