Delhi Court February 2002 Judgments

A.C.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC428

1. The issue involved in these two appeals filed by M/s. A.C.C. Ltd. & M/s. Naveen Projects Ltd. is whether Belt Conveyor System installed in the factory premises of M/s. A.C.C. Ltd. is leviable to Central Excise duty.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Naveen Projects Ltd. (NPL) are engaged in the manufacture of Conveyors; that M/s, A.C.C. Ltd. placed an order for erection and commissioning of 16 Belt Conveyors for material handling at Bilaspur (H.P.); that NPL manufactured the Belt Conveyor and other parts of Conveyors in their factory at Ghaziabad which were cleared on payment of appropriate excise duty; that they procured the other items from other manufacturers and got them supplied directly to the site of A.C.C.; that with the help of these items they fabricated, erected and commissioned the Conveyor System and material handling facilities like gantry with walk-way, railings, structural supports, transfer towers, etc.; that the Conveyor System incl...

Digvijay Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT709TriDel

2. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the adjudicating authority had violated the rules of natural justice as no proper opportunity was given to the appellants for defending their case. This fact was not even disputed by the learned S.D.R. Therefore, the appellants have a strong, prima facie, case and as such their stay applications are allowed unconditionally.3. With the consent of both the sides, we proceed to decide the appeals also. The appellants in the above captioned appeals have been saddled with the duty demand and penalty as detailed in the impugned order itself for having suppressed the production and clearances of man-made fabrics wilfully, during the disputed period 1994-98, by the adjudicating authority (Commissioner) through the impugned order. The main ground on which this order has been assailed before us by the learned Counsel is that, no proper opportunity was afforded to the appellants to put up their defence. They were not even heard before passing ...

Studds Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT511TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Studds Ltd., is whether the Helmet Locking Device, manufactured by them, is classifiable under Heading 83.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Heading No. 87.14, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Appellants nor there was any request for adjournment of the hearing.We, therefore, took up the appeal for decision after perusing the record and hearing Shri V.K. Verma, learned DR. It has been submitted by the Appellants in the Memorandum of Appeal that after consulting the Department, they filed a classification list effective from 1-7-89 classifying the impugned product under Heading No. 83.01; that under their letter dated 15-11-89 they suggested that the impugned goods is not classifiable under 83.01 as it is made of plastic and it would be classifiable as article of plastics; that the Superinte...

Hindustan Gum and Chemical Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC218Tri(Delhi)

1. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- The appellants are manufacturers of Guar Gum Powder and other products falling under Chapter 13 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 30-11-98, officers of Central Excise visited their factory and, on verification of stock of final products, found an excess quantity of 36.109 MTs of Guar Gum Powder (in short, G.G. Powder) vis-a-vis the recorded balance in the RG-I. Believing that the goods were liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944, the officers seized the said excess quantity of G.G. Powder and handed it over to the assessee for safe custody. On the basis of the investigative results, the department issued show-cause notice dated 31-3-99 to the appellants, alleging that the above quantity of G.G.Powder valued at Rs. 25,27,630/- and involving Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 2,02,210/- had been kept in their factory for purpose of clandestine removal without payment of duty, a...

Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-ii Vs. Skytone Electricals (India)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT723TriDel

1. In this Appeal, preferred by Revenue, the issue involved is whether wires and cables, manufactured by M/s. Skytone Electricals (India) are exempted from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No.205/88-C.E., dated 25-5-1988, being parts of windmills.2. Shri M.P. Singh, learned DR, submitted that the respondents cleared wires and cables on drums to M/s. TTG Industries Ltd. and M/s. NEPC MICON Ltd. for being used in windmills for the purpose of transmission of energy; that wires and cable are classifiable under Heading 85.44 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and the exemption under Notification No. 205/88 is not available to the Respondents because wires and cables are neither specific to wind mills nor they cannot be construed as devices of windmill. He relied upon the decision in the case of United Cable Industries v. CCE, Meerut, 2000 (119) E.L.T. 668 (T) wherein it was held that the windmill is complete in itself without electric cables and therefore cab...

Lincoln Parentarals Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Lincoln Parentarals Limited, is whether Note 5 to Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act is attracted in the fact and circumstances of the matter.2. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff; M/s. Bombay Tablets Manufacturing Company has also been manufacturing medicaments as a loan licensee in the factory of the Appellants; that certain medicines were cleared to M/s. Bombay Tablets Manufacturing Company on payment of duty under invoice; that the ingredients mentioned on the label were Ampicillien Sodium IP 250 mg and Cloxacillin 250 mg; that, however, by mistake of the printer who had printed the labels, the ingredients were printed as Ampicillien Sodium IP 500 mg and Cloxacillin 500 mg; that subsequently, when the mistake was discovered the goods were broght back to the appellants factory for correcting mist...

Gopal Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC225Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal, M/s. The Gopal Mills have challenged the Annual Capacity of Productions of the rolled products of steel as determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise and demand of Central Excise duty and penalty imposed on them under the impugned Order.2. At the outset, Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate, mentioned that a Misc. application has been moved by the Appellants for taking on record additional evidence; that all the documents now sought to be brought on record are statutory in nature. The learned DR has no objection in taking these documents on record. Accordingly the Misc. Application No.435/2000-NB is allowed.3.1 The learned Advocate raised the preliminary objection that the show cause notice has been issued to them leveling allegations of wilful mis-declaration, suppression of facts and obtaining the Chartered Engineer's Certificate fraudulently by the Assistant Commissioner; that a show cause notice with such allegations could be issued only by the Commissioner an...

Bhagwati Ispat (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT425TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 19/21-6-2001 passed by the Commissioner vide which he had determined the duty liability of the appellants under Sub-section (4) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. ingots. ACP of their unit was initially determined in terms of provisions of Induction Furnace Capacity Determination Rules. However, thereafter they requested for redetermining their duty liability based on actual production for the year 97-98 in terms of provisions of Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act. Their request was initially turned down by the Commissioner but that order of the Commissioner dated 5-8-99 was set aside by the Tribunal and the matter was sent back for reconsideration. After remand, the Commissioner through the impugned order had determined the duty liability of the appellants on the basis of the actual production under Sub-section (4) of Section ...

J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT755TriDel

1. All these appeals relate to the same issue, valuation of Polyamide Chips manufactured by the appellants and captively consumed by them in the manufacture of Nylon yarn of 21 OD.2. The assessable value of the polyamide chips had been approved based on its cost of production without allowing the exclusion of various elements like profits, administrative overheads and Modvat credit on inputs. This issue came earlier before this Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria ltd. v. CCE, Pune [1996 (81) E.L.T. 676]. In the remand proceedings, the lower authorities granted relief in respect of Modvat credit on inputs. In the present appeals, the assessee persists with their claim for relief in respect of the other items. Penalties imposed in the impugned orders are also a cause for the present appeal.3. When the appeals were taken up together for hearing, the learned Counsel for the appell...

Bhoday Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT703TriDel

1. The appellants manufacture Flat Bars of Alloy Steel falling under sub-heading 7228.20. They are also availing the Modvat credit on the inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On 6-1-98, the preventive staff of Central Excise department visited the factory premises of the appellants. The visiting staff verified the stock of the end products and the inputs on which the Modvat credit had been availed. On actual weighment of flat bars, they were found to be in excess quantity of 9.581 MTs involving the central excise duty of Rs. 18,496.00. Since this stock was found in excess of the recorded balance in the RG 1 account of the party, the same was seized. The visiting staff also found 0.550 MTs of unaccounted melting scrap involving central excise duty of Rs. 660/- which was also seized. On physical verification of the raw material, it was observed that there was a shortage of 6.572 MTs of the raw material on which the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 72,686/- had been ava...