Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

M/S. Manohar Lal Kapoor and Sons Ltd. Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides on the ROA application. The appeal heappened to be dismisses for default on 27.10.2000 since nobody was available to represent the appellant on that day. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that he happened to be out of station in connection with celebration of Diwali festival which fell on the previous day and, therefore, he could not attend to the case on 27.10.2000. He further submits that, on 27.10.2000 at around 10.00 AM, he had faxed a request for adjournment to the Registry. He has also shown me Confirmation Report of the Fax Message indicating its receipt by the addressee at 1004 Hrs. on 27.10.2000. I believe this submission and allow this application. The appeal stands restored to its original number.2. Ld. Advocate further submits that the issue involved in the appeal stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by a decision of this Tribunal's Larger Bench and, therefore, he prays for final disposal of the appeal at this stage. He has also cited...

M/S. Jagson International Vs. Commissioner of Cusotms, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC343

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Jagson International Ltd. is at what rate duty of Customs is chargeable on, and whether benefit of Notification No. 42/92 dated 1.3.92 is available to, Dornier 228 Aircraft imported by them.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants brought an used Dornier 228 Aircraft with accessories ad spares ad a self flown flight on 15.10.1991. The Aircraft was got cleared under Rule 58(6) of the Aircraft Rules, 1920. The Aircraft was cleared on 28.10.91 provisionally on a bond of Rs.4.78 crores alongwith a bank guarantee.As the Aircraft was used by the Appellants for Air Taxi Operations, a case of misdeclaration was initiated against them and the Appellants paid part duty on 11.2.92 and part duty on 10.3.92. Subsequently they filed a Bill of Entry for home consumption on 25.3.92 which was assessed to duty amounting to Rs.80,94,219/-. They filed a refund claim on 22.1.93 on the ground that the counter-vailing duty was not leviable on th...

M/S Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. and Others Vs. Cce Meerut and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC653

1. Common issues are involved for determination in the above batch of appeals and hence they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The first issue to be decided is whether the assessees herein who are iron and steel rolling mills which have exercised the option of availing of procedure prescribed under Rule 96ZO(3) for determination of their annual capacity of production under the compounded levy scheme, can opt out of the scheme and claim the benefit of determination of production under Section 3(A) (4) of the Central Excise Act. The second issue relates to the method of determination of annual capacity of production.This issue stands decided by the Apex Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Venus Castings P.Ltd. reported in 2000 (117) ELT 273 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has held that "the schemes contained in Section 3(A) (4) of the Act and Rule 96ZO(3) or Rule 96ZP(3) of the Excise Rules are two alternative procedures to be adopted...

Cce New Delhi Ii Vs. M/S. Unitron Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT359TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order in appeal dated 24.11.94 passed by the Collector(Appeals) vide which he dismissed their appeal against the order in original dated 28/7/93 of the Assistant Collector who dropped duty demands of Rs.5,06,683.15, Rs.2,60,460.90 and Rs.5,162.44 in respect of the product, signal generator by classifying under Chapter Heading 9031.00 of the CETA and confirmed demand of only Rs.1,73,639.00 against the respondents.2. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of test equipment and their components falling under Chapter Headings 90 and 85 of the CETA. They cleared the goods i.e. signal generator/audio oscillator under Chapter Heading 9050.00 of the CETA and paid duty at a concessional rate of 5% ad valorem by taking benefit of Notification No.46/88 dated 1.3.88. However, when this fact came to the notice of the audit party in the month of January 1991 that the goods cleared were classifiable under Chapter Heading 9031...

Cce, Bhopal Vs. M/S. Gei Engineering Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the benefit of Notification No.51/93 CE dated 28.2.93 in respect of the equipment called 'Brake Dust Extraction Unit'. Against Sl.No.20 of the Table annexed to the said Notification, the benefit in respect of the goods falling under Heading No.85.43 of the Tariff was available only when the machines were used for manufacture of the goods. Both the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, who approved the classification list and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) with whom the appeal was filed by the Department, had taken a view that the Brake Dust Extraction Equipment was eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty as provided against Sl.No.20 of the Table annexed to Notification No.51/93 CE aforesaid.2. Shri Ashok Kumar, JDR at the very outset submitted that the Department had filed appeal with the Commissioner of Cental Excise (Appeals) against the approval of the three classification lists by the Asstt....

M/S. Varun Enterprises Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, the order impugned is a common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) against a number of assessees including the present appellant. That order was passed without personally hearing the party.3. The assessees had taken modvat credit of Rs.64,638/- on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules on the strength of dealers invoices. Out of this amount, the credit of Rs.23,806/- was taken on the strength of invoices mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 of the Annexure to the show-cause notice and the remaining credit (Rs.40832) was taken on the strength of invoices mentioned at Sr. Nos. 3 and 5 of the said Annexure. The adjudicating authority disallowed the entire credit. The lower appellate authority upheld the order of adjudication. It is submitted by ld. Advocate Sh. Gagan Kohli for the appellants that the credit of Rs.23,806/- was disallowed on the ground that the assessable value of the goods was not stated in the dealer's invoices and, further, that the dealer'...

M/S Kapo Plast (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which was a common order passed by him against a number of assessees including the present appellants. The present appellants were not personally heard before the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order.2. The Misc. application is for taking on record certain additional documents.4. Ld. Advocate, Sh. Gagan Kohli, submits that the appellants could not attend to personal hearing before the lower appellate authority on account of short notice. He further submits that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not all consider their contentions with regard to availment of modvat credit on Aluminium scrap. He further submits that, in respect of modvat credit taken on the strength of 5 invoice of dealers, mentioned at Sr.Nos. 1,2, 3, 4 and 9 in the Annexure to show-cause notice, the lower authorities did not properly consider the submissions of the party or the documentary evidence adduced by them.He further refers to the addit...

M/S. Sapna Polyweave P. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Aurangabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC52

1. The issue raised in this appeal had a chequered career. The facts show that demand of duty on the goods has preceded the finalisation of the issue of classification. Therefore, we are constrained to set aside the demand of duty and direct the departmental authority to adjudicate on the issue of classification first.2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:- Appellants manufactured plastic mats. They filed a classification list on 23.2.1987 of the period 1987-1988 seeking to classify the goods under Tariff Sub-Heading 3917.00. They also claimed the benefit of Excise Notification No.132/86. Without approving the classification list, show cause notice dated 31.3.87 was issued proposing the goods to be classified under sub-heading 3918.00. Purporting to be in pursuance to the said notice, the Assistant Commissioner classified the goods under sub-heading 4601 as per his order dated 9/11-9-1987. Aggrieved by the said classification decided by the Assistant C...

M/S. Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd. Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. I have carefully examined the records and heard both sides. The dispute is with regard to a refund claim made by the appellants. The claim was made for refund of excess duty paid, upon adjustment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules at the time of final assessment of duty liability. The claim was rejected on the ground that it was made beyond a period of six months from the date of finalisation of assessment. Ld. Advocate Sh. N.R. Khetan has been able to make out a prima facie case that the limitation provisions of Section 11B of the Cental Excise Act were not applicable to cases of refund contemplated by Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules at the material time, by citing relevant case law as well as subsequent amendments to Section 11B made in 1999. Ld. JDR Sh. Swatantra Kumar has opposed ld. Counsel's argument by relying on the provisions of Section 11B as well as of Rule 173S of the Central Excise Rules. A prima facie case does exist in the appeal.The appeal is admitted and...

Punj Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by the assesses which is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Lloyd wool and other allied products. It also derived income from dividend, rent, commission, etc.2. Ground No. 1 is directed against the disallowance of the claim of deduction amounting to Rs. 1,55,820 paid in pursuance to Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. The AO disallowed the claim on the ground that such deduction was prohibited by Section 40(a)(iia) of the Act.3. In the first, appeal, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the claim was allowable -in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Director of Inspection Customs & Central Excise case reported in (1985) 153 ITR 322 (SC). The learned CIT(A) did not accept the assessee's contention. He observed that the wealth-tax in question paid in pursuance to Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 was wealth-tax and was covered by the provisions of Section 40(a)(iia) o...