Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments

Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC648

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s Dabur India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Dabur'), being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original dated 26.11.1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I. The matter relates to the classification and the liability to pay central excise duty in respect of the vegetable extracts manufactured and consumed for manufacturing exempted Ayurvedic Medicaments. Vegetable extracts were obtained in three different forms (i) liquid, (ii) semi-solid--paste, and (iii) dry--powder. It was mentioned in the show cause notice dated 30.8.1995 that such vegetable extracts classifiable under sub-heading No. 1301.90 of the Central Excise Tariff were stored and could be stored for a time. They could also be marketed and were actually marketed by other manufacturer of similar vegetable extracts, in different forms--liquid, semi-solid and dry forms. The appellants were getting such vegetable extracts also from outside and some of the vegetable extracts man...

Diamond Wire Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT865TriDel

1. These are four applications for rectification of mistake in combined final order Nos. 496-499/2000-B, dated 06.01.2000.2. The representative of all the Applicants submitted that the Appellate Tribunal denied them the benefit of exemption from payment of duty in respect of enamelled copper winding wire manufactured by them under Notification No. 69/86-CE, dated 10-12-1986; that during the course of hearing of their appeals, they had requested for availability of the Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules and the Bench had indicated that the Modvat credit earned by them but not utilised would be allowed; that, however, the Final Order does not direct the Department to allow Modvat credit; that as such there is an error apparent on face of the record which may be rectified under Sub-section (2) of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act. Shri Riyaz Hussain, Proprietor, of M/s. Prestige Wire Industry, in addition, also mentioned that he was also denied the relief of dut...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Usha India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT870TriDel

1. In the present appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the process of conversion of transformer from one model to another model, undertaken by M/s. Usha (India) Ltd., amounts to manufacture.2. Shri R.K. Sharma, ld. SDR, submitted that the Respondents manufacture transformers and rectifiers and semi-conductor devices; that they also undertake repairs of old transformers; that as the repair undertaken by them resulted in the conversion of Model BOT 3460 to Model HETT 3900, the Assistant Commissioner under Adjudication Order Nos. 152-153/97, dt. 16.04.1997, demanded the duty and imposed penalty holding that process amounted to manufacture as BOT 3460 is a low capacity transformer compared to HETT 3900 transformer and the cost of repair/rewinding would be more than repair and reconditioning only; that the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Orders, has set aside the Adjudication Order, holding that upgradation of a machine would not amount to manufacture so l...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Prem Cables Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT254TriDel

1. This is an application filed by the Revenue to rectify the mistake on the ground that mistake has crept in with reference to the Final Order No. A/482/97-NB, dated 10-3-1997 1999 (109) E.L.T. 727 (Tribunal).2. Arguing for the Revenue Shri Sumit K. Das, ld. JDR pointed out that the Tribunal has proceeded to pass an order on the ground that Collector has changed the classification while deciding the issue with reference to the Modvat credit. In this context he drew our attention to the finding portion of the order "The Collector did not have any authority to arbitrarily change the classification approved by another Collector, leave alone to demand duty calculated on the change of such classification".3. While referring to the finding given by the Commissioner in this order he pointed out to the relevant portion wherein it was observed that the department's allegation is that the goods received were not aluminium plates but were unwrought aluminium castings. This is the basic question...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT475TriDel

1. Shri S.N. Singh, SDR reiterates the grounds of appeal. Shri K.K.Anand, Advocate submits that similar matter had come up before the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/2460/98-D in the appeal filed by M/s.Charminar Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. when under the Final Order No.1039/99-D, dated 2-11-1999, the Tribunal has taken the view that glass bottles which have been received on payment of duty and are broken are not dutiable as manufactured products.2. We have gone through the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has followed this Tribunal's decision in coming to a view that the waste and scrap arising out of the broken bottles through the process of filling, handling etc. was neither generated during the course of manufacture of glass bottles nor it could be considered as a manufactured product.3. As the matter has already been decided by the Tribunal in the aforesaid order, we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected....

Jay Vinyls Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT186TriDel

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon vide his Order dated 29-9-1998 has denied the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 78,750/- to the appellants in respect of Invoice No. 189, dated 19-9-1996 issued by M/s. Vinyl Chemical Industries, Sonepat. It is alleged that this invoice was not signed by the issuing authority. The Assistant Commissioner in his Order has observed that the party at the time of personal hearing had submitted the 'original copy for buyer' of the said invoice with the plea that the same had since been got signed. It is stated that scrutiny of both the copies reveal that the signatures of the person who authenticated and the person, who had singed the invoice - although the same person but the signatures did not tally with each other. The Assistant Commissioner has therefore, held that the same was not a valid document for taking credit under Rule 57G.Another amount of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 43,680/- in respect of the invoice Nos. 1241 to 1244 al...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT86TriDel

1. Revenue has filed this application stating that points of law reading as : "Whether Modvat credit is available on Explosives used in mining of limestone, which are not covered under the definition of 'factory' in terms of Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules or not and whether Modvat credit will be admissible on furnace oil which is supplied by the depot/installation of M/s. Indian Oil who are not registered dealer in terms of Rule 57GG arises out of Tribunal's final order dated 16.03.1999.?" 2. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri S.K. Das, Id. JDR submits that Tribunal by its Final Order Nos. A/163-66/99-NB, dated 16.03.1999 held that Modvat credit was available on Explosives. In holding so the Tribunal had relied upon their earlier decisions in the case of Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 358 and in the case of CCE v. New Vikram Cements "6. As regards denial of Modvat credit on furnace oil for the reason that credit was taken on the basis of in...

Shobhit Impex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT545TriDel

1. The above stay applications arise out of the order dated 29-6-2000 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, vide which he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 64 lakhs on M/s. Shobhit Impex, in terms of Rule 173Q(i)(bb) and (d) of the Central Excise Rules. The penalty has been imposed for the reason that M/s. Shobhit Impex who are registered dealers in continuous cast electrolytic copper wire rods, copper scrap, brass scrap, zinc ingots, etc., issued modvatable invoices to various buyers without physically first bringing the goods into their registered godown as required under the Central Excise Rules and then issuing invoices, and in certain other cases they issued only paper invoices to certain manufacturers of metal/buyers in the State of Punjab and Haryana without actually despatching the goods covered by the invoices to them, and disposing of such goods to other buyers, thus deliberately and intentionally facilitating the buyers/manufacturers to avail inadmissible credit of ...

B.E. Office Automation Products Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT908TriDel

1. Both these appeals are directed against the same Order of adjudication. Accordingly they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported two consignments at the Ludhiana Container Freight Station and sought clearance of the goods under Bills of Entry No. 1120 dated 03.06.99 and 1121 dated 03.06.99. Both the consignments were declared as reconditioned components/parts of photocopiers. Bill of Entry No. 1120 related to 61 numbers of main frames and Bill of Entry No. 1121 related to 61 numbers of front covers, R-side covers/Mother Boards Drum Unit, Toner controller etc. The Customs Authorities examined the goods alongwith the expert assistence of Shri Jasvir Singh, Proprietor of Jasvir Electrostat, Ludhiana and Canon India Pvt. Ltd., Noida. Shri Jasvir Singh expressed the opinion that the 'main frame' covered by Bill of Entry No. 1120 constituted 55-60% of a Photo Copier and other parts covered by Bill of Entry No....

innovative Tech Pack Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. In this appeal the assesses has contested the computation of higher total income at Rs. 1,03,59,205 by making prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1997-98 which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in the first appeal.2. The assesses filed return showing income as per MAT under Section 115JA at Rs. 10,01,856. This was shown as 30 per cent of the book profit of Rs. 33,39,518. This book profit was arrived at by the assessee by making adjustment in the book profit as per P&L a/c as under : 3. The AO did not accept the aforesaid profit of Rs. 10,01,856 declared under Section 115JA on the ground that the assessee had not worked out 30 per cent of the real and correct book profit of Rs. 1,03,59,205. He noted that the adjustments made in the real and correct book profit before arriving at the book profit of Rs. 33,39,518 were not correct and permissible. He, therefore, ignored the aforesaid adjustment made by the assessee and making prim...