Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Mahavir Strips Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue seeks stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has held that the demand of Rs. 14,62,650/- is barred by limitation, and has also set aside the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The ground for stay is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has applied the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Jagan Tubes and Others Vs CCE ( final order No. 481-486/2000-B dated 31.3.2000, without noticing the distinguishing feature between the case and the present one namely M/s Jagan Tubes and Others were registered with the Central Excise Authorities, while the assessee in this appeal was not even registered with the Central Excise department and the present case is one of suppression.2. Notice issued to the respondent has been returned with the postal remarks "factory closed"; hence we heard the learned DR and perused the record.3. No prime-facie case for stay has been made out because there is no recurring effect, we there...

M/S Unispanners Pvt Ltd. Vs. Cce, Ghaziabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by the appellants, M/s. Unispanner Pvt. Ltd., the central excise duty has been demanded in respect of the steel structurals manufactured by them. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 9,06,833.72 against the appellants.2. Although the matter is posted for mention, with the consent of both the said, it is taken up for regular hearing.3. Both the sides agreed that the matter relates to the duty liability with regard to the structurals and the matter has to be re-examined in the light of the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs Man Structurals Ltd. , 2001 (44) RLT 113 (SC). As the matter relates to the duty liability on the structurals, we remand this matter to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority who will re-examine the matter in the light of the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Man Structurals Ltd. , referred to above. Both the sides would be at lib...

M/S. Chand Industries Vs. Cce, Delhi-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT409TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Chand Industries, the issue involved is whether Bobbins are classifiable under Heading 87.14 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as parts of Motor Vehicles as claimed by the Appellants or under Sub-heading 3923.40 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.2. Shri K.L. Handa, learned Consultant, submitted that the Bobbins of plastic manufactured by the Appellants are being supplied to M/s. Mik Fuji Yamaha (I) Ltd. who use them in the manufacture of Motor Cycles; that except parts of general use as specified in Note 2 to Section XV all other articles of plastic which are in the nature of components would be classified along with machinery, equipment or apparatus; that bobbins made of plastic are not parts of general use; that as per Note 2(p) to Chapter 39 parts of Vehicle are excluded from Chapter 39 and accordingly bobbins are to be classified under Chapter 87 as these are used in the manufacture of motor cycles. ...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are two appeals; one filed by the Revenue in which the respondents are, M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and the other filed by M/s Alpha Drugs India Ltd. In both the appeals, the duty liability in respect of the structurals is involved. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the central excise duty has been demanded in respect of the steel structurals manufactured by the respondents, M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. in the construction of steel sheds. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune, following the Tribunal's decision in the case of Pratap Rolling Mills vs CCE, 1990 (48) ELT 539 (T), had set aside the order-in-original and allowed the appeal of the respondents before us. In the appeal filed by M/s Alpha Drugs India Ltd., the duty liability of Rs 7,19,302.50 had been confirmed against the appellants with regard to the fabricated steel structurals and parts thereof like trusses, purling etc....

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue seeks stay of operation of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) holding that dying charges are admissible deductions from the assessable value of Cotton Yarn and Acrylic Yarn manufactured and cleared by the respondent. According to the Revenue this is not a permissible deduction and the respondent should have paid duty on the value of the dyed yarn.2. On hearing both sides and noting that the lower appellate authority has relied upon Tribunal's order in the assessee's own case reported in 2000 (118) ELT 184 in which it has been held that the dyeing charges are admissible deductions from assessable value, we are of the view that the Revenue has not made out any prima facie case for stay. We, therefore, reject the application....

M/S Comtech Laboratories Vs. Cce, Mumbai-iv

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants herein manufactured goods described as 'Intravenous Infusion Sets'. The classification list (C.L.) effective from 1.4.92 filed by the unit claiming benefit of exemption from duty in terms of serial No. 23 of Notification No. 339/86 CE dated 11.6.86, was approved in June 1992 extending the benefit. The show cause notice was issued in January '93 demanding duty on past clearances on the ground that the Intravenous Sets were not entitled to exemption in the light of the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s Trio Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 1992 (57) ELT 249, and on the further ground that in view of this, the value clearances of the unit would have to be re-calculated and duty demanded thereby. The assessee contested the demand on the ground that once of C.L. has been approved it cannot be reviewed. The Assistant Collector held that approval of C.L. is no bar to the demand being raised on clearances effected subsequent to the app...

M/S. Radhika Prints Vs. Cce. Chandigarh-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called. The appellants, M/s Radhika Prints, Amritsar, have prayed for decision on merits on the basis of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd, vs CCE, Jaipur, 2001 (127) ELT 679 (TLB). Shri M.M. Dubey, DR, agrees.2. We have carefully considered the matter. We agree with the submissions of the learned Dr that the matter is covered by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd., supra, according to which the capacity under the Hot Air Stentor Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 has to be re-determined. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigrah-II, and remand the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner for re-determination of the capacity after taking into account the Tribunal's aforesaid Larger Bench decision. Both the appeals are thus allowed by way or remand....

M/S Hindustan Appliances Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC72

1. This is an application filed by M/s Hinsutan Appliances for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 41,46,450/- and equal amount of penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi under the impugned order.2. Sh. M. Chandra Sekheran, ld. Sr. advocate, submitted that the applicants manufacture domestic appliances of different models; that in pursuance of the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, they wee affixing labels on their products indicating MRP, that Section 4A was inserted in the Central Excise Act by Finance Act, 1997 and the duty became payable on the basis of MRP in respect of the goods manufactured by them with effect from 2.6.98; that on the said date huge stock of empty cartons was lying with them as well as with their supplier, that instead of destroying the same they affixed new labels with the revised MRP over the place pre-printed with pre June 1998 MRPs and these revised MRPs were indicated on the relevant ...

M/S Jai Amba Textile Vs. Cce, Ahmedabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called. No one appeared for the appellants, M/s Jai Amba Textile, although the notice for today's hearing of their stay application has been issued on 4.6.2001. Shri Rajeev Tandon, SDR, submits that the main issue for consideration in this appeal is of inclusion of gallaries in arriving at the annual production capacity under the provisions of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 and that the issue regarding gallaries has already been settled by the Larger Bench Decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilware Ltd. vs CCE, Jaipur, 2. In view of the above, we take up the stay application of the appellants in their absence. As the matter is already covered by the aforesaid Tribunal's Larger Bench decision, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty amount and take up the appeal itself for disposal.3. After hearing the learned SDR and going through the facts on record, we find that the main i...

Avtar Singh Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This is an appeal against the Order No. SDE(RS)V/Z-5/85 dated 11-6-1985 by which a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the appellant for contravening sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). 2. In this case, four Show-Cause Notices (SCNs) dated 5-7-1979 were served upon the appellant alleging contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) and 5(1)(aa) and 5(1)(c) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and calling upon him to show-cause as to why adjudication proceedings be not held against him. After holding the proceedings and hearing the Party, the Adjudicating Officer acquitted him in respect of SCN-I, III and IV, holding that there was no evidence to show that the appellant had received payment or made payments by order on behalf of the person resident of U.K. As regards SCN-II wherein the alleged contravention was for an amount of Rs. 12,13,700, the Adjudicating Officer found that the department had proved that the involvement of R...