Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Cc (Sea)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(126)LC364Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., the issue involved is whether the technical know-how fees paid by them is includible in the assessable value of the goods imported by them.2. Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants, manufacturer of passenger motor vehicles, entered into a "Licence and Technical Assistance Agreement' with M/s. Mitsubishi Motor Corporation, Japan (M/s. Mitsubishi in short) on 1.11.1995; that the said Agreement was split into two by another Agreement dated 31.3.1998; that they also entered into another Agreement 'Component Supply Agreement' dated 16.11.1995; that the total investment on their plant and machinery was Rs. 153.10 crores; that out of this, capital goods imported form M/s.Mitsubishi were to the extent of Rs. 10.20 crores, mainly in the form of jigs and fixtures; that all other capital goods were either purchased from indigenous sources or were imported from various other foreign suppliers; that the Deputy Comm...

National Engg. Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT386TriDel

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 55,60,321/- on the ground that the above amount of duty was required to be paid by the assessee who are engaged in the manufacture of taper roller bearings as they were charging and collecting excess amount of Central Sales Tax from the buyers as shown in the invoices, but not paying the same to the Government account and therefore, the amount was includible in the assessable value of goods manufactured by the assessees for the purpose of computation of Central Excise duty. She has also imposed a penalty of equal amount upon the appellants in terms of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act in addition to ordering recovery of interest on the duty amount under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the contention of the appellants that it was not a case of partial exemption in respect of sales of bearings in the course of inter-state trade under Notification No. ...

Cce Vs. Fairdeal Agro Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC270

1. In his appeal, the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) only to the extent of setting aside of the penalty against the respondents. The respondents have filed cross objection and claimed decision on merits.2. We have gone through the cross objection and heard the learned JDR.From the record, it is evident that the respondents are running hot re-rolling mills. During the relevant period, i.e. 1998-99, they were working under the compounded levy scheme. The Commissioner vide order dated 19.9.97 provisionally determined the ACP of the respondents mills and before the finalization of the ACP, the Superintendent in the meanwhile, issued show cause notice to the respondents for payment of duty on the basis of provisional determination of ACP but they did not make full payment. They, as we find from the impugned order, out of the total duty of Rs. 1,49,112, paid only Rs. 12,500 vide TR challan dated 12.3.99 and still du...

Cce Vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT406TriDel

1. In this appeal, the issue relates to the denial of modvat credit to the respondents on the capital goods manufactured from the duty paid inputs and thereafter used in the manufacture of the final product. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the credit by referring to the provisions of Rule 57-D of the Rules, through impugned order.2. The Revenue has sought to deny the credit on the ground that the inputs had been utilized in the manufacture of capital goods which were exempt from payment of duty but in our view, this ground is wholly mis-conceived and cannot be accepted, in view of the provisions of Rule 57-D which read as under : "Rule 57-D Credit of duty not to be denied or varied on certain circumstances : 2) Credit of specified duty shall not also be denied or varied in case any intermediate products have come into existence during the course of manufacture of final products or the inputs are used in the manufacture of capital goods as defined in Rule 57-Q and such i...

Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC343

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 63/95-C.E. dated 16-3-1995 is available to them in respect of explosives manufactured by them.2. Shri C. Shyam Prasad, Dy. Manager Finance of the Appellants, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Industrial Explosives at the site of customers manufacturing/extracting coal from the mines; that Notification No. 63/95-C.E. exempts goods manufactured in mines from payment of Central Excise duty; that they transport the different ingredients required to manufacture explosive to mine site and blend them there; that as the final product emerges at the site, the benefit of Notification No. 63/95-C.E. is available to them; that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Anil Chemicals & Inds.Ltd. v. CCE, Bhubneswer - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 91 (Tri.) has held that emulsion matrix fuel oil, and ammonium nitrate prilled were mixed together in a compartment ...

ProdelIn India P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC423

1. M/S. Prodelin India (P) Ltd., is a Joint Venture between M/s.Prodelin Corporation, USA and Mr. Ashok Mago of New Delhi. The joint venture was set for purpose of assembly and installation of antennae.For the said purpose the appellant joint venture imported antenna part from their foreign partner. Customs authorities took the view that, since the transaction was between related parties, the purchase price of the join venture cannot be accepted for the purpose of assessment of the imported antennae parts to duty. The appellant resisted the proposal by pointing out that the price is the full and sole consideration for the imported goods and such a transaction value rightly constitute the assessable value for the purpose of customs assessment. Under the impugned order, Commissioner held that apart from the fact that the import is from joint venture partner, the transaction is also affected by a technical agreement between the parties where under an amount of US$ 2,58,000 was payable as...

Atma Tube Products Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the benefit of MODVAT credit was denied in respect of the 16 invoices. The 13 invoices were in the name of the Head Office of the appellants and credit was taken at the factory. In respect of 3 invoices the credit was denied on the ground that invoices were not in the name of the appellants.3. The contention of the appellants is that the 13 invoices, which were in the name of their Head Office, were duly endorsed by the Head Office and, thereafter, the credit was taken. In respect of the 3 invoices, which were not in the name of the appellants. The contention is that there is a procedure regarding sale in transit of the goods and the invoices were endorsed in their name.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the 3 invoices which were endorsed in their name were actually in favour of the Regent Industries as well as Road-master industries of India Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue relie...

Tirupati Cigarettes Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(126)LC121Tri(Delhi)

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes and they were receiving cut tobacco under Chapter X Procedure of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, under Notification No. 356/86-CE dated 24.6.1986 whereby concessional rate of duty was available to cut tobacco for use in the manufacture of machine rolled cigarettes. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for demand of duty on the ground that since the weight of the cigarettes contains the weight of tissue paper as well, it was not regular to deduct the weight thereof to find the actual quantity of the cut tobacco consumed as shown by the appellants in the return and was thus, the appellants shown short consumption of tobacco to the extent of the weight of tissue paper contained in the good cigarettes. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand in respect of the cut tobacco equal to the weight of tissue papers used...

R.G. Joshi Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC195

1. First respondent State Bank of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') has filed O.A. 190/95 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against the appellant (7th defendant in the O.A.; and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') and seven others for the recovery of the money allegedly due to it. The appellant filed the I.A. 532/2004 before the DRT for summoning Mr. Syed Sarfraz Ahmad, the Hand Writing Expert for giving evidence pertaining to his report dated 8.9.2003. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT rejected the application by the impugned order dated 27.4.2004 observing that the evidentiary value of the report will be judged at the time of the final arguments, and that there was no necessity for calling the Hand Writing Expert to prove his report as it is simply an opinion of the expert.2. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. The respondent has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal, to which...

T.R.S. Goel Vs. Bank of India and anr.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC261

1. First respondent-Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed Suit No. 818/76 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the appellant (2nd defendant in the suit; and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendant') and others. After the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 came into force, the said suit was transferred to the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT), and was taken on its file as O.A. 102/97. The DRT passed the ex pane final order on 12.10.98. The appellant-defendant filed an application to set aside the ex parte final order as against him. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT rejected the said application in limine by the impugned order dated 8.5.2002. Aggrieved, the appellant-defendant has preferred this appeal, and the respondent-Bank has filed a reply opposing the same.2. The appellant-defendant has also filed Miscellaneous Application 502/2002 for perm...