Delhi Court June 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.
Cannon Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC669
1. In these two appeals, the issue involved is determination of the assessable value of stainless seamless tubes and pipes imported by M/s.Cannon Steels Pvt. Ltd. 2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported a consignment of 58.808 MT of second/defective stainless seamless tubes/pipes from Taiwan; that the value of the consignment was declared as Rs. 21,48,164/-; that the Customs Department got the goods examined by Nuclear Fuel Complex, who opined that a part of the goods were prime quality, a part of the goods were seconds and part of the goods were scrap; that the Commissioner under Order-in-Original No.112/97, dated 5-8-97 observed in Para 38 that it would be extremely difficult to arrive at any definite conclusion as the goods are not physically available and it has to be concluded that the consignment consists of both unused factory fresh material as well as seconds and scrap of stainless seamless tubes and pipes; that the Commissioner gave his ...
Ralson (India) Ltd., Metro Tyres Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC124
1. M/s. Ralson (India) Ltd. (appellants in Appeal No. 419/2002), M/s Metro Tyres Ltd. (in Appeal No. 420/2002) and M/s Govind Rubber Ltd. (in Appeal No. 421 /2002) are engaged in the manufacture of tyres and tubes of rubber for Bicycles and Cycle Rickshaws. They manufacture 'compounded rubber' of heading No. 40.05 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and use the same captively in the manufacture of such tyres and tubes. Prior to 1.3.94, "compounded rubber" was wholly exempt from duty under Notification No. 152/87-CE dated 25.5.87. This notification was rescinded by Notification No. 64/94-CE dated 1.3.94 whereby the exemption stood withdrawn. However, the exemption was restored to compounded rubber by Notification No. 74/94-CE dated 28.3.94. In the result, for the brief period from 1.3.94 to 27.3.94, there was no exemption from duty in respect of compounded rubber. This is the period relevant to the dispute in these appeals.2. As the appellants had not paid duty of excise on compounde...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT775TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The first issue in this appeal relates to the availment of Modvat credit of the disputed amount by the respondents on the items detailed in the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority disallowed the Modvat credit by holding the same to be parts which were not specified in Rule 57Q of the Rules by following the ratio of law laid down in J.K.Pharmachem Ltd. v. CCE, Tiruchirapalli - 1998 (102) E.L.T. 488. But the Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed that order.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. It has not been disputed that the ratio of law laid down in J.K. Pharmachem Ltd. (supra) had been overruled in Jawahar Mills Ltd. - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal wherein it has been observed that parts/items which forms part of the capital goods are eligible for Modvat credit. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) ha...
Sharda Synthetics Ltd. and Vs. Cce, Mumbai-iii and Cce,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC85
1. The issue involved in these two appeals is whether the interest is payable to the Appellants on delayed refund of the amount deposited by them under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 2.1 Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate for M/s. Sharda Synthetics Ltd., submitted that they are an independent textile processor; that the Assistant Collector, under Adjudication Order dated 14.1.1993, confirmed Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,04,27,882.43 paise which was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) under Order-in-Appeal dated 30.8.93; that the Appellate Tribunal vide Stay Order No. 237/93-A dated 30.9.93 directed them to deposit Rs. 75 lakhs and execute two personal bonds for the remaining amounts; that subsequently the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 303/94-A dated 19.10.94 allowed their appeal by remanding the matter to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector to decide the assessable value afresh in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints case as well as o...
Nu Tech Packaging Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Overruled
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)LC373Tri(Delhi)
1. In these three appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No. 8/2001, the issues involved are whether the process undertaken by M/s. Nu Tech Packaging amounts to manufacture, classification and valuation of the impugned product and whether the extended period of limitation for demanding duty is invocable. Revenue has also filed one Appeal against non-imposition of penalty and interest under Section 11AC and Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act respectively and against non-imposition of Penalty and interest under Rule 57-1(4) and (5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri M.P. Singh, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Nu Tech Packaging (NTP in short) manufacturer of boxes/cartons of Duplex Paper Board and varnished printed paper sheets; that on 29-1-97 they had sent sheets of laminated Duplex Paper Board for screen printing to a job worker in a three-wheeler which was intercepted and seized by the Central Excise officers on the ground that proper procedure as prescri...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vam Organics and Chemical Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC806
1. In this Appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the MODVAT credit was disallowable to M/s. Vam Organics & Chemical Ltd. on account of shortage in Molasses and clearance made under Rule 173 H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the respondents manufactured organic chemicals and availed of MODVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs and during the course of checking of the factory premises of the respondents on 7.4.99, the Central Excise officers recovered a computerized sheet from the room of Shri M.L.N. Srinivas, Senior Vice President of the respondents which showed that there was shortage of 1,15,218 Qtl. of molasses stock as on 29.3.99; that the Senior Vice President in his statement dated 8.4.99, deposed that he did not exactly know the reason for the said shortage in the molasses account; that however, he debited the amount on account of shortage of molasses under protest. Learn...
Shreewood Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT920TriDel
1. This is an application by M/s. Shreewood Products Pvt. Ltd. for restoration of their appeal which has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/538/99-NB(DB), dated 28-6-1999 for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri Rakesh Malhotra, learned Advocate, submitted that the present application for restoration of appeal and modification of pre-deposit has been filed in view of change of circumstances; that the department has attached their properties worth Rs. 4,64,30,000/- which is much higher to the pre-deposit amount; that as now the department has attached their property, the requirement of pre-deposit has been complied with and as such their appeal deserves to be restored; that the said property be kept as security against the pre-deposit and in case they lose the appeal they shall be liable to pay interest; that the similar offer was accepted in the case of Air Control and Chemical Engineering Co. Ltd. v. CCE 3. Opposing th...
Nirula and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT583TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Nirula & Company (P) Ltd., is whether the benefit of Notification No. 8/98-C.E., dated 1-3-1998 is available to the goods manufactured by them.2. Shri S. Madhavan, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that M/s.Nirula Corner House Ltd. a SSI unit, used to manufacture ice-cream in the factory premises now occupied by the Appellants; that M/s. Nirula Corner House Ltd. (NCHL in short) were discharging duty liability during 1998-99 without availing the benefit of Notification No. 8/98 as their aggregate value of clearances in the preceding financial year had exceeded Rs. 3 crores; that with effect from 22-8-1998, they commenced manufacture of ice-creams after taking over the premises under a lease agreement with M/s. NCHL and started availing of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/98-CE.; that four show cause notices had been issued to them for denying the benefit of the notification as condition Nos. (iv) and (vi) of...
Cce Vs. Aditya Cement
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC552
1. The common issue involved in these four appeals filed by Revenue against common Order-in-Appeal No. 324 to 336/2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), is whether the Modvat credit of the duty paid on the Capital goods used in the mines is available to the Respondents, M/s. Aditya Cement.2. Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. Aditya Cement manufacture cement/clinker; that they availed of Modvat credit on the following capital goods: (a) Electric motor used in lime stone conveyor belt situated outside the factory.3. She, further, submitted that as the capital goods have been used in mines which is outside the factory premises of the Respondents, the Credit of the duty is not admissible; that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jay Pee Rewa Cement v. CCE, 2001 (77) ECC 457 (SC): 2001 (133) ELT 3 (SC), the Credit on capital goods used in mines has been held to be inadmissible; that joists had been used as building material and as such cannot be ...
Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC294
1. The above captioned appeals have been directed by the appellants against the common adjudication order-in-original dated 10.10.2002 vide which the Commissioner has confirmed duty demand, besides confiscation of goods, vehicle, against the company appellant No. 1 and imposed penalties of various amounts under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, on the other appellants, as detailed therein.2. Appellant No. 1 is a company (in short hereinafter referred to as company), while appellant Nos. 3 & 8 are its Director and production Manager, respectively. The company is engaged in the manufacture of gutkha falling under Chapter heading 2106 of the CETA, under thebrand names of 'Goa-1000', 'Goa', 'Satyam', 'Bazigar', 'Mini', and 'Shahi'.They are also engaged in the manufacture of pan masala under the brand name of 'Goa' and mouth freshner under the brand name of 'Sath Sath'.Shri Ketan Vinod Shah is the Director while Santosh Joshi (appellant) is the production manager of the company. O...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »