Delhi Court November 2003 Judgments

Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT201TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Dura Cell (India) Pvt. Ltd. and remanded by the Hon,ble Supreme Court is whether MODVAT credit available to them after the period of six months from the date of payment of duty on the imported goods.2.1 Shri P. Shah. learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants have imported certain goods under bills of entries and availed MODVAT Credit of the duty as under: 2.2 He, further, mentioned that the Tribunal vide Final Order No.A/48/2001/NB dated 15.12.2000, had allowed the MODVAT Credit in respect of Bill of Entry No. 108476. He submitted that the date of issue of document in case of imported goods should be the date when the goods were given out of charge Order and received in the factory and not the date of Bill of Entry; that it has been held by the Tribunal in Bullows Paint Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai VI, [2001 (138) ELT 1098(T)] that "The Phrase "issued" does not qualify the named document viz.Bs/E. There is a good reason fo...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT402TriDel

2. The ld. Counsel places reliance on Tribunal's judgment reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. 402 (Tri.) in the Collector of Central Excise v.Metazinc (India) Ltd. In terms of the said judgment the reprocessed goods even if cleared without actual payment of duty, will entitle the manufacturer to claim the refund of duty paid on the defective goods at the point of their initial clearance. The ld. DR. however, places reliance on judgment of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 620 (Tri. - Kolkata) in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-IV v. Fort William Co. Ltd. In the said judgment, the Tribunal has held that, where on account of exemption notification, no duty is paid on the goods after reprocessing/ then the refund amount shall be zero.2. On a careful reading of the provisions of the Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, it is apparent that, the measure for refund of duty to be granted on the goods reissued after reprocess...

Subros Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC367

1. Grievance raised in these three appeals of M/s Subros Limited is the denial of refund claims made by them in respect of supply of motor vehicle parts to Maruti Udyog Ltd. 2. Lower authorities rejected the claim partly oh the basis of time-bar and partly is on the ground of unjust enrichment. It is not in dispute that part of the refund claim fell outside the normal period stipulated in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Appellants have contended that supplies were against on long terms contract with Maruti Udyog Ltd. and since those contracts contained provision for price revision/the assessable value and duty paid should be treated as provisional we are unable to find merit in this submission. It is well settled that the normal time-limit for refund would apply to all cases unless they fall under the exception of original payment of duty being on provisional assessment. This position applies equally to supplies made against contracts having provision for pri...

Samtel Colour Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT101TriDel

1. The issue, involved in this appeal filed by Samtel Colour Ltd., is whether the benefit of Notification No. 36/96-Cus., is available to them in respect of the goods destroyed in fire.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the demand of duty has been confirmed against the appellants on the ground that the goods, imported by them after availing the benefit of Notification No.36/96-Cus., had not been put to use in the manufacture of final products on account of fire accident in the factory; that the show cause notice was also issued to them by the Department for disallowing the Modvat credit on the ground that the inputs had been damaged in fire accident; that the Assistant Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 9/99, dated 21-5-1999, accepted their contentions and dropped the disallowance of Modvat credit on the ground that the inputs had been used for the manufacture of excisable goods; that the impugned goods, which had been imported by them, had also been ...

Cosco Bloosoms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants is an EOU. It produces cut rose flowers for export.It is also entitled to selling part of the produce, as permitted by the Development Commissioner, in the domestic tariff area.2. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Central Excise Commissionerate, Delhi-III has demanded a customs duty of about Rs. 88 Lakhs from the appellant under Section 29 of the Customs Act 1962 read with Notification No. 126/94 dated 3.6.1994. There is a demand for interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act 1962 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 17 lakhs under Section 114 A of the Customs Act 1962.The duty amount demanded is the customs duty payable on about Rs. 3 Crores worth flowers cleared to the domestic area during the period 1997-98 to 2001-2002. The contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that the findings in the order are entirely contrary to the settled law on the issue. It is pointed out that goods produced in an EOU are subject to central excise duty as ap...

Dsm Anti-infective India (P.) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT69TriDel

1. In both these appeals, filed by M/s. DSM Anti-Infective India (Pvt.) Ltd. the issue is whether the process undertaken by them on the defective bulk drug received back by them amounts to manufacture.2. Shri V. Swaminathan, learned Consultant, submitted in respect of Appeal No. E/1117/2003-NBC that the Appellants manufacture Bulk Drugs; that they receive duty paid defective goods under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for repair/rectification; that after removing/rectifying the defects, the bulk drugs are sent back to the Customers without payment of duty after following the procedure prescribed for the purpose; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order No. 11/CE/JAL/2003, dated 4-3-2003, has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty equal to the amount of duty holding that the impugned goods received from the buyers were rejected materials or meant for replacement and the process undertaken by them to make the goods fit for use amounts to manufacture as per No...

Nirula and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT412TriDel

1. M/s. Nirula and Company Pvt. Ltd., Noida manufacture flavored syrup and pineapple juice, which are liable to central excise duty. The issue raised in these appeals is the classification of the goods. Relevant Headings read as under : "20.01 Preparation of vegetables, fruits, nuts other parts of plants including jams, fruit, jelly, marmalades fruit or nut puree or nut pastes, fruit juices and vegetable juices, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, Pineapple Juice. 2001.10 Put up in unit containers and bearing - 16% a brand name (emphasis added) 21.08 Edible preparation, not elsewhere specified or included, Flavored Sugar Syrups." Thus classification and rate of duty depend upon whether the goods are branded or not.2. Appellant pack and clear the goods for sale in bottles bearing their brand name 'Nirula's'. Goods intended for in-house consumption and service are cleared in containers on which brand name is not affixed.These packages mention name and addre...

Blue Blends (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT238TriDel

1. In these three appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No. 11/98, dated 29-12-1998, the issue involved is whether Central Excise Duty is demandable from M/s. Blue Blends (India) Ltd. and penalty is imposable on them along with other Appellants and whether the excisable goods are liable for confiscation.2.1 Sh. K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Blue Blends (India) Ltd., Appellants No. 1, manufacture Cotton Denim Fabrics; that the Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises on 20-9-1997 and effected seizure of 2,31,105 LMs of fabrics valued at Rs. 1,72,14,125/- on the ground that the same was fully manufactured and not entered in RG 1 Register; that the Officers also seized 12 invoices under the belief that the fabrics mentioned therein was cleared without payment of duty; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order, has confirmed the demand of duty in respect of fabrics alleged to have been removed under the seized invoices, confiscated the ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ghanshyam Metal Indus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT333TriDel

1. These are 12 appeals, filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 173-184/AKG/PCK/2003, dated 5-5-2003, by which the Commissioner (Appeals), has set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents.2. We heard Shri O.P. Arora, learned S.D.R., for the Revenue, and Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate, for the respondents. Ld. S.D.R.submitted that all the respondents purchase stainless steel flats on payment of duty, which are cut into small pieces and then hot-rolled in the form of patta/patties; that these patta/patties are, further, rolled into cold-rolled patta/patties and, thereafter, circles are cut which are used within the factory for the manufacture of utensils; that these circles are also sold by the respondents in the open market; that the adjudicating authority, under the adjudication orders, confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty in respect of cold-rolled patta/patties and imposed penalties on the respondents. On appeals, filed by the respondents, the Commissio...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Proctor and Gamble Home Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT173TriDel

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against Order-in-Original No. 13/02 dated 03.5.2002, by which the Commissioner has not confirmed the demand of duty of Excise against M/s. Proctor & Gamble Home Products.2. We heard Shri Vikas Kumar, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue and Sh.V.S. Nankarni, learned Advocate for the respondent. The respondents had imported pringles original and pringles sour cream and onion variants of potato chips/pdotato crisps from the United States of America. They had affixed stickers containing the information regarding importer's name and address, MRP, date of packaging, monogram, net weight and the date before which these are used in compliance with the provisions of package Commodity Rule, 1977. The Revenue wanted to classify the products under sub-heading 2001.10 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Commissioner, under the impugned order, has classified the impugned product under sub-heading 1905.90 of the Tariff and dropped the demand...