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.
Amtek Auto Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT79TriDel
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of automobile parts. The Central Excise Officers visited the appellant's factory on 22.12.98 and did a stock taking. They seized goods worth over Rs.13 lakhs on the ground that they were finished goods not entered in the RG-I. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated for the confiscation of the seized goods under Section 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and imposition of penalty. This is the second round of proceeding and goods remain confiscated under Rule 173Q with a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The charge is that the goods have not been accounted for.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the goods have not reached RGI stage. He points out that the goods were found in the inspection area the time of stock taking itself, the appellants' representative Shri Ram Singh had explained the reason for not entering the goods in the RG-I as they were awaiting final inspection.3. I have heard the learned DR and also perused the record...
Rotomac Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC727
2. The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants are manufacturing Catalyst and were clearing the same without payment of duty. The demand was confirmed in respect of Catalyst cleared by the appellant.3. The contention of the appellant is that they were not manufacturing the Catalyst but they were purchasing the same from the market and clearing with industrial varnish manufactured by them. The contention is that the Revenue had not produced any evidence to show that the appellants are manufacturing the Catalyst, therefore, the demand is not sustainable.The appellant also relied upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in their own case reported as CCE v. Rotomac Elctricals (P) Ltd., 2001 (130) ELT 927.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the issue is the earlier case was in respect of the assessable value of industrial Varnish with Catalyst, a bought out ite...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhilai Engg. Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC728
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Revenue, is whether Coil Transfer Car, manufactured by M/s. Bhilai Engineering Corporation, is classifiable under Heading No. 84.55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned Order, or under Heading No. 86.06 of the Tariff as claimed by Revenue.2. We heard Shri O.P. Arora, learned SDR, and Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate. The Coil Transfer Car is used in Rolling Mill for transporting of coils in the Rolling Mill. The impugned Car moves on rails. The rival Headings reads as under :- 3. It is contended by the learned Advocate that Coil Transfer Car is a material handling apparatus used in the Rolling Mill; that as such it is part of the Rolling Mill and hence is classifiable under Heading No.84.55; that it is used for transfer of hot rolled coils from the coiler to a short distance of within 500 meters; that the coil transfer car is an auxiliary equipment of metal rolling mi...
Swastik Indl. Power Lines (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT79TriDel
2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal whereby the duty was confirmed in respect of Sakaran (Niarai Mitti) on the ground that Niara Mitti containing minor pieces of copper.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of drawing wires of copper. During the manufacture of these wires some waste is generated in the form of copper scrap, which was cleared on payment of duty. The appellants were also clearing certain floor sweepings known as Niara Mitti. The Revenue is asking for duty in respect of the clearance of Niara Mitti (floor sweeping).4. The contention of the appellant is that this waste consisting of waste material such as tank mitti, floor sweeping, Acid water and lubricant soap water which may contain small quantity of metal. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2004 (168) E.L.T.75 where the Tribunal held that waste of ferro allo...
Rolcon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC426
2. The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that Link Plates and Link Pins manufactured by the appellant and cleared to M/s. Elecon Engineering Co. are classifiable Under Heading 8431.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, as parts of material handling equipment. The appellant claimed the classification Under Heading 7308.20 as part of Industrial Chains.3. The contention of the appellant is that they are manufacturing Industrial Chains which are classifiable Under Heading 73.08 of Tariff and these Link Plates are being used as part of the Industrial Chains, therefore, are rightly classifiable alongwith the Industrial Chains.4. The contention of the Revenue is that Link Plates and Links Pins which are manufactured as part of Industrial Chains are classifiable Under Heading 7308.02 of the Central Excise Tariff whereas the Link Plates and Link Pins, in dispute, are manufactured by them on the special de...
Brar Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC807
1. Shri Ajay Jain, Ld. Advocate pleaded that the dispute is for taking credit on one invoice issued by M/s Baba Balak Nath Steel Pvt. Ltd. in the month of November, 1998. He pleaded that certificate placed at page 39 of the paper book issued by the Inspector of Central Excise, Mandi Govindgarh clearly shows that in November 1998, M/s. Baba Balak Nath Steel Pvt. Ltd. had paid duty of Rs. 1,37,225. M/s. Baba Balak Nath Steel Pvt. Ltd. were contesting the capacity fixed by the Commissioner and their case was decided by the Tribunal under Final Order No.A/718-722/2001-NB(SM) dated 27.8.2001 wherein it was held that letters issued by the Superintendent for recovery of duty short-paid in pursuance of the impugned order of the Commissioner must be set aside for having been issued without complying with the provision of Section 11A of the Act. He pleaded that against this order of the Tribunal, the department has gone in appeal before the High Court and the case is still pending there. He als...
Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Mfg. Co. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC595
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. is whether the extended period of limitation is invocable for demanding Central Excise duty.2. Shri B.L. Barasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture, inter alia, carbon paper, which was classified by them under Tariff Item 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff; that they were periodically filing the classification lists under Rule 173 B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with the Department and these classification lists were duly approved by the proper officer; that a show cause notice dated 8.2.1980 was issued to them for classifying the impugned product under Tariff Item 17(2) and another show cause notice dated 11.3.80 was issued proposing to withdraw the classification approved by the Excise Department; that, subsequently, a letter dated 21.4.80 was issued to them for demanding differential duty for the period from 16.3.76 to 31.12.1979; that the Commissioner, under th...
D.P. Exports Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC711
1. These three appeals are filed, by M/s. D.P. Exports on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed their appeals by following the decision of High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Shree Pipes Ltd. v. Union of India, 1994 (46) ECC 304 (Raj) : 1995 (79) ELT 405 where High Court has observed that in relation to customs supervision/cost recovery charges an order of the Assistant Collector dealing with a claim of the refund of recovery charges is an order which has been issued in his executive powers and is not appealable under Section 128 of the Customs Act. Shri Rajesh Chhibar, learned Advocate, pleaded that they are not questioning the recovery of supervision charges for which they have taken up the matter with the concerned Commissioner of Customs. They are only contesting the imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act. Since the recovery of the supervision charges is a function of financial administration of the Government and the Rajasthan High Court ...
Broadway Exports Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC118
1. The issue involved in these three appeals is whether the credit taken by the appellants on the basis of the invoices issued by the manufacturers certifying that duty liability to be discharged under Rule 96ZP/goods removed under Rule 96ZP(3) satisfies the conditions of the Notification No. 58/97-GE.2. Shri Sudhir Malhotra, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants pleaded that in Appeal No. E/1995/04-NB(S) the amount of duty in dispute in Rs. 76,912 which was the credit taken by the appellants on the basis of the invoices issued by Bhawani Steel Rolling Mills and Kaushal Steel Rolling Mills. He pleaded that the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-IV, Mandi Gobindgarh has issued a certificate certifying that M/s. Bhawani Steel Rolling Mills have discharged the duty on full and final basis alongwith interest on delayed payments for the duty deferred during the Compounded Levy Scheme for the period 9/97 to 3/2000 on the basis of the capacity assessed by the Commissioner vide ...
L.G. Electronics India Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC329
2. There is a duty demand of Rs. 99,419 and penalty of Rs. 15,000. The duty demand is in regard to 13 ACs and 5 Washing machines which have been held to be removed without payment of duty by the appellant.3. The contention of the appellant is that the removals in question took place in the early days of production in their factory. The removals were also for purposes like testing etc. and not on sale. In most cases duty had also been paid. The appellants, therefore, contended that the duty, which remains to be paid, was only in respect of five ACs and that the amount worked out to Rs. 33,263 and that amount was debited by them immediately on being pointed out by the Central Excise authorities. The appellant's contention was not accepted by the lower authorities in regard to ACs cleared under invoice No. 1 dated 27.3.98. This invoice mentions duty paid clearance of two ACs on 27.3.98. The lower authorities have held that this invoice is not valid in respect of the alleged clearances si...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »