Delhi Court June 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 3 of about 106 results (0.018 seconds)Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Arakkonam Castings and Forgings
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT738TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the castings of transmission mill gear, and transmission mill gear wheel, and cement mill gear are classifiable under heading 84.83 as claimed by the Department or they have to be classified only as castings under Heading 73.25 of Central Excise Tariff.2. The Respondents M/s. Arakkonam Castings & Forgings Pvt. Ltd., have requested to decide the matter on merit on the basis of submissions made by them. They have mentioned in their submissions that they were manufacturing only casting without any infrastructure of machine tools for machine drilling, gear cutting, etc.; that mere fettling or removing scales or runners and risers do not constitute manufacture; that the similar case of the Respondents has been decided by the Tribunal vide final order No. 231/99-Bl, dated 2-2-1999 rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue relying upon the decision in the case of Paramount Centurispun Castings Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur, 1995 ...
Tag this Judgment!Paharpur Plastics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC424
1. The above appeals arise out of a common Order-in-Appeal and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. In Appeal No. E/2687/99, the issue relates to demand of duty of Rs. 4,65,234.05 confirmed on a quantity of 45,000 kgs. Of polypropylene granules cleared by the appellants to M/s. EMR polytex without debiting duty either in PLA or RG 23A Part II. The appellants who are represented by Shri Rajesh Chhiber, learned Advocate submits that in addition to obtaining granules from the domestic market, they were also importing granules duty free under Advance Licensing Scheme and that they had not availed any Modvat credit on the above-mentioned quantity and hence were not required to debit any duty thereon. However, as seen from the Order-in Original No. 66/96 dated 29.3.96 of the Assistant Collector, the appellants had a stock of 1,01,423 kgs. of Shell K-6100 PP granules as on 1.4.93, they received 36,80,289 kgs. of pp granules during the period 1.4.93 to 31.3.94 wherea...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Saboo Refractories
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT481TriDel
1. The short question that has arisen is whether Magnesium Oxide is to be classified under Tariff heading 2505 as contended by the manufacturer or under Chapter heading 2825 as contended by the Revenue.Sub-heading 2825 under Chapter 28 is falling under Section 6 of Central Excise Tariff Act. Sub-heading 2505 falls under Chapter 25 in Section 5 of the Act. Note 3 to Chapter 28 states that subject to provisions of note 1 to Section 6, Sodium Chloride or Magnesium Oxide will not fall under this chapter. Note 1 to Section 6 does not contain any provision bringing within the purview of that Section Magnesium Oxide. So it is crystal clear that Magnesium Oxide cannot fall within headings contained in Chapter 28. This means that the Revenue's contention that Magnium Oxide should fall under Sub-heading 2825 cannot be accepted.Consequently, we dismiss the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT737TriDel
1. In these two appeals - one filed by M/s. Spectrum Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and the other filed by the Revenue -the issue involved is deductions to be made from the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.2. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) has allowed special discount given by the assessee company to their stockist. On the other hand, the Collector (Appeals) has disallowed the additional discount, free supply on account of breakages and date of expiry, and interest on finished goods/stocks. Shri S.S. Gupta, learned CA, submitted that the additional discount and free bonus is allowable as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box of India Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 449 S.C. He further submitted that this discount is allowable as long as the discount is known at or prior to removal of the goods. In respect of free supply on account of breakage, he relies upon the decision in the case of Raptakos, Brett & Co. v...
Tag this Judgment!Eco Products India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT357TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Eco Product India P.Ltd. is whether they were clearing the excisable goods bearing the brand name of another person so as to make the excisable goods manufactured by them ineligible for exemption under Notification No.1/93 dated 28-2-1993.2. Shri S.D. Gaur, learned Consultant submitted that the appellants manufacture water filter affixed with brand name "Aquarious-II"; that under the distributorship agreement the entire products manufactured by them was sold exclusively to M/s. Singer India Ltd.; that the Asst.Commissioner under adjudication order No. 108/97 dated 27-11-1997 confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,05,456/- holding that the brand name Aquarious-II was owned by M/s. Singer India Ltd. which was evident from the terms and conditions set out in the distributorship agreement, according to which the appellants were barred from using the words "Manufactured by Eco Products India P. Ltd." and trade mark 'Aquarious-II' or any series of A...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. TIn Manufacturing Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT290TriDel
1. The respondents in this case are manufacturers of metal containers.Some of the metal containers manufactured and cleared (on payment of duty) by them are returned as defective by their purchasers. The respondents manufacture new metal containers out of such returned defective metal containers. The issue involved is whether they are entitled to Modvat credit of the duty they originally paid on the defective metal containers. The issue has been referred to this Larger Bench on account of differing views expressed in the decisions of the Tribunal.2. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the decision of the Tribunal in Akobex Metals Ltd. v. CCE -1993 (68) E.L.T. 146 applied to the case of the respondents and that Modvat credit was admissible.As against this, the Commissioner, CCE Meerut has submitted that the assessee is not entitled to Modvat credit in view of the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of I.C.I. v. CCE, Calcutta - 1997 (89) E.L.T.216 and CCE, Bangalore v. K...
Tag this Judgment!Mercury Rubber Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT413TriDel
1. The appeal is directed against denial of refund claim for Rs. 2,41,757. Learned Representative of the appellant took us through the documents relied upon by them for claiming refund and submitted that the refund claim is on account of (1) freight and other cost of transportation; (2) liquidated damages and (3) interest on receivables.He submitted that the contract with the Electricity Board, the buyer of the goods, is on the basis of delivery at their Thermal Power Stations.Therefore, from the payment received by the appellant, they incurred expenses towards freight, handling and other cost. Appellant submits that these expenses are eligible for deduction from the price received by them. With regard to liquidation damages it has been submitted that liquidated damages are deducted from the price due in view of the delay in making delivery. Appellant submits that these liquidated damages are also eligible for deduction while fixing assessable value as the amount received as price for...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC337
1. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding the availability of benefit of Notification No. 281 /86, dated 24-4-1986 in respect of the moulds and moulding equipments, manufactured and used captively by the appellants for the manufacture of their final products glass and glassware.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of moulds and moulding equipments classifiable under Heading 84.80 of the CETA for supply to another factory M/s. Mohan Crystal and Glass Works, who are manufacturing glass and glasswares. They had been claiming exemption from payment of duty in respect of moulds and moulding equipments under Notification No. 281/86, dated 24-4-1986 but in fact, they were not entitled to the same. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 27-4-1993 was issued to them alleging that the moulds and moulding equipments manufactured by them were excisable goods and were also not meant for repair and maintenance of any machinery installed in their factory. It was also alleged in tha...
Tag this Judgment!Nagpur Alloys Casting Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC417
1. In this appeal filed by the appellants against the order-in-original of the collector dated 16-9-1994 the issue involved is regarding the availability of benefit of Notification No. 223/88 dated 23-6-1988 to the castings manufactured by the appellants.3. The appellants are engaged in the production of MCI/SGCI inserts for Railway concrete sleepers, tubes and pipe fittings, parts and accessories of machines, motor vehicle parts etc. classifiable under Chapters 73, 84 and 87 respectively of the CETA. They also held Central Excise L-4 licence w.e.f. 30-6-1992 onwards for the manufacture of these excisable goods. On collection of intelligence report, it revealed that they had been wrongly availing concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 223/88 dated 23-6-1988. The scrutiny of their classification list for MCI/SGCI inserts filed by them during the period 4-11-1988 to 1-3-1989 also revealed that they projected their products as un-machined iron castings or unmachined cast articl...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Garuda Clay Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT740TriDel
1. This appeal is at the instance of Revenue. They challenge Order-in-Appeal No. 427-CE/DLH/98, dated 20-8-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) wherein he reversed Order-in-Original No. 158/96 dated 28-10-1996 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Gurgaon. Respondents, a manufacturer of cement, filed application for refund of Rs. 14,627 on 2-8-1995 on the ground that under Notification 12/95 they were required to pay central excise duty on cement at the rate of Rs. 200 PMT after clearance of goods worth Rs. 50 lacs, while they actually paid duty at the rate of Rs. 245 PMT resulting in excess payment at the rate of Rs. 45 PMT for the period from 9-6-1995 to 18-6-1995. This claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority taking the view that the manufacturer had already availed of exemption on clearance up to Rs. 50 lacs under Notification No. 1/93 and therefore he is not entitled to the benefit of Notification 12/95. On appeal, at the instance of respondent-asse...
Tag this Judgment!