Delhi Court September 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.
K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT826TriDel
2. In this case, the appellants made import of certain suction and discharge valves and filed bill of entry classifying under Heading 8481.80 of the Customs Tariff. The goods were assessed and cleared on 12-10-98. Thereafter, on 10-11-99 on audit objection, recovery memo was issued to appellants after classifying the goods under Heading 8414.90 of the Customs Tariff. Appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was dismissed.3. The contention of the appellants is that no show cause notice was issued to the appellants for change of classification. The goods were cleared after payment of duty on 12-10-98 and after due assessment made under the classification claimed by the appellants. After more than one year i.e. after the normal statutory period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, audit memo was issued to the appellants. The contention of the appellants is that there is no suppression of facts to evade duty on their part. Therefore, the extended pe...
R.C. Engg. Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC146
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. R. C. Engg, Works (P) Ltd., the issue relates to the availability of Modvat Credit when the declaration has been filed late.2. Shn S.B. Gaur, learned Consultant, submitted that the Modvat Credit has been denied to the Appellants, on the ground that they had not filed the declaration under Rule 57G and Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No.A/1356/2001-NB dated 12.9.2001 has remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for deciding the matter in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Konark Cylinder & Containers (P) Ltd. v. CCE, 1998 (102) ELT 455; that the Dy. Commissioner again under Order-in-Original No. 263/2002 dated 30.9.2002 has disallowed the Modvat Credit holding that the declaration was filed late and since it was filed after availing the Credit same is not admissible and the application for condonation of delay is also not worthy of acceptance.The Commissioner (Ap...
Indian Wire Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT288TriDel
1. This is an application filed by M/s. Indian Wire Products for waiver of pre-deposit of sum of Rs. 90,303.28 p disallowed as Modvat credit and penalty of Rs. 70,000/-.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Advocate, submitted that the Modvat credit has been disallowed to them for the period from August, 1994 to December, 1995 by invoking extended period of limitation; that the Applicants have submitted RT-12 returns and as such it cannot be alleged that there was any suppression on the part of the Applicants. I also heard Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned DR.3. In view of the fact that RT-12 return had been filed by the Applicants they have made out a strong prima facie case on the aspect of time limit as the show cause notice was issued only in 1999. T, therefore, stay the recovery of the entire amount of Modvat credit disallowed and the penalty imposed on the applicants. The appeal is posted for regular hearing on 27-11-2003....
Cc and Ce Vs. S and H Gears Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC159
1. This is an appeal, filed by Revenue, against Order-in-Appeal No.120/2003 dated 31.3.2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat Credit on certain capital goods to M/s. S & H Gears Ltd. 2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents. I, however, observe that they have filed Cross Objection requesting for the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue. I, therefore, heard Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned DR. and perused the records. The Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order has allowed the Modvat Credit in respect of capital goods namely Spider, spacer sleeves and bar grid, lifting bars, etc. on the ground that these are accessories of furnace and are being used as fixtures on which gears/pinions are fixed/placed before being put inside the furnace for heat treatment process. The learned SDR submitted that the impugned goods are not accessories of furnace as they have no role in its operation or function; that even in abs...
Chandan Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT386TriDel
1. This is an application filed by M/s. Chandan Chemicals for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on them.2. Shri R.K. Goel, learned Advocate, submitted that the Applicant is a dealer dealing in chemicals manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited and is registered as a dealer under Central Excise Act; that they are issuing both modvatable invoices and non-modvatable invoices for the sale of goods as per the requirements of the buyers and maintaining appropriate records; that they had received a consignment of 15,058 kgs. of Sodium Tripoly Phosphate under 52A invoice from M/s.Hindustan Lever Ltd. and since they intended to sell the entire quantity in retail on non-modvatable invoice the said consignment was not entered in their RG-23D register. He relied upon the Board's Circular No. 96/7/95-CX., dated 13-2-95 wherein it has been mentioned in Para 9(c) that a registered person need not enter in RG-23D register details of those consignment received under Rule 52A...
Timex Watches Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT494TriDel
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of several varieties of wrist watches. A duty demand of over Rs. 1.7 crore and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been confirmed under the order impugned. The duty demand has resulted from denial of Modvat credit on the inputs used by the appellants in the manufacture of wrist watches.2. The reason for the denial of Modvat credit is that the appellant took Modvat credit in respect of inputs received by them but did not maintain "an account in form of RG-23A Part I & II and submit within five days after the close of each month to the Superintendent, Central Excise along with monthly return in form RT-12". The order notes that, instead "They simply maintained computerised material receipt report showing gate entry No., challan No., invoice No. and consigner's name".3. The appellant's position all through was that they were maintaining all relevant accounts in computer and such electronic data storage was necessary since the production of large varieties o...
Delhi Dying Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC28
1. M/s. Delhi Dying Mills have filed this Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 560/2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming redemption fine and penalty against them. Shri C. Hari Shankar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in processing of fabrics; that the Central Excise Preventive Officers visited their factory premises on 6.9.99 and found 1845 sq.m. of processed cotton fabrics valued at Rs. 48,983 unaccounted in the statutory records; that they also found 20150 linear Mtrs. grey cotton fabrics valued at Rs. 4,97,600 unaccounted in their raw material/lot wise register; that the Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No.453/2000 dated 31.5.2000, confiscated both the fabrics and imposed consequential redemption fine of Rs. 75,000 besides imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000; that the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order, has rejected their Appeal relying upon the statement of Shri Rakesh Kalra, partner of the Appellants. He, further, submi...
Prabhat Zarda Factory Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC26
1. M/s. Prabhat Zarda Factory P. Ltd. have filed this Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 104/03 dated 21.3.03 by which Commissioner has confirmed demand of duty and penalty against them.2. Shri K. Narsimhan, learned Advocate submitted that the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises of the Appellants on 22.10.94; that they found one register "Saraswati" in which some entries had been made for the period 1.9.94 to 17.10.94; that the Joint Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on the ground that the appellants had removed 40,000 pieces of Chewing Tobacco as entered in the said note book 'Saraswati"; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has also rejected their Appeal holding that the Appellants had not accounted for those 40,000 pieces of chewing tobacco in the statutory records and the same were cleared without payment of excise duty. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Appellants had two factories under their management -- one at Delhi ...
Cce Vs. Guljag Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC128
1. This is an application, filed by M/s. Guljag Industries Ltd. for rectification of mistake said to have crept in Tribunal's Final Order No. A/405/2003-NB(C) dated 16.7.2003.2. Shri O.P. Agarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Tribunal, vide Final Order dated 16.7.2003, has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue; that the Revenue had challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) only against allowing the Modvat Credit on storage tanks, structure of monorail and platform; that, however, the Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal by setting aside the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals); that the impugned Order-in-Appeal should have been set aside only to the extent of allowing of Modvat Credit on storage tanks, structure of monorail and platform instead of setting aside entire impugned order. He, further, submitted that secondly the show cause notice was issued for disallowing the Modvat Credit on capital goods to the extent of 50% of th...
J.K. Paper Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2003
Reported in: (2006)(199)ELT612TriDel
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (appeals), whereby the refund claim of the appellants was rejected.3. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board and were allowing 2% cash discount to their buyers for making payment within 10 days from the issue of invoice. The customers were claiming cash discount which, was given by the appellants by way of credit note.The refund claims were filed in respect of the differential duty whereby credit notes were issued.4. The contention of the appellants is that they had produced the evidence in respect of issuance of credit note to their buyers, therefore, the burden of duty has not been passed on to their customers. We find that this issue is already settled by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Madras v. Addison & Company . The Tribunal held that the issue of credit notes to buyer is immaterial. Once burden of duty initially has been passed on to the customers at the time...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »