Delhi Court December 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT65TriDel
1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd., is whether they have manufactured aluminium doors and windows at the basement of the site.2. Shri V.P. Goyal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture aluminium bars, rods, profiles, pipes and tubes, frames for doors, windows, thresholds for doors and structures, etc, in their factory at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan; that their Architectural Aluminium Products Division (AAP Division), New Delhi is engaged in execution of work of supply and fixing of aluminium doors and windows in various States; that AAP's Division, after finalization of the contract with the Building Owners, prepares design/sizes of the aluminium sections for doors and windows which are supplied by their Bhiwadi factory on payment of duty and are received at AAP's Godown at Gurgaon/storage space provided by the building owner at site; that sub-contractors are engaged for the execution of the work; that the contractors first install w...
Mark Auto Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT311TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Mark Auto Indus.Ltd. is whether the Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs is available to them on the strength of endorsed Bill of Entry.2. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture motor vehicle parts which are supplied to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd.; that M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. supply them moulds and dyes for manufacture of motor vehicle parts; that Maruti Udyog Ltd. imported under Bill of Entry No. 103052, dated 24-3-2000 certain dyes and moulds and made necessary declaration on the Bill of Entry and got it endorsed by the Customs authorities stating therein that Maruti Udyog Ltd. would not be availing Cenvat Credit of the Countervailing duty which would be availed of by the Appellants; that the said endorsement was countersigned by the Customs authorities in terms of Board's Circular No. 179/13/95-CX.-8, dated 29-2-96; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order has denied them the Cenvat Cred...
Pal Brothers Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT447TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Pal Brothers Works (now known as M/s. Season Electrics Pvt. Ltd.), is whether "Electromagnet Assembly" manufactured by them is classifiable under Heading 90.33 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as parts of Electricity Supply Meters or under Heading No. 85.05 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order.2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate submitted that the impugned goods i.e. Electromagnet assembly is a combination of two sub-assembled products namely - Electromagnet and Power Factor, which is specially designed as meter part as per specifications of the buyers who are manufacturing Electricity Supply Meters; that the impugned product is not an electromagnet simplicitor but a combination of two sub-assemblies; that this is also apparent from the purchase orders which refer to the impugned order as "C.E.M. assy, fitted with power factor." The learned Advocate also referred to Book "Electricity...
Birla Vxl Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT349TriDel
1. The issues involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Birla VXL Limited, are whether Dobby Cards are chargeable to Excise duty and whether the benefit of notification No. 67/95-C.E. is available to such Dobby Cards, 2. Shri R. Sudhinder, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture man-made as well as woollen fabrics; that they also manufacture yarn which is used in the manufacture of fabric; that the fabric woven from yarn has various designs and patterns on them; that in order to obtain the required design of the fabric the yarn is fed through an item known as Dobby card which is nothing but Myler Sheets; that Myler sheets are plastic sheets which are cut into required length and the holes are punched on the same on the basis of required design; that such punched Myler sheets are also referred as Dobby card in the trade; that this process of cutting and punching sheets would not amount to manufacture as the activity does not result it emergence of any new excisable ite...
Freeze Air India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC447
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Freeze Air India, the issue involved is regarding availment of Notification No. 75/87-CE., dated 1-3-1987.2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants manufactured air-conditioners, cooling units and parts thereof that in their classification declaration with effect from 1-4-1998, they claimed exemption under Notification No. 75/87; that they had also declared therein that they would pay 15% of the duty on the first clearance of Rs. 30 lakhs; that the declaration was made according to their understanding of the notification; that accordingly they availed Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs and removed the finished products on payment of 15% duty; that the Assistant Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 183/99, dated 20-9-1999 confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty and imposed penalty holding that the benefit of notification is not available to them as they chose to pay the duty even in respect of the goods up to...
Cce Vs. Autolite Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC179
1. Revenue has preferred this appeal against the Order-in-Original No.39/2000 dated 15.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise.2. Ms. Neeta Lal Butalia, learned SDR, mentioned that the Respondents M/s. Autoiite (I) Ltd. is a hundred percent Export Oriented Undertaking for manufacture and export of Halogen Lamps of Auto head lamps/sealed beams, etc.; that as the Respondents did not fulfil the obligation of exporting goods worth Rs. 1673 lakhs by 1994-95, a show cause notice was issued to them on 26.4.2000 for confiscation of the capital goods imported/procured indigenously, for demanding customs duty and Central Excise duty on the goods imported and indigenously procured and for imposition of penalty and interest; that the Commissioner has dropped the demand of duty on the sole ground that as per condition No. 6 specified in Notification No. 13/81 -Cus dated 9.2.1981, the duty can be demanded only when it is proved that the materials have not been used for the intended purpo...
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC467
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai dated 26.4.2002.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of formulations/medicines falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute in this appeal relates to import of 3 medicines/formulations, namely (i) One-Alpha Caps I meg, (ii) One Alpha Caps 0.25 meg and (iii) Daivonex Ointment 30 g. from Denmark, during the period from 1.12.1996 to 31.3.2001. These medicines were imported in packed condition on payment of appropriate duty of Customs leviable thereon. The appellants had affixed strips on the packings containing particulars such as name of the commodity packed, net quantity, month and year of packing, retail price, name of the manufacturer etc. In view of the Trade Notice dated 21.8.96 issued pursuant to Central Board of Excise & Customs circular dated 14.4.96 the appellants were not treating affixation of stickers ...
Sail Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT172TriDel
1. M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. have filed this appeal being aggrieved with the Adjudication Order Nos. 426-429/2001, dated 1-10-2001 under which the Commissioner, Central Excise has denied them the benefit of exemption Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-86.2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants manufactured various items of iron and steel in their workshop and used them as inputs in or in relation to manufacture of dutiable final products or for repair and maintenance of plants and machinery; that they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. which had been denied to them by the Commissioner in the Order impugned holding that none of the items manufactured in the workshop were in the nature of inputs. The learned Advocate, further, mentioned that the impugned goods are of the nature of spare parts of different machine and machineries and as such are eligible to exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 217/86-C.E.; tha...
Northern India Leather Cloth Mfg. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT745TriDel
1. Challenge at the instance of the assessee in this appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 11-12-2001. The issue that has to be considered is whether the appellant is entitled to benefit of deemed credit.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of coated fabrics known as PVC Leather Cloth. The base fabric is knitted fabric. In December, 1997, the appellants started processing operations on woven fabrics on job work basis. In June, 1998 they started manufacturing knitted fabric, which was thereafter coated to make the coated fabrics in their factory. Notifications No. 41/98 and 42/98, dated 10-12-98 provided for eligibility and method of determination of annual capacity under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The appellants had taken the stand that they are mainly manufacturers of coated fabrics and not independent processors to be covered under Section 3A. But the department was of the view that the appellants are independent proces...
KeihIn Panalfa Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT367TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Keihin Panalfa Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-CE. (SI. No. 212A), dated 1-3-2000 is available in respect of 'A/C sub-assembly frame' and 'A/C sub-assembly engine' manufactured by them.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Learned Advocate, submitted that appellants manufacture various parts of car air-conditioner for supplies to Honda Siel Cars India Ltd.; that the parts manufactured by them are supplied in two sub-assemblies called 'A/C sub-assembly frame' and 'A/C sub-assembly engine'; that M/s. Honda Siel procures other parts of car air-conditioner like heater assembly, heater valve, A/c control panel, blower assembly, duct assembly etc. from other manufacturers and fit the same along with the parts manufactured and supplied by the appellants in their vehicles; that they had classified the parts of A/C under Heading 84.15 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and availed of exemption from payment of Special...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »