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.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Vishal Beverages (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT739TriDel
1. This appeal at the instance of the Revenue is directed against order-in-appeal No. 1460-CE/BPL/99, dated 1-12-1999. The Commissioner, while passing the said order, was following the decision of this Tribunal in final order No. 1072-1075/99-A, dated 4-8-1999 on appeals filed by the same party. In that final order, this Tribunal took the view that bottles and crates are rented out to their customers by the appellants and any profit made by them on this activity is not to be included in the assessable value of excisable goods. We do not find any ground to doubt the correctness of the decision rendered by this Tribunal on 4-8-1999. So, we dismiss the appeal....
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. M.F. Rings and Bearing Races Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT239TriDel
1. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue. Short facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows.2. Respondent in this appeal, M/s. M.F. Rings & Bearing Races Ltd., submitted 23 rebate claim applications for rebate of duty of Rs. 29,58,7287-paid from RG 23A Pt. II on finished goods namely, carbon steel forgings (machined flanges). In support of the rebate claim, they submitted original and duplicate copy of relevant AR 4 duly endorsed by the Customs, certified copy of relevant shipping bill, bill of lading and bank realisation certificate. On scrutiny of the papers, Assistant Commissioner found out that exporter paid central excise duty on CIF + commission and discount, instead of on assessable value as determined under Section 4 of the Act. He, therefore, took the view that the duty paid in excess on the value of freight, insurance and commission/discount cannot be treated as duty paid against excisable goods and hence, cannot be refunded in cash under...
Swastik Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT641TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Swastik Udoyog, the matter relates to the demand of central excise duty on the clearances of the product referred to as 'Pan Chutney' during the period 1993-94. The Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, had classified under his order-in-original dated 1-2-1995 the said product under sub-heading no.2107.91 of the Central Excise Tariff. Earlier the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Noida, had classified the said product vide order-in-original dated 9-2-1994 under sub-heading no. 2103.11 of the Central Excise Tariff, and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had set aside the same under his order-in-appeal dated 18-10-1994 classifying the product 'Pan Chutney under subheading no. 2107.91 of the Tariff. In the meanwhile, demand show cause notice was issued on 7-9-1994 and after extending the benefit of small scale exemption notification no. 1/93-CE dated 28-2-1993, demand of Rs. 1,68,588.69 was confirmed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Ex...
Fusebase Eltoro Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC113
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Fusebase Eltoro Ltd., the matter relates to the demand of central excise duty as a consequence of classification of video projector as described in exemption Notification No. 160/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, and its non-eligibility for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 68/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986.2. Both the sides have agreed that on merits the matter is covered by the Supreme Court decision in the appellants' own case in Collector of Central Excise v Fusebase Eltoro Ltd., 1993 (67) E.L.T. 30 (S.C.). The Supreme Court has affirmed the view that the projection television sets manufactured by M/s. Fusebase Eltoro Ltd. was not the same as the Broadcast Television Receiver Sets, and was Video Projector for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 160/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986.3. Shri D. Sharma, consultant, submitted on 15-5-2000 when the matter was posted for hearing, that the appellants have no arguments on merits of the case in view of the ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Elemec Inds.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC248
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the respondents are M/s. Elemec Industries, and the order under challenge is of the Collector of Central Excise, Pune. The issue involved is whether the value of clearances of M/s. Elemec Indus, and other three units as mentioned in the show cause notice dated 2-6-1992 should be clubbed as a single unit.2. The matter was heard on 26-4-2000. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, submitted that the adjudicating authority had come to a finding thai the full control of all the units rested with the two brothers and that the evidence led by the Department clearly pointed out direct mutuality of interest in both financial and managerial aspects among the Bhatewara family. Ignoring these clear findings, he had passed a contrary order.The adjudicating authority had summarised the evidence showing a relationship involving mutuality of interest, extra commercial financial involvement and unilateral managerial control over all the four units. Even then, the learned SDR ...
Universal Construction and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT386TriDel
1. Show cause notice was issued to M/s Ram Ply Board Industries (P) Ltd. and the appellant herein, inter alia, alleging that the transaction between M/s Ram Ply Board Industries and the appellant herein was not a genuine transaction falling under Section 4(1) (a) because the appellant was only a commission agent. This allegation in the show cause notice was contested by the appellant. But, the adjudicating authority, by Order-in-Original No. 18/ADC/98, dated 4-5-1998, imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,03,696/- on the appellant invoking the provisions contained in Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. By that order, adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 8,03,696/- as duty short levied and similar amount by way of penalty under Rule 9(2), 52(a)(8) and 173Q of the Rules on M/s. Ram Ply Board Industries. M/s. Ram Ply Board Industries got the adverse order settled under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. Appellant herein challenged that part of the order under which penalty has been i...
Maharashtra Wire Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT244TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Maharashtra Wire Indus. is whether side and centre connections for impedance bond is classifiable under heading 85.30 as claimed by the appellants or under heading 85.44 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) under the impugned order.2. Shri R. Swaminathan, learned Consultant, submitted that the impugned product is wire rope of galvanized wire approximately 95 c.m. long and either end of the product is welded to lugs having holes in them for fitment of bolts and nuts and is covered by the PVC sleeves; that the impugned product is solely used for side connection to the impedance bond in track circuit of railway electric signalling and is made as per specification of the Indian Railways. The learned Consultant mentioned at the outset that they are giving up their claim for classification of the impugned product under heading 73.12. He further submitted that the product being integral par...
Aristo Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT386TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Ltd. is whether taking of samples of the P or P medicaments manufactured by them and keeping the same in the factory premises amounts to removal of excisable goods in terms of the provisions of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri S.S. Gupta, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that the appellants manufacture P or P medicaments classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that under the provisions of Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, they have to maintain reference samples from each batch of the drugs and these samples are required to be retained till expiry of drugs and 3 months thereafter; that the Additional Commissioner, under Adjudication order Nos. 162-167/96, dated 24-10-1996 confirmed the demand of excise duly on the quantity of P or P medicament taken as reference sample holding that exemption from payment of duty on such quantity under Notification No. 17...
Amrutanjan Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC268
1. The facts in all these six appeals are identical. The appellants M/s Amritanjan Ltd. manufacture P or P medicines. For this they received duty paid glass battles from M/s Darshak Ltd., Baroda who in turn received them from M/s Alembic Glass Factory, Baroda the manufacturers of glass bottles. M/s Darshak received the bottles in plastic crates from M/s Alembic, re-packed them in corrugated cartons and sent them to M/s Amritanjan by endorsing the gate passes received from M/s Alembic.In the case of M/s Charminar Bottling Co., the assessee manufactured Aerated Waters. The glass bottles for the packing of the aerated waters were manufactured and cleared on payment of Central Excise duty by M/s J.G. Glass Limited, Pimpri, Pune to M/s Arizona Printers and Packers (P) Ltd. who after printing, decorating and repacking, sent them to M/s Charminar by endorsing the gate passes originally issued by M/s J.G.Glass Ltd. Similarly, M/s Prabha Beverages (P) Ltd. manufactured Aerated Waters. They rec...
Casio India Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT379TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Casio India Co.Ltd., is whether the 'Electronic diaries', imported by them, are importable against a freely transferable special import licence, being classifiable under Sub-heading 8471.10 or the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act or can be imported against a specific import licence, being consumer goods and classifiable under Sub-heading 8470.10 of the Customs Tariff Act (CTA).2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants imported Casio DC 2000 and Casio JD 4000 Data Bank (Digital diaries), classified them under Subheading 8471.10 of CTA and claimed clearance under special import licence (SIL). The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, under Adjudication Order No. 415/96 dated 26-12-1996, classified them under Sub-heading 8470.10 of CTA, confiscated the impugned goods with an option to the Appellants to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 4 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh, holding that digital diaries do not s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »