Delhi Court August 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cce Vs. Mangla Ispat Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC636
1. Revenue has filed his this appeal being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner had dropped the proceedings initiated against the assessees under Show-Cause Notice dated 16.8.2000.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel product that is casting alloy and MS Ingots, billets classifiable under Chapter heading 72, 73 and 84. On a surprise visit to the factory of the appellant certain checks were conducted. It was found that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of re-rolled products. Scrutiny of the invoices for the purchase of raw materials revealed that the respondent herein had purchased alloy steel ingots falling under tariff heading 7224. They had during the material period manufactured 1842.135 MTs. of ingots. A Show-cause Notice case issued to the respondents herein asking them to explain as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 37,96,274 should not be rec...
Lady Amphthil Nurses Instns and Vs. Cc, Chennai and Cc, Cochin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC630
1. This matter has been referred to the Larger Bench in terms of majority order reading as under: 65. In terms of majority order, all the above noted appeals are referred to Hon'ble President for constituting a Larger Bench to decide various issues involved in these group of appeals as noted by Member (Technical), Shri Lajja Ram in his differing order which has been concurred to by Shri Jeet Ram Kait, Member (Technical). The Larger Bench shall also consider the final order which is required to be passed in respect of each of the appellants noted above.2. In the majority order there is a request for deciding various issues involved in the appeals as noted by Member (Technical) Shri Lajja Ram in his differing order.3. Shri Lajja Ram in his differing order which is in para 24 at a page 108 is reproduced as under: 24. The main issue for consideration and decision in these group of appeals relating to alleged violations of the conditions as laid down in the Customs Exemption Notification N...
Commercial Steel Engg. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC376
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of "Forged Steel Grinding Media Ball". The present duty demand of over Rs. 3.5 lakhs is in regard to manufacture during period 1.4.87 to 29.2.88. The show cause notice for recovery of this amount was Issued on 28.1.92 by resorting to proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The extended period contemplated in that proviso is attracted only to cases in volving fraud collusion, suppression of facts with in tent to evade payment of duty etc.2. We have perused the records and have heard both the sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the facts and circumstances of this case did not permit of a demand beyond the normal period of limitation. The learned Counsel pointed out that the appellant is a unit engaged in the manufacture of the said grinding media for several years and the manufacturing activities carried out by the appellant were in the knowledge of the Central Excise authorities.He pointed out that p...
U.K. Paint Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT412TriDel
1. This appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi dated 8-10-2001. Under the above order the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the contentions raised by the appellant that the assessment has to be made on the basis of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints-1988 (38) E.L.T. 535. The Commissioner on recalculation of the duty confirmed the demand to the extent of Rs. 3,23,494/- and set aside the imposition of penalty. In this appeal the appellant challenges the demand of duty raised against it without following the decision of the Ujagar Prints.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paints falling under Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have two units. In Unit No. 1 they manufacture goods on its own behalf by procuring raw material from open market. These goods are sold to their own customers including M/s. Rajdoot Paints Ltd. In Unit No. 2 the...
Paras Laminates P. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC53
1. M/s Paras Laminates (P) Ltd. have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held as under: "I have gone through the case records and submissions made by the appellants. A perusal of the copy of the Show-cause Notice served to the appellant on 3,8.98 shows that it is the copy of Show-cause notice endorsed to the Asstt. Commissioner on 20.11.89 hence the Show-cause Notice bears the 'Sd' marked in first place and the endorsement is signed by the Superintendent putting date as 18.11.89. Since the appellants have been shown office copy of the Show-cause Notice lying in the Range file bearing signatures of the Supdt. at both places as 18.11.98 and date of dispatches 20.11,89, hence it is to be treated as signed and dispatched on 20.11.89, The mistake of putting date 18.11.89 on endorsement is clearly only clerical one. The appellants have not denied the fact that...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Birla Corporation Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT215TriDel
1. These are appeals filed by the Revenue against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal Nos. E/691/2002 and E/722/2002/NB (SM) are against grant of CENVAT credit under Rule 57AB to the respondents on Explosives used by them for mining limestone at the mines situate away from their Cement Factory. The periods involved in the two appeals are April to June, 2000 and July to September, 2000, respectively. Appeal No. E/723/2002 is against grant of CENVAT credit under the above Rule to the respondents on Lubricating Oils and Greases used by them in their limestone mines. The period involved in this appeal is also July to September, 2000.3. Ld. JDR representing the Revenue submits that the Explosives and Lubricants were not used within the factory of production of cement (final product) and hence could not be considered to have been used in or in relation to the manufacture of cement. According to the interpretation given by the DR to the term 'input' under Clause (d) of Ru...
Ram Charan Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC58
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 22.3.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had disallowed their abatement claim for the period 16.5.1998 to 23.5.1998 and 26.5.1998 to 11.10.1998.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots. They lodged claim for the abatement of the Central Excise Duty under proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 3-A of the Act for the period in question, i.e. 16.5.1998 to 23.5.1998 and 26.5.1998 to 11.10.1998. The Commissioner through the impugned order had disallowed the abatement to them mainly on the ground that they had failed to inform the Department in accordance with law about the time of the closure of the factory and also failed to furnish the electricity meter reading when production was stopped in their factory unit.3. The learned counsel has contended that the documents produced by the appellants in order to prove the closure of their factory unit during the perio...
Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC336
1. The appellants manufacture rockwool. They claimed its assessment at the lower rate applicable under sub-heading 6807.10 w.e.f. 28-2-97 on the ground that more than 25% by weight of blast furnace slag is used in it. Sub-heading 6807.10 reads as under : Goods in which more than 25% by weight of red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag or one or more of these materi-als have been used 2. Their claim regarding use of more than 25% blast furnace slag is not contested and they succeeded in the adjudication proceedings before the Dy. Commissioner. But that decision was overturned by Commissioner (Appeals) on an appeal filed by the Revenue. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the correct classification of rock wool would be under Chapter heading 6803 with the following observations : "The Rockwool, slagwool and product thereof manufactured would be classifiable under Chapter sub-heading No. 6803.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as the description of the product Rockwool/Slagwool/ Min...
Boston Scientific International Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT192TriDel
1. The issue raised in this appeal is whether Endoscope Stents are eligible for exemption from duty under SI. No. 348B of Notification No.17/2001-Cus. Different types of Stents involved in the dispute are Uretheral Stents, Percuflex Stent, Pigtail Stent, Wall Stent, Biliary Stent, Biliary drawn Stent etc. SI. No. 348 covers the following goods namely :- (A) Medical equipment (excluding Foley Balloon Catheters) and other Goods, specified in List 29.(C) Parts required for the manufacture, and spare parts required for the mainte-nance, of the medical equipment at (A)above (Fibre optic endoscopes are one of the medical equipment specified in the List 29).2. The impugned order has held that the Stents in question do not fall in the category of accessories for endoscope and for that reason they are not eligible for the exemption. The impugned order has observed as under :- "Endoscopy placement of Stents helps in avoiding traditional surgery. Therefore, it is clear that Endoscopes which are ...
Oracle Infotech (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT656TriDel
1. The appellant is a 100% EOU located in the Export Processing Zone at Noida. Its Unit has been approved for the manufacture and export of all kinds of telephone sets, radio and Walkman. In its capacity as 100% E.O.U. the appellant is authorized to obtain the capital goods, spares, raw-materials or other consumables for manufacture and export of final products. The present appeal is directed against adjudication order dated 1-11-2001 of Commissioner of Customs, Tuglakabad which confiscated two consignments imported by the appellants, under Section 111(d), (1), (m), (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods had been imported in two containers and their clearance had been sought under bills of entry numbers 3243 and 3244, dated 18-12-2000. The confiscation has been ordered on the ground that the description of the goods as well as their value had been misdeclared in the import documents. With regard to misdeclaration of description the finding is that goods had been declared as parts of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »