Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Cce, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Laxmi Precision Screws Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT310TriDel

1. The assessees M/s. Laxmi Precision Screws Ltd., are the manufactures of nut, bolts, screws and parts falling under Chapter Sub-heading 7318.00, and 8714.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Asst.Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak vide his Order dt. 28.10.96 disallowed the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 6,697.68 availed by them on the measuring instruments falling under Chapter heading 90.31 as capital goods under Explanation 1(d) (i) to Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise in his order observed that times instruments are used for testing and measuring dimensions of the finished product.2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi vide his Order dt. 3.6.98 allowed the appeal with the observation that the process of measuring and testing various instruments as well as finished goods are essential in completion of manufacture of any goods. The second stage appeal failed by the...

M/S Zira Co-op Sugar Mills Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC847

1. For reasons recorded below, we waive pre deposit of Rs.6702/- confirmed by the authorities below and proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal itself. 2. Appellant is a sugar mill. They sell molasses to distilleries. During the month of September 1995 they cleared 335.10 qntls. of molasses to various distilleries at a price of Rs. 200/- per qntl. Central Excise duty was paid treating the sale price of Rs. 200/- per qntl. as assessable value by the appellant. Departmental authorities took the view that the price of molasses was Rs. 300/- per qntl. and so differential duty was leviable on the appellant. Show cause notice demanding the differential duty was issued. The actions proposed in pursuant to the show cause notice were opposed. They specifically contended that they received nothing more than Rs.200/- per qntl. This contention was overruled by the Adjudicating Authority who confirmed the demand made in the notice. On appeal the Commissioner confirmed the order of adjudication. ...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Samsung Acry Cot Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT766TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether the piled Acrylic Fabrics (Processed) in Running length attracts duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and falls under Heading No. 60.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Revenue or under Heading No. 63.01 as decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order.2. Shri Sheo Narayan Singh, learned SDR, submitted that in the classification declaration effective from 12.2.99, the Respondents classified the impugned goods under Sub-heading 6001.92 of CETA for captive use in the manufacture of blankets and claimed Nil rate of duty under Notification No. 67/95-CE; that the Deputy Commissioner, under the Adjudication Order demanded duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act as benefit of the said Notification was not available in respect of this duty; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the du...

M/S. Godrej Ge Appliances Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC859

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Godrej GE Appliances is regarding admissibility of deduction of Rs. 61/- said to be relating to Turn-over tax from the assessable value of Refrigerators manufactured by them.2. Shri Balbair Singh, learned Advocate,submitted that the appellants manufactured Refrigerators which are being sold through various depots and branches in various states; that during the period from 28.9.96 to 30.9.97 they had claimed deduction @ Rs.145/- per Refrigerator on account of equalised freight and Trun-over tax from the assessable value; that the deduction @ Rs.145/- per Refrigerator was allowed by the Asstt. Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 49-50/98 dated 20.1.98; that however, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order set aside the Order holding that Rs.145/- claimed as deduction on account of equalised freight also included the amount of Sales tax paid by them and the amount of Sales tax cannot form part of equalised fr...

Cc New Delhi Vs. M/S Aparna Ashsram

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC116

1. The respondents herein imported photographic and recording equipments for making films/Video films on Yoga activities with the stated purpose of research and propagation of Yoga. They cleared equipments duty free claiming the benefit of exemption notification 70/81 CUS dated 26.3.81 which exempts all scientific and technical equipments, Instruments etc. provided the same are imported by research institutions and provided the research institution furnishes an essentiality certificate from the administrative ministry concerned to the effect that imported goods are essential for research and they will be used only for such purpose by said institution and the said institution is not engaged in any commercial activity.2. Acting on an intelligence that the importer have been using imported equipments for commercial purpose, officers of the customs department conducted searches of various premises belonging to and/or related to the activities of the importers and seized certain documents ...

Yashpal Singh Raghav Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard. Stay order not fully complied, one lac deposited, and for remaining deposit of two lacs Counsel requests for time on account of financial hardship of the appellants. In the interest of justice, time for balance deposit is extended by six weeks from today. To come up for reporting compliance on 27.6.2001....

M/S. Peshawar Soap and Chemical Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Being aggrieved with the order-in-original dated 30.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi, M/s.Peshawar Soap and Chemical Works, Patiala (Punjab), (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Peshawar'), filed an appeal with the Tribunal, which was received in the Registry on 18.01.2001. Alongwith the appeal, M/s. Peshawar also filed stay application under Section 35 F of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which was also received in the Registry of the Tribunal on 18.01.2001. The matter relates to the classification of the product - 'Kesh Nikhar', which M/s. Peshawar described as soap classifiable under sub-heading No.3401.12 of the Central Excise Tariff (CET), which covered "soap in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process has been carried-on with the aid of power or of steam". In the show cause notice dated 16.12.99, it was mentioned that the "Kesh Nikhar" branded bar/cake manufactured by M/s. Peshawar ...

M/S. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Cce, Aurangabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT706TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. the issue involved is whether the off cuts of M.S.sheets are classifiable under Heading 72.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff as waste and Scrap of Iron or steel or as M.S. Sheets itself as held under the impugned Order.2. We have heard Shri B.L. Narshimhan, learned Advocate,along with Shri Dev Nath for the Appellants and Shri M.P Singh, learned D.R., for the Revenue. The learned Advocate for the Appellants mentioned that the issue involved in the present appeal stands decided by the Apex Court in the case of LKL Ltd. vs. CCE, Kanpur, 1997 (94) ELT 273 (SC) which has been followed by the Tribunal in many cases including the cases of Jawahar Metal Industries vs. CCE, Meerut, 2000 (120) ELT 818 and in their own case vide Final Order No. E/1182/1998 dated 27.7.1998 (CCE, Aurangabad vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.).3. After considering the submissions of both the sides we find that the issue involved is no longer r...

M/S. Dugar Tetenal India Limited Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT578TriDel

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, ld. Counsel arguing the case for the applicants submits that the applicants had a technical collaboration between them and M/s. Tetenal Vertriebs GmBH, Germany; that under the said agreement, the foreign collaborator was to provide technical know-how to the applicants and for this applicants had to pay a royality of 4% to the foreign collaborator; that the brand name "TETENAL" was registered in the name of the applicants and once the brand name was so registered in their name, they became the owners and therefore, they were the persons who were authorised to use the said brand name in India; that the applicants had filed classification list in 1988 itself wherein they had duly declared that they were using the brand name "TETENAL" which was their own brand name. Ld. Counsel submits that since the brand name was registered in their own name and since they were the owners of that brand name...

M/S. J.K. Corp. Limited Vs. Cce, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether an order which is appealable under the statute and the party aggrieved did not choose to exercise the statutory right of filing an appeal is it open to the party to question the correctness of the order of adjudicating authority subsequently by filling a claim for refund on the ground that the adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing his order.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants imported high grade natural manages dioxide ore. They were assessed to duty under Chapter 28 of tariff item before introduction of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and under Chapter 26 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975. The appellants did not challenge the classification of their goods under Chapter 28 as against chapter 226, but filed a refund claim stating that the goods have been wrongly classified. The refund claim was rejected on the ground that the goods are correctly classifiable under T.I.28 and hence the appe...