Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments

Sports and Leisure Apparel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT98TriDel

1. This is an application by M/s. Sports & Leisure Apparel Ltd. for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order Nos. 1239-1240/04 (A), dated 11-11-2004. [2005 (180) E.L.T. 429 (T)].2. We heard Shri B. L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate for Applicants, and Ms. Krishna A. Mishra, learned Senior Departmental Representative, for the Revenue. Learned Advocate submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal while passing the order in question, confirming the demand of duty against the applicants, has not considered two contentions raised by the applicants; that one of the contentions was that the quantification of duty is incorrect as the same had been confirmed on the retail sale price of the garment itself without considering the statutory abatement at the rate of 40% from the retail sale price. The other contention relates to their eligibility to the Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of garments.3. We have considered the submissions of both...

Simac Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC461

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. SIMAC Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 120/75-CE dated 30.4. 1975 is available to the goods manufactured by them.2. Shri G. Umapathi, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture hand knitting machines, which under an agreement are supplied in bulk to M/s. Singer Sewing Machine Company; that the said agreement, entered on 9.8.1963, was terminated on 3.1.1975; that with the introduction of Tariff Item 68 in the erstwhile Tariff w.e.f. 1.3.1975, their product became chargeable to duty under the said Tariff Item; that Notification No. 120/75 exempted excisable goods falling under Item 68 cleared from the factory and on sale, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the duty calculated on the basis of the invoice price charged by the manufacturer for the sale of such goods subject to the conditions stipulated in the Notification; that Proviso (iv) of the Noti...

Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC446

1. In these two appeals filed by M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd., the issue involved relates to determination of the assessable value of Ethyl Alcohol Denatured under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri Vikrant Kackria, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants are member of U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation; that they had cleared the impugned goods to M/s. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. at the rate of Rs. 11.28 per B.L.; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order had, enhanced the assessable value to Rs. 20.30 per B.L., the rate at which M/s. Oudh Sugar Ltd. had sold ethyl alcohol denatured during the material period; that the Adjudicating Authority has not given any reason for not considering the price charged by them to be the normal price under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act; that merely because the prices are fixed by the Federation, it cannot be a ground to allege that the price charged by them is not the normal price; that their customer...

C.C. and C.E. Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these three appeals, failed by the Revenue, the common issue involved is whether MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on HDPE bags is available to M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. 2. Shri O.P. Arora, learned SDR submitted that M/s. Grasim Industries manufacture various chemicals including Caustic Soda Lye; that they procured sale, which is not chargeable to Central Excise duty, from various sale manufacturers; that they send HDPE bags to the salt manufacturers for packing the salt in the bags for the purpose of transporting through railway; that the Adjudicating Authority disallowed the MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on HDPE bags on the ground that these are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products and that these bags are used for transporting raw-material from the manufacturer's premises to the premises of the respondents; that; however, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order, has allowed the MODVAT Credit on the ground that the bags are used in re...

Hcl Office Automation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT106TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of photocopiers. During the period in question i.e. 1987-91, the photocopiers were being assessed provisionally and the appellant was filing refund applications periodically on the ground that the provisionally assessed values were higher and that the appellant is entitled to deduction. The original Authority rejected their refund claims vide Order No. 11/98, dated 19th February 99. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner remanded the case to the original Authority vide Order-in-Appeal No. 258, dated 28-4-2000. Against that Order, the appellant came up before the this Tribunal and the Tribunal passed Final Order No. 116 of 2001-A, dated 16-3-2001 [2001 (133) E.LT. 102 (Tri.)l holding as under : "4. During the relevant period under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, assessment was to be made on the wholesale price. In case the sale was in retail, wholesale price was to be worked out after giving the required ded...

Cce Vs. Mahakoshal Potteries [Alongwith

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT289TriDel

1. In the above captioned appeals, the issue involved is common and as such, are being disposed of by this common order. The controversy in these appeals relates to the classification of Acid Resistant Clay bricks manufactured by the respondents. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had classified these goods under Chapter heading 6901 for the period prior to 14.5.97 and after expansion of Chapter heading, under Chapter heading 6901.10. The Revenue has contested this classification by asserting that since acid resistant bricks also fall under the category of fire clay bricks, are classifiable under Chapter sub heading 6902.90. If the classification found by the Commissioner (Appeals) is held to be legally correct, in that event, the respondents are entitled to benefit of Notification No. 8/96 and No. 5/97 for exemption from payment of duty, otherwise not.2. The learned SDR has contended that the bricks manufactured by the respondents are in fact fire clay bricks and not simple clay bric...

Murli Agro Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT277TriDel

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order in appeal, the issue relates to the refund of duty to the appellants on the inputs used by them in the manufacture/processing, of export goods, in terms of Notification No.43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) dated 26-6-2001. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the claim on the ground that the appellants were not registered with the Central Excise Department at the time of bringing the inputs in the factory and that the provisions of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001, were not strictly followed.The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Solvent Extracted Soya Oil and Toasted Soya Meal. Hexane is used by them for the manufacture of these goods. They exported Soya meal to South Asia during the period in dispute (24-10-2001 to 13-3-2002). They were entitled to procure the input (Hexane) without payment of duty for the purpose of ...

Chaudhary Ship Breakers Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC121

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants made an import of vessel as per the agreement. The price of the vessel was agreed as US$ 992887.20. After the import of the vessel as per amended memorandum of agreement the price was reduced to US $ 929388.60. The Customs authority rejected the revised price.3. The contention of the appellants is that as the supplier of the vessel, reduced the price because the ship was double skinned and as the appellants paid the reduced price and there was no evidence to show that appellants had paid over and above the agreed price. Hence the demand is unstainable. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Ahemdabad v. Atam Manohar Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 151 (Tri.-Mumbai) to submit that in this case the Tribunal held that assessment is to be done as per the reduced price....

National Panasonic India (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)899

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 28th Jan., 2004, for financial year 2001-02. The assessee is aggrieved against the invoking, the provisions of Sections 194-I and 194H of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), and thereby confirming the order passed under Section 201/201A(1A) of the Act. We first take up the issue relating to the applicability of Section 194-I.2. The assessee is a subsidiary of Matsushita Electric Company, Japan, and operates through two divisions, viz., (a) Consumer Product Division and (b) System Product Division. It has twelve branches all over India and also has a network of distributors and dealers. In the course of verification of Form Nos. 26-C and 26-J, the AO, on a sample basis, analyzed the agreement between the assessee and Ankur Roadlines (P) Ltd. (Ankur for short), one of the Clearing and Forwarding Agents (C&F agent for short) of the assessee-company. The findings of the AO were as follows : (a) Clauses 4 to 12...

Medi Herbs Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT484TriDel

2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of Betel Nuts, Second Grade and declared the value @ US $ 500 PMT. The value was not accepted by the custom authorities and it was enhanced to US $ 600 PMT on the basis of two other imports made by other importers.3. The contention of the appellant is that they entered into the contract for supply of 112 metric tonnes @ US $ 500 PMT and the instances relied upon by the Revenue are of less quantity and in those cases the importer declared the price between US $ 500 PMT which was enhanced to US $ 600 PMT. The appellant relied upon letter dated 28-8-2000 from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to the Commissioner of Customs whereby it was specifically mentioned that there was fluctuation of price of Betel Nuts of Indonesian origin the prices are valid for 2-3 days only.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the Betel Nuts f...