Delhi Court April 2004 Judgments

Biotech Synergy Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT400TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Biotech Synergy Ltd., is whether the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on their finished goods received back, was eligible to them.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture basically bulk drugs and avail Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 at the material time; that during the period from March, 1997 to August, 1997, they had availed Modvat Credit of the duty in respect of three consignments of bulk drugs, which were cleared earlier by them on payment of duty; that these goods were not accepted by the consignees and they had to receive the same back into the factory; that they availed Modvat credit on returned goods; that the returned goods were reprocessed and were cleared subsequently on payment of Central Excise duty; that the Deputy Commissioner has, however, disallowed the Modvat Credit on the ground that they should have followed the pr...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sai Machine Tools Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT100TriDel

1. In this appeal the Revenue has challenged part of the impugned order-in-appeal, vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC and interest imposed on the respondents by the adjudicating authority.2. I have heard both the sides. The perusal of the record shows that the respondents were earlier working under the SSI exemption Notification 1/93. But during the period in question (1-4-1997 to 25-3-1998), they crossed the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs, but still continued to clear the goods without payment of duty and also did not apply for registration to the Central Excise Department. The duty evaded by them was worked out at Rs. 2,26,578/-. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC. The said authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the Director of the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) has modified that order of the adjudicating authority by setting aside t...

Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC338

1. The appellants are manufacturers of I.C. Engine parts like piston and gudgeon pins. The appellants also procure and supply piston rings and circlips. These bought out items are at times supplied along with manufactured items, and at other times, separately. Under the order impugned herein it has been held that the bought out piston rings and circlips are parts of piston assembly and therefore, their value should also form part of the assessable value of the piston assemblies cleared by the appellants. A duty demand of over Rs. 1.7 crores and an equal of penalty have been made on the appellants.2. The contention of the appellant is that the pistons and gudgeon pins and piston rings and circlips are all different parts of I.C. engine but none of these items is to be treated as part of another item. That is to say, piston rings and circlips cannot be treated as parts of pistons and subjected to valuation of duty on that basis. The appellant have submitted that the very fact of separat...

Autolite (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC515

1. The issue involved in this appeal/filed by M/s. Autolite (India) Ltd., relates to the manner of computing the duty in terms of Notification No. 2/95-CE, dated 4.1.95.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, a hundred percent Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU), manufacture halogen bulbs which they were permitted to clear into Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) subject to the conditions specified in Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 4.1.1995; that this Notification exempts all excisable goods manufactured in a 100% EOU and allowed to be sold in India from so much of the duty of excise as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of fifty percent of each of the duties of customs, which would be leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act on the like goods manufactured outside India if imported into India; that the demand of duty has been confirmed on the ground that they were required to work out the duty liability first and thereafter 50% of the amount of eac...

Cce Vs. Mordi Textiles and Processors

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(115)LC569Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether the duty of Excise is chargeable from M/s. Mordi Textiles & Processors Ltd. on dyed yarm.2. We head Shri D.N. Chaudhary, learned SDR and Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate for the Respondents, It transpired that the issue involved in the present appeal is suquarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M. Tex and D.K. Processors (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur 2001 (136) ELT 73 (Tribunal) which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as the appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismissed as . The Appellants manufacture man-made processed fabrics and dyed yarn. They receive grey yarn from M/s.Bhilwara Melba De Witte Ltd., for dying under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They were clearing the dyed yarn without payment of duty to M/s. Bhilwara Ltd. who were using the same for manufacture of woven/knitted fabrics. The said fabric was again received by the Respondents for processing under ...

Tapsya Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT108TriDel

1. The issue involved in these two appeals filed by M/s. Tapsya Steels (P). Ltd. and M/s. Doaba Rolling Mills Ltd. is whether the value of clearance of M/s. Tapsya Steels Pvt. Ltd. is to be clubbed with the value of clearance of M/s. Doaba Rolling Mills Ltd. and consequently the benefit of small scale exemption is to be denied to the Appellant No. 1.2. Shri P.C. Jain, learned Advocate submitted that Appellant No. 1 M/s.Tapsya Steels (P) Ltd. manufactures MS ingots with the help of old and used induction furnace purchased from M/s. Doaba Rolling Mills Ltd., Appellant No. 2; that the Appellant No. 1 is a private Ltd. Company holding separate registration, income tax and sales tax and as such are an independent manufacturer; that M/s. Doaba Rolling Mills Ltd. also manufacture MS ingots and runners and risers; that they held a separate registration under Factory Act, Registration under ESI, Income tax and sales tax; that it has been clarified in Meerut Collectorate Trade Notice No. 53/92,...

Maharaja Agarsen Iron Foundry Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT232TriDel

1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods during the material period. After investigations in regard to the clearances of Hubs effected by them during the period 1-1-97 to 31-3-2000, the Department issued a show cause notice to them on 12-11-2001 demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 43,83,440/- on the Hubs for the said period and proposing to impose penalties on them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The demand was based on the allegation that the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 76/86-C.E., dated 10-2-86 was not available to the Hubs manufactured and cleared by the appellants during the aforesaid period. The demand was raised by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act, which was based on the allegation that the appellants had wilfully suppressed material facts from the Department to evade payment of Central Excise duty. The proposal...

Cce Vs. Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the extended period of time limit is invokable for demanding Central Excise duty from M/s.Birla Ericsson Opticals Ltd. 2. Shri H.C. Verma, learned D.R., Submitted that the Respondents M/s.Birla Ericsson Opticals Ltd. Manufacture PIJF Telephone Cable and Optical Fibre Cable and they availed of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs; that the Additional Commissioner under Order-in-Original No.51/2002 dated 28.03.2002 has confirmed the demand of duty on katchra scrap invoking the extended period of limitation; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order has set aside the demand being time barred holding that the matter was not entirely free from doubt in view of a number of judgments about the exciseability of waste and scrap.The learned D.R., further, submitted that the Respondents had cleared the scrap during January, 1997 to November, 1997 without filing the classification list and without observing Central Excise procedur...

income Tax Officer Vs. Selchem Engineers (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)90ITD732(Delhi)

1. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A)-II, New Delhi dated 30/9/99 whereby he allowed the unabsorbed depreciation for the earlier years to be set off against the income of the assessee from house property for the year under consideration i.e.A.Y. 97-98 as claimed by the assessee.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the assessee's claim to set off the unabsorbed depreciation for earlier years against the income from house property for the year under consideration (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned claim of the assessee') was disallowed by the Assessing Officer keeping in view the provisions of Section 32(2) as amended by Finance (No. 2) Act 1996 with effect from 1/4/97. The learned CIT(A), however, allowed this claim of the assessee relying on the speech of the Finance Minister in Parliament while moving the Finance (No. 2) Bill of 1996 assuring that the unab...

Mohd Rafi Vs. Dushyant Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT487; 2004(74)DRJ450

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.2.2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge upholding the judgment dated 7.11.2001 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi convicting the petitioner to undergo R.I. for one year R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for two months.2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the respondent I have gone through the record of the case as also the judgment under challenge. Learned counsel states that she is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction. I, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner that the petitioner is in jail since the last two months. She submits that the occurrence is of 1992 and the petitioner has already suffered the ordeal of trial for over 11 years. Besi...