Delhi Court November 2003 Judgments

Garha Gears Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of modvat credit in respect of capital goods was allowed.2. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents had not filed any declaration in respect of capital goods on which the credit has been taken.3. The contention of the respondents is that under Rule 57T and Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules were amended by Notification No.7/99-CE dated 9.2.99 to the effect that the credit shall not be denied on technicality in case it was proved that the goods were duty paid.The respondents relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut, 2002-Taxindiaonline-37-CESTAT-DEL-LB and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore Vs. M/s. S & H Gears Limited vide Final Order No. A/1227/03-NB(S) dated 26.9.2003.4. In this case, the contention of the Revenue is that the declaration was not filed ...

New India Dyeing and Finishing Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC661

1. The instant 8 appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original dated 10.2.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The Commissioner vide the said order confirmed duty demand of Rs. 61,58,331.30 and imposed penalty of Rs. 62 lakhs against M/s.New India Dyeing & Finishing Mills, Batala, confirmed duty of Rs. 5,55,259.95 and imposed penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs against M/s. New India Printing Works, Batala, Amritsar. The Commissioner has also imposed penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs on M/s. J.D. Woollen and Silk Mills, Rs. 6 lakhs on M/s. Pahwa Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 3 lakhs on M/s. Chain Singh & Sons and Rs. 1 lakh on M/s. Devinder Singh Pahwa. He had further imposed penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs on appellant, Chain Singh, Partner of M/s. New India Dyeing & Finishing Mills, Rs. 15 lakhs on Devinder Singh, Manager of M/s. New India Printing Works, Batala and Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. Vishnu Sahay Subhash Chand and of Rs. 3 lakhs on M/s. Dharam Pal Satish Kumar.2. The alle...

Sturdy Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT442TriDel

1. This order will dispose of the above appeals which have been filed by the appellants against the common Order-in-Appeal, vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the Adjudication Authority.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tubes/pipes of plastics. The waste and scrap of plastics generated during the manufacture of plastic pipes/tubes was consumed captively by them in the manufacture of plastic granules which in turn were used again in the manufacture of tubes/pipes which were cleared on payment of duty.3. The demand has been raised from the appellants on the waste and scrap on the ground that benefit of exemption Notification No.67/95-C.E. is not available to them and they are liable to pay duty on waste and scrap which they captively used in the manufacture of granules which were exempt from duty. Both the authorities below have, on this ground, had confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalti...

Cce Vs. J.M. Plastics (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC156

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of electric fans and cooler kits. On 28.5.98, the officers of the Revenue department visited the factory premises of the respondents and it was found that their statutory records such as RG-1 and RG-23A Part-I were maintained up to 20.5.98 and no entry was made thereafter. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of the goods found in excess of the statutory records. The demand was also raised on the finished goods and parts removed by the respondents as free replacement. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the excess goods and ordered release of the same on payment of redemption fine. Duty in respect of the inputs found short was also confirmed. The inputs which were not entered in the statutory record were also confiscated and ordered to be released on payment of redemption fine....

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Grauer and Weil (India) Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT263TriDel

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat credit on Cylindrical Vertical HDPE Tanks was allowed as capital goods.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the tanks in question are not covered under the definition of capital goods nor can be considered as accessories of the main processing plant.4. In this case, in reply to the show cause notice, the respondents took specific plea that the tanks in question are used in the manufacturing process in the factory as accessory to their main processing plant. The specific use of these tanks is to measure the chemicals/liquids to be changed into mixing tanks and are connected to vertical tanks through pipes and other fittings. In the mixing process, various chemicals are required in definite quantities and therefore without help of these cylindrical vertical the respondents are not able to complete the process of manufacture of their final product. Further, ...

A.S. Impex Limited and ors. Vs. Delhi High Court and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 107(2003)DLT734; 2004(72)DRJ1; 2003(3)JCC292; (2004)136PLR3

Usha Mehra, J.1. Chapter XVI was incorporated in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The said chapter was inserted by the Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) with effect from April, 1989. The purpose of inserting this chapter under which Section 138 falls was to give power to the Court to impose punishment in case the cheque issued, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability is returned by the Bank unpaid either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid. Such action amounts to an offence punishable with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. Section 139 of the Act deals with the presumption in favor of holder. Section 140 of the Act indicates the defenses which may not be allowed in any prosecution u...

Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar Coal Sales Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2004)BC391; 109(2004)DLT252; 2004(75)DRJ63

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Trial Court on an application of the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act whereby the application of the appellant for stay of suit was dismissed. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are:2. In response to an invitation to tender issued by the appellant, the respondent submitted its quotations pertaining to licensing, handling and supervision of coal movement from collieries of Singareni Collieries Ltd. to the defendant's factory at Tandur. The tender of the respondent was accepted and the respondent had alleged to have executed the work under the contract to the entire satisfaction of the appellant. The work order expired on 31.10.1991 and a sum of Rs. 1,49,727.70 paise was stated to be due from the appellant to the respondent towards balance amount for the work undertaken by the respondent. This amount included a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- as the security deposit and the remaining amou...

M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)128

ORDERGupta, J.M.This is an appeal by assessed against the order of CIT(Appeals) relating to assessment year 1993-94.2. Ground No, 1 was not pressed. thereforee, the same is dismissed accordingly,3. Ground No, 1,2 relates to confirmation of disallowance of expenditure of gifts and presents, was not pressed. The same is also dismissed,4. Ground Nos. 2 and 2,1 are against confirming the disallowance of depreciation in respect of addition to plant & machinery on account of foreign exchange fluctuation in respect of foreign currency loan obtained for acquisition of fixed assets under section 43-A.4.1 This issue has been decided by the Tribunal in case of assessed itself for assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93 in I.T.A. No. 5772(Del)/95 and 2321 & 2322(Del)/96 in favor of assessed. Copies of the orders of the Tribunal are placed in the paper book. The findings of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 2312 & 2322(Del)/96 are given in paragraph 14 of its order, which reads as under :'Considering the fact t...

Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC178

1. The appellant is manufacturer of refrigerators which are liable to central excise duty on ad valorem basis. Under the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur has confirmed a short-levy demand of Rs. 2,76,95,173/- on the appellant. A penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs has also been confirmed. The duty demand is in respect of refrigerators cleared by the appellant during the period May 1996 to 19.5.1998. The demand was raised under 9 Show-cause Notices issued on 3.12.96, 2.4.97, 27.6.97, 30.7.97, 29.10.97, 26.12.97, 23.2.98, 15.5.98 and 4.8.98.2. The subject of dispute is the valuation of the refrigerators. At the time of original clearance of the goods, the appellant deducted the under-mentioned discounts from sale price of the goods and treated the amounts so obtained as the assessable value and discharged central excise duty at the rates applicable: The impugned order has held that these discounts like service discount, redistribution discount, special d...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Nice Steel Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC668

1. In this Appeal, filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether the Chaf Cutter Blades, manufactured by M/s. Nice Steel Industries, are classifiable under Heading No. 84.36 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order, or under Heading No. 82.08 as claimed by Revenue.2. Shri U. Raja Ram, leanred Departmental Representative submitted that the Chaf Cutter Blades, commonly know as "Gandasa" as meant for mechanical appliances used in agriculture; that Heading 84.36 covers the machine for agricultural purposes; that the said Heading, however, does not cover the parts which are specifically classifiable elsewhere; that Heading No. 82.08 specifically covers "knives & cutting blades for machine or for mechanical applicances"; that as per Explanatory Notes of HSN below Heading 82.08, all unmounted blades for machines are to be classified under the said heading; that the impugned blades are an independent commodity ...