Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Cce Jaipur-i Vs. Ms. Balaji Udyog

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT59TriDel

1. The issue in dispute in above appeal of the Revenue is whether the process carried out by the respondent of drawing wire from wire rods of 6 M.M. to & M.M. thickness, resulting in reduction of thickness, is a process of manufacture. The Additional Commissioner held that the wires are known by specific name different from their inputs i.e. wire rods, physical character, cross section, strength etc. of the wire are also different from those of the wire rods, that iciest to which wires are put are different from the uses of wire rods, and that both the items are distinctly known in the trade parlance and therefore criterion of manufacture is satisfied. He therefore, confirmed duty demand and also imposed a penalty upon the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the adjudicating authority, holding that the process does not amount to manufacture, following the rediae of Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s Technoweld Industries (Final Order No.85/2000-B) dated...

Cce, Delhi Vs. M/S. Excorts Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC587

1. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:- During the period relevant, namely 1.3.93 to October, 1998, respondent M/s Escorts Ltd. were manufacturing agricultural tractors. Those tractors were having hydraulic lift body for lifting the harrow above the ground level which are to be use for ploughing the field. Tractors were classified under chapter heading 8701 of the Central Excise Tariff. Rate of duty as per that hading was 13%. For paying duty on tractors value of the tractor inclusive of the hydraulic equipment was taken into consideration and duty paid at 13%. While so, department issued show cause notice dated 26.5.98 claiming differential duty of Rs. 33,05,216.40 on the ground that the hydraulic lift bodies which form part of the tractors are classifiable as part of the tractors falling under chapter heading 8708 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Duty payable on such parts falling under...

Cc, New Delhi Vs. Asian Overseas

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. M/s Asia Overseas (appellants in Appeal No. C/129/01-NB(SM) filed Bill of Entry dated 30.9.2000 for clearance of a consignment of Dry batteries, R6 (UM-3) A size, supplied by M/s Shenzhen Golden Bell Battery Co. Ltd., [in short, M/s Shenzhen], China. On examination of the consignment, 15 lakh pieces valued at Rs. 8,31,280/- were found to be of "SONIC" brand. From a letter dated 23.8.2000 sent by M/s Sonic Battery Co. Ltd., [in short, M/s Sonic], Hong Kong to the Commissioner of Customs (ICD), Bombay (with copies to all other Commissioners of Customs), it appeared to the department that M/s sonic were owners of the trade mark "SONIC" and that M/s Shenzhen were manufacturing/selling the batteries under that trade mark without the assent of M/s Sonic. It further appeared to the department that the 15 lakh pieces of Dry batteries under import were branded with a falsified trade mark within the meaning of Section 77 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 thereby attracting the pro...

M/S. Mahabir Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing the present appeal the appellants M/s.Mahabir Steel Rolling Mills, Mandi Gobindgarh are required to pre-deposit Rs.28,08,501/-. Shri V.Lakshmikumaran, Advocate submits that after the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh no demand as such has been conveyed to the appellants and the appellants themselves have calculated and have filed the present stay application. He further submits that the matter will be argued at the time of final hearing and for hearing the appeal he offers to deposit Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs) within a period of eight weeks from today.2. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR reiterates the grounds taken by the Commissioner of Central Excise in the impugned order. After hearing both the sides and after going through the facts on record, we direct the appellants to deposit Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs) within eight weeks from today. On depositing the above sum within the period stipulated above the pre-deposit of the balance ...

S.R. Foils Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC358

1. Two of these appeals are against Order-in-Original No.22/99 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I dated 22.11.1999 passed in adjudication of show-cause notices (SCNs) dated 12.04.1999 and 12.07.1999 and the remaining appeal is against the same Commissioner's Order-in-Original No.25/99 dated 22.12.1999 passed in adjudication of SCN dated 05.10.1999. We have examined the records, which have brought out the facts briefly stated below: 2. Central Excise (Preventive) officers on 14.10.1998, intercepted one 'tempo' loading with 74 cartons containing Aluminium home foils and cling film of plastic consigned by M/s S.R. Foils Ltd., Hari Nagar, New Delhi to M/s Sugandh Agencies, Chandigarh, alone with 65 cartons containing tissue paper rolls, napkins and facial tissue consigned by M/s S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd., Hari Nagar, New Delhi to the same consignee. The officers, after recording the statement of the driver of the vehicle and examining the documents produced by him, seized the con...

M/S Northland Industries Vs. Cce New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT648TriDel

1. The above appeals were dismissed for default by Final Order No.E/699-700/98-B-I dated 29.4.98. The applicants submit that they had closed their factory during January 1997 and informed their counsel to intimate the Tribunal regarding change of address, they did not receive any notice of hearing of the appeals. They did not receive copy of the Final Order also. Their counsel did not inform them that the appeals had been dismissed for default. They submit that their earlier counsel had been elevated to the Tribunal as Member and only in November 2000 receipt of letter from the Range Superintendent of Central Excise, they came to know about the Dismissal of their appeals. On contacting their advocate's office they were informed that Shri K.R. Chopra, Adv. who had been handling their files after the elevation of Ms Archna Wadhwa to the Tribunal had since expired.Applicants submit that it is due to these circumstances that they were not present when the appeals were taken up for hearing...

Cce, Meerut Vs. M/S. Filatex (India) Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner. The Commissioner held as under:- "i) An amount of Rs. 3,860.00 (BED) and Rs. 579.00 (AED) totalling to Rs. 4,439.00 on 61 bobbins of Nylon monofilament yarn weighing 68.563 kgs is confirmed under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.ii) An amount Rs. 3,07,868.44-4439.00 = 3,03,429.44 is allowed to the party be credited in their RG-23A part-II.iii) An amount of Rs. 53,961.56 is allowed to be refunded to the party subject to observance of the procedure, as laid down under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.iv) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 8407.65 and Rs. 16,400.00 is confirmed under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on 171.45 kgs, of polyester monofilament yarn, 81.17 kgs of Nylon monofilament yarn and 1792.43 kgs of polypropylene Chips respectively.Since th...

M/S. Rosa Sugar Works Vs. Cce, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT323TriDel

1. For reasons which will be apparent hereinafter, I allow the present application unconditionally and take up the appeal itself for final disposal.2. The appellants are manufacturers of sugar and molasses. Shortages of molasses in their tank were detected by the Department and, on that basis, show-cause notices (SCNs) were issued to the appellants demanding duty of excise on such quantities of molasses alleging clandestine removal. Those SCNs are still pending for adjudication.Meanwhile, the appellants themselves had filed Remission application under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with the Department.Those applications were six in number corresponding to the periods covered by the six SCNs aforesaid. The Commissioner, who ought to have decided on the Remission application under Rule 49 ibid after hearing the applicants, did not offer any personal hearing to them. While the aforesaid SCNs demanding a total amount of duty of Rs.2,61,957.00 were still pending with the Departm...

M/S Merchant Exports (India) Vs. Cc, Cochin

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. While passing order dated 2.1.2001 this Tribunal directed the Commissioner to pass final order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The said order happened to be passed after making an observation that the order impugned in Appeal No. 3/383/2000 A was one passed in violation of the direction given by this Tribunal as per final order No. 43/2000 dated 17.2.2000. Since the Commissioner could not pass final order within the time fixed by our order dated 2.1.2001, Commissioner has filed this modification application for further time to comply with the order, i.e. to pass final order on the issues remanded.2. Heard the learned SDR and ld. Counsel representing the respondent.As a last chance, we are extending the time for passing a final order upto 17.7.2001. In case no order is passed on or before 17.7.2001, the action initiated against the exporter will stand abated. Then Commissioner need not pass fresh order, ...

M/S. Shri Ram Ram Niranjan Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)584; AIR2001Delhi424

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. Facts of both the cases as well as issues involved being identical, both the matters ere heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. is No.4468/86 in Suit No.880-A/86 and is No.4469/86 in Suit No.879-A/86 are filed by respondent/UOI under Sections 30 and 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'Act') which are the objections to two Awards both dated 30th March, 1986 by Sh.H.C.Sharma, arbitrator. 3. Disputes having arisen between the parties and there being an arbitration clause as per which both the parties had to nominate their arbitrator, petitioner nominated Sh. H.C.C. Sharma as its arbitrator and respondent/UOI nominated Mrs. R.Laxmanan as its arbitrator. Mrs. R. Laxmanan resigned on 10th February, 1985 and on her resignation petitioner's advocate wrote letter /notice dated 14th December, 1985 to the respondent/UOI requesting respondent to appoint another arbitrator in her place within fifteen days from the date of receipt of said letter/...