Delhi Court June 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.
Haryana Acrylic Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC162
1. These four appeals, arising out of a Common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 225 to 228/2003 dated 2.6.2003, have been filed by M/s. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. challenging the confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty and imposition of penalties.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Haryana Acrylic Mfg. Co. P. Ltd., Appellant No. 1, manufacture acrylic plastic sheets; that the Central Excise Officers intercepted two tempos loaded with acrylic sheets on 19.5.95; that the drivers produced the invoices to the Officers; that on checking the invoice book bearing serial Nos.1 to 50 in the factory, it was found that the last invoice issued from the said invoice book was bearing serial No.33 dated 17.5.95; that the Officers found one more invoice book from which the invoice Nos. 34 and 35 both dated 19.5.95 which were produced by the tempo drivers were issued; that Shri Bhupender Nath, General Manager, informed that 2198 kgs. of acrylic plastic she...
Paswara Papers Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC689
1. The issues involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Paswara Papers Ltd., are whether the Cenvat Credit of duty paid on light Diesel Oil (LDO) and Furnace Oil (FO) used in the manufacture of exempted products is available to them and whether the demand raised in show cause notice dated 4.7.2002 is time-barred.2. Shri Krishan Kant, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture Kraft Liner/Karft Board and avail of Cenvat credit on the various inputs used in the manufacture of their final product; that they are also availing the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-CE, dated 1.3.2000 (and subsequently Notification No. 3/2001-CE, dated 1.3.2001), which exempts wholly the first clearances of 3500 M.T. of paper and paper products; that they had crossed the limit of 3500 M.T. on 30.6.2000 and upto 30.6.2000, they availed the Cenvat Credit of the duty amounting to Rs. 21,18,351 paid on LDO and FO; that out of the said Credit, they utilised Rs. 80,300 towards payment of duty in Jun...
Summerking Electricals (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)(117)LC894Tri(Delhi)
2. Demand - Clandestine clearances and use of brand name--In view of the above decision of the Tribunal holding that all units are having separate and independent existence, the matter is remitted back to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for readjudication to decide whether there was any clandestin manufacture and/or clearances, and use of brand name, by any of the units, and/or whether the exemption limit provided in the notification was exceeded.1. These are sixteen appeals -eight appeals filed by M/s. Summerking Electricals (Pvt). Ltd. and seven others and eighth appeals filed by Revenue against a common Order-in-Original No. 37/Comm/Meerut-I/2001 dated 1.8.2001 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise, by which the Commissioner has clubbed the clearances, confirmed demand of duty, imposed penalties and confiscated machinery etc.2.1 Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, mentioned that the following six companies/firms which are independent of each others, manufacture ele...
Cce Vs. Video Electronics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)(116)LC184Tri(Delhi)
1. In these two appeals filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 87/89-CE d (T)ated 1.3.1889 is available to the Television sets manufactured by both the respondents.2. Both the respondents M/s. Video Electronics Ltd. and M/s. Video on TV Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd. manufacture 'Crown' brand coloured Television sets with in built remote control facility; that Notification No.87/89-CE dated 1.3.1989 provides a concessional rate of duty Rs. 225C per set in respect of television sets without remote control facility; that the rate of duty in respect of TV sets with remote control facility is Rs. 2500/-. The Additional Commissioner, under Order-in-Original dated 53/2000 dated 31.10.2000, confirmed the demand of duty against both the respondents besides imposing penalties and confiscated four coloured TVs sets seized from the premises of M/s.Video Electronics Ltd. and gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- holding t...
A.R. Plastics P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT413TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 1-8-2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties on the appellants.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the duty demand could not be confirmed as the same is time barred. Similarly the penalty according to the Counsel also could not be confirmed on the appellants. The impugned order deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.3. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the file shows that the factory premises of the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP strips, and woven bags, etc. was visited by the officers of the Central Excise Department on 2-8-2000 and raw material involving excise duty of Rs. 2,04,830/- and Rs. 61,424/- equal to the Cenvat credit, was...
Ordnance Factory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC778
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Ordnance Factory is whether the benefit of Notification No. 62/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 is available to the waste and scrap cleared outside the Ordnance Factory.2. Shri U.S. Bhatt, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture arms & ammunitions and parts thereof which Factory in the manufacture of parts of ammunition which are ultimately used for defence purposes; that simply because the Appellants do not have capacity of conversion of brass scrap into strips and sends scrap to job workers for conversion into strips it does not mean that scrap in question is not intended for consumption by the Members of Armed Forces of the Union or by such Ordnance Factory. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that show cause notice dated 30-8-2001 was issued for demanding the duty for the period from 1-8-96 to 31-3-2001 and show cause notice dated 27-1-2001 was issued for demanding duty for the period from 1-4-2001 to 30-6-2001; that...
Dsm Anti-infectives India (Pvt.) Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC540
1. This is an application by M/s. DSM Anti-Infectives India (Pvt.) Ltd. for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order Nos.697-698/2003 NB(C), dated 19-11-2003 [2004 (165) E.L.T. 69 (T)].2. Shri V. Swaminathan, learned Consultant, submitted that the issue decided by the Final Order in question was whether the re-processing operations undertaken by the Applicants on the duty paid bulk drugs/ received under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 amounts to deemed manufacture in terms of Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the Tribunal has upheld both the Orders-in-Original dated 15-11-2002 and 4-3-2003 on merits by holding that the re-processing operations undertaken by them amounts to deemed manufacture in terms of the third ingredient in Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the Tariff; that the Tribunal has also held in Para 9 of the Final Order in question that the extended period of limitation for demanding duty is invocable as they had not ...
Banswara Syntex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC144
1. In this appeal filed against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the adjustment of the interest amount under Section 11AB against the rebate claim sanctioned to the appellants.2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The learned Counsel has contended that such an adjustment could not be made and the entire rebate claim sanctioned to the appellants was required to be paid to them in -cash/cheque. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. But I am unable to subscribe to this contention of the learned Counsel. Under Section 11 of the Act, the competent authority has got the power to adjust the outstanding dues i.e. duty, interest, etc., from the refund or rebate claim of the assessee unless those dues had been quashed or set aside by the competent authority. Since Rs. 1,61,247/- were outstanding against the appellants on account of interest payable by them under Section 11AB, that amount has been rightly adjusted from the rebate claim of...
Orient Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT67TriDel
1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the duty demand in all of Rs. 8,31,673/- (Rs. 3,05,956/- under show cause notice dated 4-5-99 for the period October and November, 98 and Rs. 5,25,717/- under show cause notice dated 9-7-99 for the period January to May, 99). The learned Counsel has disputed the validity of the impugned order before me mainly on two grounds; firstly that both the show cause notices demanding the duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Rules were not issued by a competent officer. Secondly, that no penalty and interest could be imposed on the appellant under Sub-rule (1)(A) of Rule 96ZP, when duty had been demanded under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZP. The impugned order according to the Counsel on these two grounds is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. H...
Showpla (Delhi) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC161
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Showpla (Delhi) Ltd., relates to availment of Cenvat credit of the duty paid on capital goods transferred from their factory at Pune to their factory at Noida after lapse of a few years.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants have two units - one at Pune and another at Noida; that as their unit at Pune was to be expanded, they had imported Injection Moulding machines, etc. and also procured machines from the domestic market during the period from June, 1998 to August, 1998 on payment of the appropriate Additional Customs Duty/Central Excise duty; that the capital goods imported under 3 Bills of Entry Nos. 1576, 2912 and 2615 were received at Pune and entered in RG 23C, Part-I; that, however, credit was not taken in RG 23C, Part II in respect of one Bill of Entry No. 1576, dated ,5-6-1998; that in respect of Bill of Entry No. 2912, dated 9-6-98 they had taken part Modvat credit and in respect of Bill o...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »