Delhi Court June 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 7 of about 106 results (0.021 seconds)Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Ganga Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT757TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the issue involved is whether exemption under Notification No. 175/86 is available to the respondents, M/s. Ganga Electronics.2. Dr. R. Baboo, learned DR, submitted that the respondents were manufacturing car cassette player affixed with brand name 'GANGA TKR' and the Asstt. Commissioner disallowed them the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 in terms of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86; that on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order holding that the Asstt. Commissioner did not mention in the adjudication order as to who owns the brand name GANGA TKR or TKR. The learned DR further mentioned that brand name TKR is a popular and universally recognised brand name owned by M/s. Clarian Company of Japan and as such using words 'TKR' along with 'Ganga' creates an association of product manufactured by the respondents with brand name TKR. Finally he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Namtech System v...
Tag this Judgment!Omega Packaging P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT390TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Omenga Packaging Pvt. Ltd. the issue involved is whether power was used by them in the manufacture of metal containers manufactured by them, so as to make them ineligible for the benefit of Notification Nos. 71/83, 153/86 and 102/88 during the relevant time.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture metal containers and as they did not use power in any process of manufacture, they claimed exemption from duty under the above mentioned Notifications during the period from 1983-84 to 1988-89; that Collector Central Excise, under the impugned Order No.2/MP/90 dated 23-1-1990, confirmed the demand of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 37,42,882.26p in respect of metal containers and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- holding that the tops and bottoms of the metal containers purchased from M/s. Abrama Metal Components and M/s. Sterling Components were manufactured with the aid of power; that the appellants used to supply...
Tag this Judgment!Bausch and Lomb (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC117
1. Appellant, M/s. Bausch & Lomb (India) Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of contact lenses, sun glasses, metallic frames, etc. in their factory at Bhiwari in Rajasthan. They also manufacture and captively consume three parts of sun glasses, namely, plated fronts, plated temples and glass lenses. These three parts are separate excisable items attracting duty under Chapter 90 of Central Excise Tariff Act. During the period 1992-93 to 1995-96, sun glasses were exempt from excise duty. The intermediate products, namely, plated fronts, plated temples and sun glasses were excisable items. Valuation of these parts during the above period is the dispute involved in this appeal.2. For the different financial years, namely, 1992-93 to 1995-96, the plated fronts, plated temples and sun glass lenses were valued by the appellant and duty paid. The respective valued fixed by the manufacturer for the above periods can be discerned from the annexure to the Order-in-Original. First column in t...
Tag this Judgment!Rail Tech Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT393TriDel
1. This order will dispose of two appeals, one filed by the assessee and another by the Revenue. Appeal No. E/1797/94-B has been filed by the assessees against the order in original dated 15-06-1994 (issued on 17-06-1994); passed by the Collector of Central Excise vide which he had decided the classification of the products in question (aluminium windows, doors, and their frames) under sub-heading 8607.00 of the CETA and confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 22,59,879.16 for the period 1-8-1993 to 1-1-1994, on them. He, however, had dropped the demand of Rs. 4,51,975.84 against them. The second appeal No. ER/884/95-B had been brought by the Revenue against the order in appeal dated 30-1-1995 passed by the Collector (Appeals) classifying the same products under sub-heading 7610.10 of the CETA by reversing the order in original of the Assistant Collector dated 9-9-1994 who held the classification under sub-heading 8607.00 of the CETA. Since in both the appeals common issue regarding classifi...
Tag this Judgment!Gabriel India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT191TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Gabriel India Ltd. being aggrieved with the common order-in-appeal dated 9-3-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The issue involved in both these appeals is, whether the hammered and broken thin walled bearings manufactured out of modvated inputs were required to be cleared on the reversal of the Modvat credit, or were eligible for full duty exemption under Clause (ii) of the proviso against serial no. 3 of the table annexed to Notification No. 171/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988. The appellants had availed of the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the duty paid on their inputs - strips, used in the manufacture of their final products - thin walled bearings, and the Modvat credit had also been utilised while paying duty on the bearings cleared from the factory on payment of appropriate duty of excise. The bearings rejected, hammered and broken were removed without payment of duty as steel scrap on the assumption tha...
Tag this Judgment!Uppal Steels Alloys Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT452TriDel
1. The question to be answered in this appeal is whether an intimation of closure sent to the Range Superintendent can be deemed to be an intimation to the Asst. Commissioner as required under Rule 96 ZO(2).2. The facts of the case in brief are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots. With the introduction of compound levy effective from 1-9-1997, assessees having induction furnace were directed to pay duty either on actual production or to pay duty based on the capacity of the furnace in terms of Rule 96ZO(3). In the instant case, the appellants opted to pay duty in terms of Rule 96ZO(3) i.e., based on the capacity of furnace and not on the actual production.Furnace owners went on strike. The appellants also went on strike and sent an intimation to the Range Superintendent on 2-9-1997. A dispute therefore arose whether an intimation to the Range Superintendent was substantial compliance of the requirement of Rule 96ZO(2) which inter alia stipulated sending of th...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Tissues (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT367TriDel
1. These are two applications for waiving the pre-deposit of the following amounts of duties and penalties imposed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi under the Impugned Order.(i) M/s. S.R. Tissues P. Ltd. - Rs. 18,18,551 - Duty - Rs. 18,18,551 - Penalty 2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. S.R.Tissues Pvt. Ltd. purchase duty paid jumbo rolls of tissues and after cutting and slitting and repacking them, they sell them as facial tissues, tissues roll form, tissues paper, table napkins, etc.; that the activity undertaken by them does not amount to manufacture as tissue papers remain tissue papers and no new product with a distinct name or character emerges as a result of the processess undertaken by them. He relied upon the decisions in the case of CCE v. Reelco Paper Products Private Ltd. -1989 (40) E.L.T. 435, wherein it was held that mere slitting and rewinding of jumbo reels of paper into reels of smaller sites does not amount to manufacture as...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Automats (India)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC208
1. The issue referred to this Larger Bench is whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended by Notification No. 55/92-C.E., dated 31-3-1992 was available, for the period 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992, to a small scale industrial (SSI) unit [not registered with the Director of Industries in any State or the Development Commissioner (Small Scale Industries) as a small scale industry under the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (Act 65 of 1951)] which had availed the benefit of Clause (b) of the first proviso to para (4) of Notification No.175/86-C.E. ibid during the preceding financial years.2. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Assam Timbers 1999 (112) E.L.T. 226 (T), this Tribunal held that Notification No. 55/92-C.E., dated 31-3-1992 did not affect enjoyment of the benefit of Clause (b) ibid by an unregistered SSI unit. In other words, the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86...
Tag this Judgment!Pasupati Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT438TriDel
1. M/s. Pasupati Spinning and Weaving Mills (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Pasupati'), were holding central excise licence since 1981 for the manufacture of yarn classifiable under Item No. 18 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff). During the period June, 1983 to March, 1984, they were using man made crimped fibres of non-cellulosic origin in the manufacture of their yarn, which they declared as the yarn not containing any fibre of noncellulosic origin. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 17-12-1986 issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi that M/s. Pasupati had misclassified, by mis-stating the fact regarding the nature of raw materials used, their yarn containing man made fibres of non-cellulosic origin under Item No. 18-III(i) of the Tariff, while the correct classification of such yarn was under Item No. 18-III(ii) of the said Tariff. Alleging suppression of facts, extended period of limitation was invoked. The Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!V.V.S. Concast Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT436TriDel
1. Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order held: "I disallow the abatement claims for the period 26-5-1998 to 30-6-1998 and 30-10-1998 to 2-12-1998 filed by M/s. V.V.S. Concast Ltd. for non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 96 ZO(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944." 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots. The appellants were paying duty based on annual production capacity. They filed two claims for the aforesaid periods claiming that the factory remained closed. On an examination of the aforesaid claims, it was observed by the Central Excise Officers that the appellants had not complied with the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Sub-rule (2) of Rule 96 ZO.The discrepancies noticed were (i) the closure intimation of factory had not been given in writing either prior to the date of closure or on the date of closure, (ii) the reading of the electricity meter had not been given when the production was sto...
Tag this Judgment!