Delhi Court October 2003 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.
Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC857
1. The issues involved in this Appeal, filed by M./s Gas Authority of India Ltd. are whether the process of mixing Butane and Propane amounts to manufacture and consequently whether the Appellants are eligible to MODVAT credit of duty paid on Butane under rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumarn, learned Advocate, submitted that Appellants manufacture liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG in short and avail of MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on inputs; that natural Gas is received from M/s. ONGC through HBJ pipeline which is processed for extraction of LPG (C3 and C4 approximately 50 : 50); that the said natural gas contains more Propane (C3) that Butane (C4); that the quantity of Propane not utilized in the manufacture of LPG at the first instance is subsequently mixed with Butane which they receive from Oil Companies for manufacture of LPG; that taking into account the quantum of LPG manufactured, required quantity of Mercaptum is also added in the mixture; that a ...
Cce Vs. H.S. Indus Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC519
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order-in-original by setting aside the confiscation of the seized unaccounted goods and the redemption fine imposed for the redemption of those goods by the adjudicating authority.2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents in spite of issuance of notice to them for today's hearing. No request for adjournment has been also from them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the learned SDR.3. The perusal of the record shows that non-accountal of the finished goods had not been contested by the respondents. The non-accounted goods found were 5,803 MT of HBB of Wire while taking physical verification of the finished goods. The plea taken by the respondents before the adjudicating authority was that the goods were still lying in the factory and there was no attempt on their part to remove the same in a clandestine mann...
Continental Cargo Service and Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC74
1. Both the appeals are based on common facts and common question of law. Therefore, they are being taken up together for disposal.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Continental Cargo Service is a partnership concern and Shri Bhupinder Singh is one of the partner. M/s Continental Cargo Service is a Customs House Agency and is holding a CHA agency for Customs clearance work. The appellants M/s.Continental Cargo Service filed shipping Bill No. 15650 to 15653 dated 9.8.98 on M/s Cinex Overseas for glass beads. After clearance of the said consignment from ICD, Tughlakabad, on its way to Mumbai, the said consignment was intercepted by the Customs Authorities. On re-examination of the consignment, it was found that the goods were not of a primary quality and actually consisted of junk and waste material.3. A show cause notice dated 1.12.98 was issued to Shri Bhupinder Singh partner of M/s Continental Cargo Service and to the exporter for confiscation of the goods and for imposition...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Spintech Inc.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT367TriDel
1. Revenue has come in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 98/2003, dated 20-3-2003, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand of Central Excise duty and penalty imposed on M/s. Spintech Inc.2. Shri Kumar Santosh, learned S.D.R., submitted that the respondents manufacture synthetic yarn and avail of the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs; that on physical verification of the inputs by the Central Excise officers on 14-9-98, inputs involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,20,95470, were found short; that some private records were also resumed from the factory premises, which showed production and blending of various ingredients; that a show cause notice dated 25-2-99, for the recovery of duty on the shortage of inputs, was issued to the respondents, which was subsequently/ adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise demanding duty and imposing a penalty; that, however, the Appellate Tribunal, vide Final Order No.A/110/2003-NB(S), dated 28-1...
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC14
1. The appellants are manufacturers of VP sugar, molasses and Special Denatured Spirit [SDS]. They had separate registration certificates under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 from the Department for the manufacture of these products. The Registration Certificates in respect of sugar and molasses were obtained in 1992 and that in respect of SDS obtained later on (in 1994). In December 2000, they applied for a single registration for all the three products under the amended provisions of Rule 174. The jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise allowed the application and intimated the same to the party by letter dated 2.1.2001. But, by show-cause notice dated 5.12.2001, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division Varanasi, directed the party to show cause why the single registration granted to them by the Superintendent of Central Excise should not be revoked and why three separate registration certificates should not be issued to them as in the past. The appell...
J.M. Industries Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC538
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. J.M. Industries, is whether the duty is payable by them separately on fuel oil found in the vessels imported by the appellants for breaking.2. Shri A.D. Maru, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants imported old and condemned vessels for breaking and paid duty under protest; that subsequently, he filed an appeal, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the assessment of Bill of Entry is not a decision or order; that, however, the Appellate Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 292/03-B dated 24.4.2003, remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the matter afresh as the assessment of the Bill of Entry was held to be appealable order; that the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order, has again rejected their appeal on the ground that they have not shown conclusively that the fuel oil was kept in the engine room tanks. He, further, submitted that it has been held by the Tribunal ...
Modipon Fibres Company Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT261TriDel
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Asstt. Commissioner rejecting their claim for the refund of the duty on the ground of limitation.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the claim of the appellants could not be held to be time-barred as they filed the same within the stipulated period of six months from the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal in their favour vide which the duty confirmed and deposited by them for the refund of which they had filed the application, was set aside. He has also contended that the very filing of the appeal by the appellants after paying the duty, amounted to payment of duty under protest. Therefore, the period of limitation was to be reckoned not from the date of payment, but from the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal, for claiming the refund. The learned Counsel, in this regard, has placed reliance o...
O.N.G.C. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT829TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the refund claim, filed by the appellants, was rejected on the ground that the appellants failed to prove that the burden of duty has not been passed on to their buyers.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, M/s. O.N.G.C., filed a refund claim of Rs. 18,91,310/- with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise on the ground that the appellants had paid excess duty on the value, which included the Central Excise duty also for the clearance of LPG for the period from 23-3-2000 to 31-8-2000. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants to provide evidence to the revenue regarding not passing the burden of duty on to their customers. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim. Appellants filed the appeal and the same was dismissed.4. The contention of the appellants is that due to mistake by the appellants, the assessable value was calculated after adding the excise...
Ongc Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC82
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the refund claim, filed by the appellants, was rejected on the ground that the appellants failed to prove that the burden of duty has not been passed on to their buyers.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, M/s. ONGC, filed a refund claim of Rs. 18,91,310 with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise on the ground that the appellants had paid excess duty on the value, which included the Central Excise duty also, for the clearance of LPG for the period from 23.3.2000 to 31.8.2000. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants to provide evidence to the revenue regarding not passing the burden of duty on to their customers. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim. Appellants filed the appeal and the same was dismissed.4. The contention of the appellants is that due to mistake by the appellants, the assessable value was calculated after adding the excise duty...
Krishna Trims Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT822TriDel
2. The appellants have sought waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 1,21,033.40 and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- which has been confirmed against them by disallowing the Modvat credit on the PFAFF Industrial Sewing Machines and spare parts as capital goods on the ground that the declaration filed was not proper and that these goods did not fall within the ambit of the definition of 'capital goods'. The learned Counsel has contended that when the credit was taken, the goods became eligible for claiming the Modvat credit as the same was taken on 7-4-2000, after the amendment of the definition as capital goods. He has also referred to the Tribunal's judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Jaipur-I v. Styrodync Packaging (P) Ltd., 2003 (156) E.L.T. 233 (T), wherein it has been observed that an assessee is entitled to the credit as per Rule existing on the date the credit is taken on the goods. On the other hand, the learned SDR, has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order....
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »