Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments

Sybly Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)824

ORDERT.N. Chopra, A.M.:These cross-appeals, each filed by the assessed as well as the revenue, are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 15-11-1999, for assessment year 199697. In revenue's appeal, following grounds have been raised :'1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction of Rs. 21,28,859 under section 80-I calculated @ 25 per cent on the amount of Rs. 85,15,435 (Rs. 93,20,232 profit of unit-I minus Rs. 8,04,797 income from other sources) as against the deduction of Rs. 4,42,088 allowed by the assessing officer ignoring the fact that as per provisions contained in sections 80AB and 80B(5), the deduction under section 80-I has to be calculated only on that part of the profit of the entitled industrial undertaking which is included in the gross total income and not on the total profit of industrial undertaking only. As the gross total income of the assessed after setting off loss...

Prachi Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT875TriDel

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the Adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.3. The issue involved in this appeal is whether process of swaging undertaken by the appellants on mild steel tubes amount to manufacture.we find that this issue is already decision by the Tribunal in the appellant's own case CCE, Chandigarh-I Vs. M/s. Prachi Industries vide Final Order No. 3-7/2002-B dated 4.1.2002. In this case of Tribunal held that the process of swaging undertaken by the appellants on mild steel tubes amounts to manufacture and liable for central excise duty.In view of this decision of the Tribunal, we uphold the impugned order in this regard.4. The contention of the appellants is also that they are entitled for modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the final products and they are also entitled for abatement of duty in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CCE, Delhi Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd., reported in 20...

Gillete India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT60TriDel

1. When this appeal was taken up for hearing the learned Departmental Representative pointed out that in view of the provisions contained under the First Proviso to Section 35B this Tribunal may not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Relevant portion of the proviso is as follows : - [Provided that no appeal shall lie to the appellant Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred in clause (b) if such order relates to - (b) a rebate of duty of excise on goods exported to any country or territory outside India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods, which are exported to any country to territory outside India; 2. Since the issue raised in this appeal relates to claim for rebate of duty of excise under clause (b) learned Departmental Representative is fully justified in raising the objection. In view of the above, we transfer this appeal to the Joint Secretary, Revision Application (Revie...

Amit Ayurvedic and Cosmetic Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC234

1. The issue raised in these appeals of M/s. Amit Ayurvedic & Cosmetic Products (I) Pvt. Ltd. Daman is the Central Excise Classification of "Parachute Dandruff Solution Coconut Hair Oil" manufactured by them marketed by M/s. Marico Industries Ltd., Mumbai. Manufacturer assessee claimed classification and payment of duty under Chapter sub-heading NO. 3305.10. As against that, the impugned order has held the product to be classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3305.99. There are consequent demand for duty, interest and imposition of penalties. 2.For better understanding of the dispute, we may extract the relevant tariff Headings :Heading No. Sub-heading No. Description of goods3305 Preparations for use on the hair 2. The contention of the appellant is that 3305.10 is specific for "perfumed hair oils and since the appellants product is a hair oil that has been perfumed, it should rightly be classified under the specific heading for it and not under the residuary heading - "others". A...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dewas Metal Section Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT52TriDel

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue, the issue relates to the imposition of penalty on the respondents under Rule 173Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty on the ground that duty was deposited by the respondents before the issuance of the show cause notice. He has relied upon the ratio of law laid "down in Karnal Agricultural Industry P. Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-III - 2002 (53) RLT 921 and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai [2003 (156) E.L.T.955 (T) = 2003 (55) RLT 816].2. I have heard the learned JDR and representative of the respondents and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the record shows that on 12-7-2001, Central Excise officers conducted physical verification of the stock of the finished goods lying in the factory of the respondents. They detected the shortage of 8300 Kgs. of finished goods (angles/shapes/sections). This shortage was not disputed by the respondents. They even themselves deposited the duty of Rs. 29,614/- voluntarily. How...

Ultra Fine Fillers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT331TriDel

1. The appellants filed these appeals against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. In the impugned order the Commissioner held that from the process of manufacture of calcite powder as explained by Shri Dilip Gulundia, Director of assessee and the report of the chemical examiner it is evident that the product manufactured by the assessee is calcite powder having coating of fattry matter which was also subjected to roasting with the help of heater mixer hence will fall out side the scope of Chapter Heading 2505.Coated calcite powder is, therefore, correctly classifiable under sub-heading 3824.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and chargeable to Central Excise duty.2. The contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner of Central Excise relied upon the report of the Chemical Examiner while deciding the classification of the product in question. The appellant made a request to the Commissioner of Central Excise for Cross-examination of the Chemical...

Betul Tyre and Tube (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC411

1. In these three appeals, filed by M/s. Betul Tyre and Tube (I) Ltd. and others, the issue involved is whether the tyres manufactured by them are meant for light commercial vehicle (LCV in short) or for tractor front and trailer, as claimed by them.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, ld. Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants Company manufacture pneumatic tyres for two wheeled, three wheeled and four wheeled motor vehicles; they also manufacture tyres for saloon cars and for tractor front and for trailer apart from tyres for animal driven vehicles and for power tillers; that they were availing the benefit of Notification No. 41/89 dated 1.3.89 wherein the rate of duty to be paid on a tractor front tyre was Rs. 150 and duty to be paid on a tractor trailer tyre of size 7.50 x 16 was Rs. 280%; that they, being small scale industry were paying 50% of the duty leviable on the types in terms of Notification No. 231/85-C.E., dated 11.11.85; that in the sale pattern followed by them they were effectin...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Zeto Engg. P. Ltd. and Shri Amrik

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In both these appeals which hare been directed against common order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of modvat credit to the respondents on the GP sheets. The adjudicating authority disallowed the modvat credit of the disputed amount of Rs. 3,44,398/- on these sheets and also imposed penalty of equal amount on the company appellant No. 1 and further imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on its Managing Director, appellant No.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has however reversed that order in toto.2. The learned JDR has contended that the GP sheets had never been used by the respondents in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products i.e. parts of tractors supplied to HMT and as such they could not claim modvat credit on the same. They in fact used HR/CR sheets in the manufacture of their products which they brought into the factory in a clandestine manner. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside.3. On the other hand, the le...

Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC198

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Pvt. Ltd., is whether Dant Manjan Lal, manufactured by them, is classifiable as ayurvedic medicine under heading 30.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or the same is classifiable under Sub-heading 3306.10 as tooth powder and tooth paste and whether the demand of duty can be confirmed against them.2. Shri Vivek Kohli, learned Advocate, fairly mentioned that the Larger bench of the Tribunal in their own matter as reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 459 (T-LB), has held that Dant Manjan Lal is classifiable under heading 33.06 of the Central Excise Tariff as tooth powder. He, however, mentioned that the appeal, filed by them, has been admitted by the hon'ble Supreme Court as per order dated 28.07.03. He has, further, submitted that the demand of duty cannot be confirmed against them as the CBEC has clarified, vide circular dated 25.9.91, that Dant Manjan Lal manufactured by them, would merit cla...

K.H. Pandhi Vs. the Presiding Officer, Addl. Labour Court and the Mana ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT101; 2004(73)DRJ249; [2004(101)FLR518]; (2004)IILLJ877Del; 2004(3)SLJ88(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 20th December 1977 passed by the Additional Labour Court in ID No. 150 of 1977 wherein it was held that the Petitioner is not a 'workman'. Consequently, it was held that there was no industrial dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent-Management. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Petitioner reached the age of superannuation and, thereforee, even if the Award is set aside, in view of the long lapse of time, it would be an unnecessary burden on both parties to remand the controversy for a decision on merits, that is on the question whether the Petitioner's services were validly terminated or not. Since reinstatement of the Petitioner in service with the Respondent-Management cannot be ordered, at best, the only question that can arise, even if the Petitioner succeeds in the Labour Court on remand, is about the quantum of compensation or back wages that may be due to him. It is on this basis that I ...