Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 16 of about 265 results (0.022 seconds)Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kesar Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT93TriDel
1. By the captioned appeals, the Revenue has prayed for setting aside the Orders-in-Appeal No. 23 to 25-CE/LKO/2000 dated 27-3-2000 and for restoring the Order-in-Original No. 117/99/DEMAND/MODVAT/29/99 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner.2. The Assistant Commissioner in the Order-in-original had held that "I hold that the party are required to pay at a rate of 8% of the price of IMFL at the time of its clearance from the factory in terms of Rule 57CC(1). I therefore confirm the demand of Rs. 2,95,860/- being 8% of the value of IMFL cleared from November, 1998 to December, 1998. As the party did not reverse/pay the said amount which they were required to reverse/pay at the time of clearance of IMFL and continued to wilfully contravene the provisions of Rule 57CC read with Rule 57A, I also impose a penalty of Rs. 2,95,860/- upon the party. The party are directed to pay the adjudged dues within ten days of receipt of this order failing which in addition to the adjudged dues interest shall...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC853
1. When this appeal came up for final hearing there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. We went through the records and heard learned Departmental Representative.2. A short question that arised for consideration is, whether appellant, manufacturer of biscuits is entitled to have the cost of packing deducted from the price, for arriving at the assessable value.The Appellate Collector's order impugned, found that manufacturer was using craft paper packing in relation to sales effected locally and cardboard boxes for packing in relation to up-country sales. Each box, whether it is craft paper or cardboard box contained 36 small packets of biscuits. These biscuits which are meant for sales in up-country areas were packed in cardboard boxes. If they are not packed in such cardboard boxes biscuits will get damaged. So, as a matter of fact the appellate authority found that the cardboard boxes are the usual backing required for biscuits earmarked for sale in up-country areas.Th...
Tag this Judgment!B.C. Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC854
1. Appeal 2696/99 is at the instance of M/s. Agro Engineers and connected appeal is by its partner Shri B.C. Sharma. The firm is engaged in the manufacture of Nuclear Power Project Plant/Machinery and their part thereof. Even though they were receiving Central Excise Duty from the customers, it was not passed on to the Central Govt./Deptt.So, show cause notice was issued, demanding duty to the tune of Rs. 6,24,407.88. Company filed detailed objections to the show cause notice. After considering the contentions, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand laid down in the notice. A similar amount was also directed to be paid as penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act. Interest was levied under Section 11AB of the Act. The firm was ordered to pay a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Rule 173Q. Invoking the Provisions contained in Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, Sh. B.C. Sharma, Partner of that firm was imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. This order was challenged before the Appellate Aut...
Tag this Judgment!Everest Metals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT122TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Everest Metals, is whether central excise duty is leviable on untrimmed sheets/circles of copper manufactured and captively consumed by them.2. Shri D.M. Panwar, learned Consultant, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'trimmed copper/brass sheets/circles, falling under Heading 74.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that trimmed copper sheets/circles are exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 42/94-C.E., dated 1-3-94 as amended by 135/94-C.E., dated 27-10-94. He described the manufacturing process as under :- Copper/brass scrap, Zinc scrap are melted in required quantity in the crucible; the molten metal is casted in the moulds and billets/slabs are obtained as intermediate products which are then rolled in Hot Rolled Mill; in the process of rolling, untrimmed sheets/circles having uneven edges and irregular shapes and sizes emerge; untrimmed sheets/circles are further rolled ...
Tag this Judgment!Franco Italian Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC639
1. This appeal has come before us in Larger Bench on a reference made by a Bench of Two Members in Order Nos. C-II/1118-1119/WZB/2000, dated 10-4-2000. The question referred for our consideration is whether with regard to the same specified goods, the benefit of Modvat credit and the benefit of full exemption under small scale exemption notification, could be availed of by an assessee simultaneously. With regard to different specified goods, there was already a decision dated 20-4-1992 of the Tribunal in the case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759 (Tribunal) holding that with regard to different specified goods, the benefit of Modvat credit and the benefit of full exemption under small scale exemption Notification could be availed of simultaneously by an assessee but on different goods. This decision had been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 2-1-1996 through dismissal of the Civil Appeal filed by the Revenue.The referring Bench had noted the Five Membe...
Tag this Judgment!Vikky Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT814TriDel
1. Assessees in these appeals pay Central Excise Duty on the basis of capacity of production in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and the Rules made under that Section. In view of difference of opinion regarding the effect of Sub-section (4) of Section 3A and Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96-ZO of the Central Excise Rules, the following points were referred to this Larger Bench by a Division Bench of two Members of this Tribunal in May 1999. "(i) Whether there is any conflict between the provisions of Sub-section (4) of section 3A of the Central Excise Act and Sub-rule (3) of Rules 96-ZO of the Central Excise Rules? (ii) Whether a manufacturer who has exercised the option to make payment of amount based on total furnace capacity installed in his factory under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96-ZO and not on the basis of annual capacity of production can make an application for determining the actual production during the period his aforesaid option is in operation?" 2. After hearing the Couns...
Tag this Judgment!Triveni Conductors P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT159TriDel
1. The matter is posted for hearing of application for restoration of Appeal No. E/44/96-B filed by M/s. Triveni Conductors Pvt. Ltd. which was dismissed by the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 368/2000-B dated 07.03.2000 for non-prosecution.2. Shri A. Upadhyay Id. Advocate, submitted that the issue involved in this appeal was regarding availment of benefit of Notification No.69/86 dated 10.02.1986; that on this issue a number of Adjudication Orders were passed by the Commissioner, Indore, dropping the proceedings of denying the exemption to them under Notification No.69/86; that the Revenue had filed appeals against many Orders passed by the Commissioner; that on 16.04.1999 when the hearing was fixed on some of such appeals, they requested for fixing the hearing in all the appeals together; that the present appeal was fixed on 07.03.2000 for which no notice was received by them and for this reason, they could not attend the hearing; that they are diligently pursuing the matter and it c...
Tag this Judgment!Samrat Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT423TriDel
1. Both these appeals are by M/s. Samrat Enterprises, Delhi a proprietary concern of which Shri Inderpal Singh is the proprietor. The issue involved in both the appeals is also the same the valuation of certain electronic parts imported by the appellant at Bombay Port.Accordingly, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The dispute in Appeal No. C/9/2000-A is with regard to the import of a consignment of 'electrolytic capacitors'. The appellant sought clearance of the goods under Bill of Entry No. 10907 dated 27.01.1999.The goods were declared in the bill of entry as "Electronic Components - Electrolytic Capacitor (other than paper or power capacitors)". The value of the consignment was declared as HK $20856.85 (Rs. 1,15,860).The consignment comprised 8,30,404 pieces of capacitors. The consignment was supplied from Hong Kong and the country of origin of the goods was declared as China.3. On suspicion of under invoicing and on the basis...
Tag this Judgment!Singla Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT137TriDel
1. The appellants, vide communication dt. 02.06.2000, prayed that the appeal be decided on merits. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up for disposal in the absence of the appellants.2. In the impugned order, the duty was demanded on the CI mould scrap under heading 7204.90 of the Central Excise Tariff.4. The contention of the appellants is that they were obtaining CI moulds to be used in the final product and availing the benefit of Modvat credit. After use, these CI moulds were cleared as such after reversing the duty paid on CI moulds. The contention of the revenue is that after use, the CI moulds become scrap and it is to be treated as scrap under heading 7204.90 and they are liable to duty as MS Flats.The fact that these 1C moulds are used by the appellants and they were not capable of being used as moulds at the time of clearance, hence cannot be treated as moulds at the time of clearance.5. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Delhi-iii, New Delhi Vs. Shakuntla Meh ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)246CTR(Del)501; [2000]246ITR501(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. As the point of dispute involved in these three reference applications is the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment. Accepting a prayer for reference made by the Revenue under Section 27(1) of the Wealth tax Act 1957, the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (in short the 'Tribunal') has referred the following question for opinion: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the orders of the Wealth Tax Officer were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the cases of the three assesses?'2. Facts giving rise to these reference applications are as under: Smt. Shakuntla Mehra (mother), Shri Moti Lal Mehra (son) and Shri Prince Mehra (son) (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee' by respective names) had 1/6th share each in the properties bearing Nos. (1) E.40313, Greater Kailash 1, (2) E-337, Greater Kailash 1, and (3) H.S.-35, Kailash C...
Tag this Judgment!