Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments

Unistar Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC193

1. The first appellant is a manufacturer of plastic film sheets and plates. In the impugned order a duty demand of about Rs. 12 lakhs has been confirmed on it mainly on the ground that it had clandestinely produced and removed certain goods without payment of central excise duty. In addition, the order has confirmed the demand for interest on the duty amount. The second appellant is the Director of the first appellant, manufacturing company. A penalty of Rs. 35.000 has been imposed on him. The present appeals are directed against these orders.2. The duty demand has arisen from shortage of inputs and finished products observed at the time of stock taking at the appellant's premises on 2.4.1999. Even more so, from the fact that appellant was describing the goods under sale differently in different copies of the same invoice. From A perusal of such copies, we find that while the copy presented to the Excise described the goods as waste of low value, the other copies which were sent to th...

TIn Manufacturing Co. (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT752TriDel

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the deniel of modvat credit to them on the defective metal containers used by them as inputs.2. The right of the appellants to claim modvat credit on such inputs already stands decided in their favour by the Larger Bench in their own case (CCE, Meerut Vs. Tin Manufacturing Co. 2000 (119) ELT 290) wherein it has been held that they are entitled to modvat credit on the defective metal containers used as inputs by them in the manufacture of the final products viz. metal containers. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying modvat credit of the disputed amount to the appellants is set aside. The appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.(DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order correctly but the access and circulation is subject to the condition that Taxindiaonline is...

Jay Bharat Fabrics Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(114)LC215Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Jai Bharat Fabrics Mills Ltd. have filed the present appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 49/2003 dated 31.1.2003 regarding lapsing of Modvat Credit.2. We heard Shri R. Sudhinder, learned Advocate for the Appellants, and Miss Charul Baranwal, learned SDR for the Revenue. The learned Advocate submitted tat the Appellants are challenging vires of Sub-rule (7A) of Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 inserted by Notification No.11/2000-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2000. This Sub-rule reads as under: (7A) An independent texturiser who has availed of the credit of duty paid on inputs, shall be required to pay an amount equivalent to the credit, if any, allowed to him in respect of inputs lying in stock, or used in any finished excisable goods lying in stock as on the Is' of March, 2000 and after deducting the said amount from the balance, if any, lying in his credit, the balance, if any, still remaining shall lapse and shall not be allowed to be utilized for payment of duty on any excisabl...

Dewan Reclaim Rubber Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT200TriDel

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand was confirmed on the ground that their application for remission of duty has already been rejected and the appellants have not filed any appeal against that order.3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the order in respect of the rejection of their refund application has not been served on the appellants and they were not aware whether their application for remission of duty is rejected.4. Learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue produced a copy of the postal receipt vide which rejection (sic).5. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has specifically mentioned that remission application filed by the appellants was rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise which was conveyed by the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 27-12-2001 to the appellants. In spite of this position, the appellants never made any attempt to file the...

Cce Vs. Rungta Irrigation Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT476TriDel

1. This appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) classifying the subject goods (HDPE) pipes) under Sub-heading 8424.91 of the CETA Schedule as claimed in the revised classification declaration dated 15.1.2001 filed by the assessee. The appellant wants the goods to be classified under SH 3917.00. The ground of appeal state that it was admitted by the respondents in their earlier classification declaration effective from 1.3.2000 the HDPE pipes manufactured by them were classifiable under Sub-heading 3917.00. It is further stated that the 'manufacturing process' submitted by the party along with the said declaration indicated that the bare HDPE Pipes manufactured by them were an intermediate product generated at the first stage of the said process and could not be used as part of Sprinkler Irrigation System (SIS, for short). It is claimed that only the coupled pipe manufactured at the second stage of the process could be used as part of SIS.Another ground...

Matsushita Television and Audio Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC249

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Matsushila Television & Audio India Ltd., relates to the availability of Modvat Credit.2. Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture television and audio systems and avail of Modvat Credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs has been disallowed to them by the Department on the ground that they had failed to produce duty-paying documents for the purpose of defacement; that they had taken the Modvat Credit initially on the basis of the specified duty-paying documents, which were misplaced after taking the credit; that they had submitted photo copies of duty-paying documents alongwith the transport and receipt documents; that in respect of Bill of Entry, they had made efforts and obtained exchange control copy of Bill of Entry and the photo copy of the same had been produced before the Department which could have been easily verified ...

Som Dutt Builders Ltd. Vs. Smt. Phool Kumari, Wife of Late Manbirender ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ626

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 9th November, 1993 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act).2. The husband of the Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Special Welder on 19th July, 1988 to work in Amman (Jordan). While he was so working, on 7th February, 1990 at about 11.00 a.m., he felt unwell and was removed to hospital. He died at about 11.30 a.m. and as per the medical report, he had acute anteroseptal myocardia infarction. In other words, he died of a heart attack.3. The Respondent made a claim for compensation and by the impugned order, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.75,824/- payable within 30 days from the date of the order. 4. The issues framed for consideration by the Commissioner were as follows:- ''1. Whether the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections raised in the W/S.2. Whether the deceased died due to an accident arising out of and in...

Cit Vs. Smt. Kamla Sondhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN278(Delhi)

ORDERThe question mentioned hereinbelow has been referred by the Tribunal. However, the notice on the respondent has yet not been effected. Anyhow, notice is not required in the instant case as the case is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in favor of the assessed. The question that has been referred by the Tribunal is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that rental income from flat in a multistoreyed building is assessable in the hands of the assessed under the head 'Income from house property even though the assessed had not acquired legal title to the ownership of the said property through a registered sale deed in her favor ?'2. In view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. : [1997]226ITR625(SC) , the answer is required to be given in favor of the assessed and against the revenue. The Apex Court in the said decision has held as under :'We are conscious of the se...

Whale Stationery Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT405TriDel

1. M/s. Whale Stationery Products Ltd., the appellants in appeal No.E/566/2002, have two manufacturing units at Dehradun, one in UPSIDC Industrial Area and the other in Mohebewala Industrial Area (hereinafter referred to as 'Unit-I' and 'Unit-II' respectively).Unit-I manufactures carbon paper (TSH 4809.10) while Unit-II manufactures stencil carbon paper (TSH 4816.00). The company was incorporated in 1994 and its Unit-I and Unit-II started production of goods on 31-1-96 and 1-10-97 respectively. Some other companies which figure in this case are Delhi Paper Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. (DPPCL, for short), Deepee Security Printers' Pvt. Ltd. (DSPL), Whale Graphics (India) Ltd. (WGL) (whose name was "Deepee Computer Forms Pvt. Ltd." prior to 24-10-96) and Whale Overseas Incorporated (WOInc.). The appellant-company has also an office at 19, Gurgaon Road, Kapashera, New Delhi. M/s. DPPCL have a manufacturing unit in the same premises.M/s. WGL have a manufacturing unit at Dehradun and a branch of...

Akar Tools Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee, challenge is against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) dated 17.1.97. Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise approving the classification list submitted by the appellant granting them the benefit of Notification No. 13/86-Cus.Dated 9.2.86, as amended and read with Notification No. 83/90-Cus.Dated 20.3.90. Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that two rates were applicable in respect of the goods concerned and therefore, by applying the provisions contained in Explanation to Section 3 of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 the highest rate of duty at 50% ad valorem has to be applied. Aggrieved by the above the assessee has come up in appeal.2. Appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) manufacturing hand tools. They filed two classification lists effective for the periods from 22.2.94 and 1.3.94 before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad cla...