Delhi Court June 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 4 of about 106 results (0.023 seconds)Procter and Gamble India Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC283
1. By the impugned Order-in-Original, Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,10,40,613/- against the appellants apart from imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on them. The appellants have filed this appeal and have sought the setting aside of the said order.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of "Ariel Microsystem" brand Detergent Powder (hereinafter referred to as "AMS") falling under Chapter 34 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 at their factory situated at Mandideep, Dist. Raisen (M.P) within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. The Department alleged that during the period December, 92 to December, 93, the appellants had removed AMS in bulk packing of 25 Kgs from their factory at Mandideep for packing them further in sachets of 20 gms. and 30 gms. to the premises of M/s. Industrial Enterprises (Detergents), Kanpur ("IED" for short) and the duty paid by the appellants on the 25 Kg bulk packing o...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Spinners Association Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC416
1. Appellants seek to challenge the final findings of the learned Designated Authority, constituted under the provisions of Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Provisions in Customs Tariff Act, 1975, suggesting imposition of anti-dumping duties on Polyester Staple Fibre imported from Korean and Thailand. The finding arrived at by the Designated Authority was notified in the gazette dated 21st January, 2000.Thereafter, a corrigendum was published in the gazette dated 22nd February, 2000. Recommendations made by the Designated Authority in the above mentioned notification and corrigendum are under challenge.2. On the basis of the determination made by the Designated Authority, it is common case that Central Government has not imposed any anti-dumping duty on the goods imported from Korea or Thailand.In Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.), Supreme Court considered the scope of the appeal to this Tribunal against the order of the Designated Aut...
Tag this Judgment!Scan Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT188TriDel
1. By Order-in-Appeal dated 12-10-99, Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Jaipur confirmed Order-in-Original by which a duty demand of Rs. ll,64,974/-was confirmed against the appellants.2. The Order-in-Original had held that credit accumulated in the appellants' Modvat account with respect to Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) cannot be utilised for discharging duty on the end product viz., dyed yarn, because POY was an input for textured yarn and not an input in the manufacture of Dyed yarn, the final product manufactured by the appellants though dyed yarn was made out of textured yarn. The period involved was from November, 1997 to March, 1998.3. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Nylone/Polyester Textured/Dyed Yarn. The main raw material for the manufacture of the aforesaid goods is POY which the appellants procured from manufacturers on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. The appellants availed of the Modvat credit of duty paid on POY and utilised the same in t...
Tag this Judgment!Saroj Textiles Limited and 3 ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC273
1. For reasons recorded below, we dispense with the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof and proceed to dispose of the appeals themselves with the consent of both the sides.2. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 3,40,21,855 on processed cotton fabrics cleared by M/s. Saroj Textile Mills during the financial year 1995-96,1996-97 and 1997-98 by application of the extended period of limitation and has imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Rule 173Q, and has imposed a penlaty of Rs. 3 lakhs each on the three Directors of the appellant company. The duty demand arises as a result of denial of the benefit of Notification No. 40/95 dated 16.3.95 which exempts woven fabrics of cotton falling within Chapter 52 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985 when subjected to any process or processes specified on Col No. 2 of the Tattle annexed ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bhushan Steel and Strips Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT293TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for our consideration is whether the Modvat credit was allowable when the defective cold rolled coil, cold rolled sheets etc. were received back for re-processing and clearance on payment of appropriate duty. The show cause notice had been issued alleging that the goods received back were manufactured by the respondents themselves and the processes involved did not amount to the process of manufacture. On this ground, the Modvat credit of Rs. 5,89,850/- was sought to be denied to the respondents M/s. Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. Following the Tribunal's decision in respondents' own case (Order No. A/1287/98-NB, dated 21-12-1998), the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had allowed the appeal of M/s. Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. holding that the processes undertaken amounted to the processes of manufacture.2. When the matter was called, no-one appeared for the respondents. We have heard Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, learned DR and...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Dass Khanna Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)78ITD151(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Id.CIT(A)IV, New Delhi dated 7-10-1993, for the assessment year 1990-91.2. The grounds at S. Nos. 1 and 2, which arc interconnected, read as under:-- 1. "That the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer of rejecting the claim of the Appellant Company that the Explanation to section 80HHD(2) although inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, with effect from 1st April, 1992 would apply to the past assessment years also as it merely provides a clarification to the basic provisions of section 80HHD(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 2. "That the claim of the Appellant Company for deduction under section 80HHD(3) of Rs. 4,65,528 being based on a certain interpretation of some provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer erred in observing that the claim of the Appellant Company was made with an intention to defraud t...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT748TriDel
1. The above application under section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act has been preferred by the Revenue for reference of the following question of law stated to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order dated 1-1-1998: "Whether the Hon'ble CEGAT is correct in extending the deemed credit benefit under Ministry's Order No. TS/36/94-TRU, dated 1-3-1994 to a unit availing of exemption in terms of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 even after it crosses the exemption limit of Rs. 75 lakhs and starts paying duty at the normal rate?" 2. Vide the Final Order, the Tribunal held that deemed credit under the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) order dated 1-3-1994 continues to be admissible to the respondents which is a SSI Unit even after it had exceeded the exemption ceiling of Rs. 75 lakhs, following the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Shri Venkateshwara Steel Industries 3. On hearing both sides and noting that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has rec...
Tag this Judgment!Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC427
1. A contract dated 23-1-1989 executed between M/s. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., Paradeep and M/s. Buhler Brothers Ltd., Switzerland for importing "Mobile continuous Ship Unloader Completely Assembled" was registered on 16-1-1992 at Paradeep Customs House under Project Imports Regulations, 1986. The goods were imported and assessed provisionally to duty under heading 9801.00 and cleared on 27-1-1992.2. Subsequently, the Customs House initiated proceedings against the Importer on the grounds of short levy of duty owing to erroneous assessment under Project Import. The department felt that ship unloader was not an integral port of the project for manufacture of fertilizer and only used for speedy unloading of solid raw materials from ship.3. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Paradeep in his order dated 2-12-1992 rejected the contention of the party that the unloader is a transmission equipment for transmitting raw materials and this fits into heading 9801.00. He observed that project ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Ludhiana Steel Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC435
1. This is a reference application filed by Commissioner Central Excise, for referring the following question of law arising out of Tribunal Final Order No. A/548-550/ 98-NB dated 4.5.1998. (i) "Whether the legal requirements of Rule 57G is met by the manufacturer who submits a declaration describing inputs as melting scrap but takes credit on inputs described in the covering documents as strips below 5 mm in thickness, round cuttings, bars, hooks and CR end cuttings?." (ii) "Whether the declaration filed under Rule 57G should not be specific to avoid the use of inputs for purposes other than declared especially when there is no provision to physically verify the inputs under Self-removal Procedure?." (iii) "Whether prior to 6.10.88, the Rule 57I was subject to the provisions of the Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 or whether the amendment applies to cases prior to 6.10.88 also?" 2. Shri R. D. Negi, Ld. SDR, submitted that the requirements of filing a declaration under Rule 57G...
Tag this Judgment!Diesel Components Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC277
1. The fight in this case is between two wings of the Central Government. Excise Department tried to realise a sum of Rs. 33,80,27,960.00 being the duty amount payable by the Railways by way of duty on the components manufactured by their Diesel Component Works, Patiala, which went into the repair of diesel locomotives. An equal sum has also been imposed as penalty on the Railways, namely, Diesel Component Works, Patiala invoking the provisions under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Interest on the above amount at the rate of 20% under Section 11AB of the Act has also been levied.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows.3. Diesel Component Works, Patiala, under the Ministry of Railways, is engaged in the activity of reconditioning diesel locomotives falling under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Apart from reconditioning of diesel locomotives, they...
Tag this Judgment!