Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 4 of about 265 results (0.021 seconds)Rachna P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT735TriDel
1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Rachna (P) Ltd, the issue involved is whether the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., 1-3-1986 is available to the goods manufactured in their factory at Ramkola and whether the demand of duty of excise is time-barred.2. Shri Alok Arora, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants had one factory at Lucknow which was registered as a small scale unit with the Director of Industries; that the Present unit at Ramkola was started by them in 1987; that in the classification list No. 1/87, they had clearly mentioned that the unit is SSI unit registered with Director of Industries; that the classification list was approved by the Department without any objection extending the benefit of Notification No. 175/86; that in the Classification List No. 9/89-90 effective from 22-9-1989 the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was denied and so modified classification list was forwarded to them on 12-4-1991; that under their letter dated 27-4-1991 the...
Tag this Judgment!Moosa Hazi Patrawala Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT751TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-appeal dated 8-3-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had upheld the order-in-original of the Assistant Collector dated 18-7-1993 denying the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 to them while approving their classification list No. 14/92.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants filed classification list No. 14/92 in respect of their products under Chapter Heading 84.31 of CETA. In that list they claimed exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 as amended for their certain products mentioned at S.Nos. 357 and 358 of the Notification. They were served with a show cause notice dated 16-12-1992 vide which they were called upon to show cause as to why exemption under the said notification be not denied to them in respect of those products and why their classification list be not approved accordingly. They co...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT97TriDel
1. These two appeals arise out of order-in-original No.BKG/CC/ICD/TKD/26/2000 dated 31.03.2000. By that order, Commissioner of Customs, ICDS, New Delhi levied customs duty of Rs. 30,37,436.00 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs on the firm and another penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Mr. Ravinder Rastogi, partner of the firm. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the stay petitions are as follows.2. The firm got Zinc inported into India for converting into Zinc Oxide for export purpose. The Zinc so imported was duty free in view of the export obligation. Instead of exporting Zinc Oxide, goods exported were Carbonate of Calcium and Magnesium which was declared as Zinc Oxide.Consequently, duty was imposed on the quantity of Zinc imported and penalty imposed. The shipping bill produced by the company seen at page 19 contains the following declaration :- "We hereby declare that the export covered by this shipping bill being made towards discharge of the export obligation in application of ge...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Dyechem Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC340
1. The appellants are an SSI unit engaged in the manufacture of resins and refined Soya and Castor oils. Soap, spent earth, soya sludge and soya lecithin are their byproducts generated during the refining of the vegetable oils. They were registered with Government of India (Directorate of Vanaspati, vegetable Oils & Fats) under the Vegetable Oil Products (Control) Order, 1947 to manufacture refined oil. They were also registered with Government of India (Directorate of Vanaspati, Vegetable Oils and Fats) as users of solvent-extracted vegetable oils for edible purposes under the Solvent-Extracted Oil, De-oiled Meal & Edible Flour (Control) Order, 1967.2. In their classification list filed under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, the appellants classified the aforesaid by-products namely soap stock, spent earth and soya sludge under Chapter sub-heading 1507.00 and soya lecithin under Chapter sub-heading 2923.00 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 115/75-CE dated 30....
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer, Capital Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT167TriDel
1. The confirmation of duty demand in this case arises as a result of denial of the benefit of small-scale exemption under Notification No.175/86-C.E. dated 01.03.86 on the ground that the appellants were not registered as a small-scale unit with the Directorate of Industries, Chandigarh. It is the appellants contention that they were availing exemption in terms of para 4(b) of Notification No. 175/86 on various items of pre-cast cement classifiable under CET sub-heading 6807.00 which were captively used by them and also that the demand is barred by limitation since information about the manufacturing activities was submitted to the Department under cover of letter dated 10.08.88 and since they had disclosed all details, they could not be held to be guilty of suppression of facts.2. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Revenue that the appellants have not substantiated their claim that they were availing exemption under para 4(b) of Notification No. 175/86 during the precedi...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Micro Turner
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(94)LC742Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents availed modvat credit amounting to Rs. 3359.95 on the inputs Hyspin BP and CRB plus. They declared that during the manufacturing process of precision machine, components, these oils are used as coolants in turning and grinding operations. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Rohtak Division vide his Order dated 26.2.1998 held that lubricants and greases are not eligible inputs in terms of Rule 57A. He consequently disallowed the credit of the above amount and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- on the party.2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi allowed the appeal of the party setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.3. The Revenue is in appeal against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Sh. M.D. Singh, SDR for the Revenue. The respondents are not represented. Sh. M.D. Singh, SDR for the Revenue very fairly submitted that the issue under consideration stands settled in favour of the assessees and against t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT99TriDel
1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Mohan Steels Ltd., is whether the exemption from payment of Central Excise duty in terms of Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988 is available to wire rods & bars of iron and steel manufactured by them out of the old M.S.Scrap containing broken pieces of bars, angles, old machinery parts, old automobile parts, old oil engines etc.2. Shri Shiv Das, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Wire rods/bars, etc., falling under Chapters 72 and 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that one of the raw materials used by them in the manufacture of these products was re-rollable material in the form of scrap, purchased by them from kabadis; that the kabadis used to purchase the scrap in auction conducted by different Government departments such as Defence, Railways, integrated Steel plants, etc.; that since the re-rollable material was purchased from the traders, they considered them to be duty paid; ...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Vadhera Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ238
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Rule. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions against the respondent inter alia, praying therein for the quashing of the demand of unearned increase and unspecified damages mentioned in the letter of the respondent dated 23/24.12.1998. 2. At the outset, Mr. D.R. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that this case is squarely covered by the Divi- sion Bench judgment of this Court in Mrs. Vijaya Gursahaney v. DDA & Ors. 1994 R.L.R. 367. However, learned counsel appearing for the respond- ent, Ms. Sangita Chandra, has contended that the present case is distinguishable on its own facts as the lease was determined by the respondent on 17.8.1990. It has also been contended by her that from the documents filed by the petitioner, it would be apparent that it was a case of sale and, thereforee, this case is not covered by Mrs. Vijaya Gursahaney's case (supra). 3. I have given by careful consideration to the argum...
Tag this Judgment!The Joint Commissioner of Income Vs. M/S. Anatronics Gen. Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]247ITR25(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. In this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short the Act) order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. New Delhi (in short 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 6110/D/95 dated 16th December 1998 is under challenge, in respect of the question as regards the rate of depreciation on the bottles given on lease to another concern. The dispute relates to assessment year 1987-88. 2. Factual position which is almost undisputed is as follows: assessed company supplies bottles to other concerns on lease basis. For the relevant assessment year, depreciation was claimed on bottles valued of Rs. 14,99,508/- @ 100%. However the assessing Officer allowed depreciation @ 15% under the first proviso to Section 32(i) of the Act. For disallowing assessor's claim of depreciation @ 100%, it was observed that though bottles were plant, each bottle cannot constitute plant and only all the bottles which were acquired can be taken as plant. Reference was made to purchases on ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms Shoes East Ltd. and ors. Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi51
Arun Kumar, J. 1. Rule D. B.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with their consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage.3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short 'Appellate Tribunal') dated 18th August, 2000 (whereby an appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Canara Bank had filed an action for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14.5 crores plus interest and costs against the petitioners herein in the year 1996. The proceedings have been pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') since then and the respondent-bank is naturally interested in speedy disposal of the application for recovery. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has given us certain material dates of proceedings in the O.A. (Original Application) pending before the Tribunal. It is pointed out t...
Tag this Judgment!