Delhi Court December 2004 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vintron Electronics P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT218TriDel
1. The Revenue has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that it was wrongly held by him that the delivery note containing all the particulars is necessarily an invoice issued under Rule 52A which is a specified document under Rule 57G(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Shri P.M. Rao, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue stated that the delivery note was an invalid document as the same has not been prescribed under Modvat Rules. Rule 57G(2) clearly mentions that no credit shall be taken unless the inputs are received in the factory under cover of the documents as specified. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also not given finding that what were the details available in the delivery challan on the basis of which credit was taken.2. Shri R. Pal Singh, learned Consultant appearing for the respondents pleaded that under explanation to Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the term 'invoice' means assessees' own documents such as invoice challans, advice or...
Bharat Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC100
1. Shri Alok Arora, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants contested the shortage of 23.790 MTs of ingots and 37.786 MTs of MS girders on the ground that the appellants had written a letter on 13.9.2001 to the Additional Commissioner that the stock taking was conducted on the basis of average weight of ingots and girders and the entire quantity was not physically weighed. He also referred to the statement dated 12.9.2001 of Shri S.C. Jain, Authorised Signatory of the appellant wherein reply to question No. 9, he stated "that the raw material MS ingots available in our factory were made separate lots according to the sizes and each lot 5 ingots were weighed and one ingot weight worked out multiplied by number of ingots. In the same way MS girders were also made lots according to the size and each one girder was weighed multiplied by numbers and weight of lot was arrived and end cuttings were weight for physical verification. We are fully satisfied from it". He, therefore, pleade...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kamal Steel Rolling Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC513
1. Revenue has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of his setting aside of the penalty on the respondents relying on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Beauty Dyers v. Union of India 2002 (52) RLT 635 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Sai Prasad Dyeing and Printing Mills v.CCE 2. Shri P.M. Rao, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue pleaded that the decision on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has placed reliance are with reference to the Notification No. 42/98 in respect of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, whereas in the present case, the respondents are steel rolling mills who are working under 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Vivek Re-rolling Mills has discussed this issue and came to the conclusion that the decision in the Beauty Dyers will not be applicable to the facts of the present matter. He also relied on the deci...
D.N. Steel Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC729
1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants.Hear learned SDR.2. In this case the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-CE dated 20.5.1988 was denied to the appellants in respect of the final product on the ground that input used in the manufacture of final product are clearly recognizable as non-duty payable.3. The contention of the appellants in the present appeal is that as per the Explanation to the Notification No. 202/88-CE dated 20.5.88, all stocks of input in the Country except such stocks as are clearly recognizable as being non-duty paid shall be deemed to be input on which duty has been paid. The appellant's purchased the scrap of old and used rails and other scrap from the market an used in the manufacture of final product. The contention of the Revenue is that the scrap used in the manufacture of the final product is clearly recognizable as non-duty paid. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Elphinstone Met...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Emson Gears Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT34TriDel
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The only contention of the Revenue is that respondents were not entitled to the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification in respect of the goods manufactured by them, as the goods cleared by the respondents were not actually branded at all. Therefore, the value of such goods was not eligible for exclusion while computing the value of total clearances of the respondents.3. The respondents bought to our notice that Tribunal in their own case vide Final order No. 801-802/2004-B dated 29-9-2004 [2004 (177) E.L.T.1001 (Tri.)] held that respondents had proved fact that respondents were clearing the goods with the logos along with specific part number on the demand of their customers. Therefore, appellants were clearing the branded goods.4. We find that in the present case, the only contention of the Revenue is that respondents were not clearing branded goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) held t...
Mettaco Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC800
1. The appellant M/s. Mettaco Engineering Pvt. Ltd., filed shipping Bill No. 241/95, dated 11-10-95 for the export of "Stainless Steel Utensils (STOCK POTS)" made of AISI 304. The consignment was loaded in container No. MEAU 7073259 at the exporter's factory at Halol, under customs supervision, and the container sealed in the factory, on the basis that the consignment tallied with the particulars mentioned in the export documents. However, when the consignment was examined at the I.C.D. at Sabarmati big difference in quantity of goods was found. The position is indicated below :-_________________________________________________________________________ Gross Net Weight No. of Method of Pack- Weight Kgs. Kgs. Pieces ing1. Goods according 15489 15232 10880 1360 cartons with to declaration each carton con- sisting 8 pieces.2. Goods found 8460 5440 680 cartons with on examination each carton con- sisting 8 pieces.Exports were under advance license scheme and the appellant was entitled to d...
Charminar Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC289
(i) Appeal Nos. 3089-90/02-NB(A) have been filed by M/s. Charminar Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. (M/s. Charminar in short) against Order-in-Original No. 9/2001 dated 4.4.2002 and Order-in-original No. 35/2002 dated 6.9.2002. (ii) Appeal No. 4123/03-NB(A) has been filed by the Revenue against Order-in-original No. 35/2002 dated 6.9.2002 by which the Commissioner has confirmed the duty and penalty after treating the sale price as cum-duty price.2.1 Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Charminar manufacture aerated waters as a franchise of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd.; that they get concentrate from M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. for the manufacture of aerated waters in bottles and in Bag-in-Box; that Bag-in-Boxes are sold on ex-factory basis to M/s. Hyderabad Beverages for further distribution to the vendors in the State of Andhra Pradesh whereas outside Andhra Pradesh the goods are sold to M/s. Nagpur Frozen Foods P. Ltd., Nagpur; that the demand of duty has been confirmed and penalty has b...
Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. and Suraya Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC83
1. In these two appeals since the issue involved is interlinked, therefore, they were taken together for hearing and decision.2. Shri S.K. Pahwa, learned Consultant appearing for both the appellants pleaded that on the basis of excess material found at the premises of M/s. Surya Enterprises (Registered dealer), officers of the Directorate of Central Excise Intelligence conducted enquiries and it was found that these goods were supplied to M/s. Surya Enterprises by M/s. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. Shri Sandeep Kumar, Proprietor of Surya Enterprises also confirmed in his statement dated 11.4.2001 that these excess ceramic tiles found in his premises were received by them from Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. without cover of any invoice. On enquiry from M/s. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd., Shri R.C. Rawat, General Manager (Finance) of M/s. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. stated that they despatched the goods to Surya Enterprises though corresponding invoice had been raised on some builders. Therefore, prima-facie, it appe...
Albert David Ltd. and Dr. D.P. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC171
1. The appellants are manufacturers of pharmaceutical products including various types of Intravenous Fluids (hereinafter referred to as "IV Fluids"] falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Taritf Act, IV Fluids were exempt from Central Excise duty under Sr. No. 47A of Notification No. 6/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000 as amended by Notification No. 36/2000-CE dated 4.5.2000. The appellants claimed this exemption in respect of some of their products and accordingly cleared the goods without payment of duty during the period from or after 4.5.2000 up to 28.2.2001. From 1.3.2001, they have cleared such goods on payment of duty in view of Notification No. 3/2001-CE dated 1.3.2001, where under "Intravenous fluids, which are used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment" were exempted from duty vide Sr.No. 56 to the Table to the Notification. The products which were cleared without payment of duty during 4.5.2000--28.2.2001 by M/s Albert David Ltd. (hereinafter referred ...
A.S.W.M. Spinning Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT217TriDel
1. The appellants were denied credit of Rs. 29,442/- and a penalty of Rs. 3,000/- was imposed on them on the ground that they received the inputs under invoice No. 33, dated 8-7-1999 for which they had taken credit under RG 23A Part II, but did not make entry in RG 23A Part I.Shri R. L. Mehra, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants pleaded that the invoice No. 33, dated 8-7-1999 is for waste of synthetic filament of polymides wherein waste of NTC (drawn) 4661 Kgs, and waste of NTC (Card) 1929 Kgs. was received by the appellants. He pleaded that by clerical mistake entry in RG 23A Part I was made for 4661 Kgs. and the entry for the other quality of 1929 Kgs. could not be made although in the RG 23A Part II, they had entered the full amount of credit. He pleaded that they had produced the affidavit of the dealer who supplied the goods along with his RG 23D Register. But this was not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that this was produced subsequently. He rel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »