Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat delhi Year: 2001 Page 1 of about 11 results (0.076 seconds)

Jun 01 2001 (TRI)

M/S. Sundstrand Forms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut-ii

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jun-01-2001

..... submits that there was not physical removal of the self-copying paper. he submits that the applicants is manufacturing paper stationery in continuous form of paper and in the inter-mediate stage, some self-copying paper emerges which cannot at all be removed physically. he submitted that a number of opinions on the issue were furnished which were not taken into .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2001 (TRI)

M/S. Triveni Rubbers Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Feb-05-2001

Reported in : (2001)(75)ECC180

1. in these two appeals-one filed by m/s. triveni rubbers and the and the other filed by the revenue - arising out of a common order no.21 collr/mp/95 dated 28.4.95 passed by the collector, central excise, the issue involved is whether the assessee was manufacturing rubber beltings with less than 25% rubber compound, whether benefit of notification no.175/86 was available to the assessee who was not maintaining statutory records of production and clearance and was indulged in large scale clandestine clearance and whether the adjudicating authority while confirming the duty had correctly determined the aggregate value.2.1 briefly stated the facts are that the central excise officers searched the factory premises of triveni rubbers and m/s. winner rubbers p. ltd., on 23.1.91 on the basis of intelligence that these two units were manufacturing rubber beltings of vulcanised rubber having rubber compound more than 25%, falling under sub-heading 4010.90 of the schedule to the central excise tariff act; that on the basis of seized documents and statements recorded, a show cause notice dated 6.11.91 was issued to m/s. triveni rubbers for demanding central excise duty amounting to rs.75,62,092,-30 paise in respect of rubber beltings cleared during the period from 6.11.1986 to 1990-91 alleging that the rubber beltings manufactured by them contained more than 25% rubber compound; that shri r.k. agrawal, proprietor, had deposed in his statement dated 24.1.91, that rubber beltings .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2001 (TRI)

S/Sh. L.M. Soni, Shyam Sunder and Vs. Cc, Delhi

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Apr-04-2001

total-melter-1-assayer-999.0" totally weighing 1747.500 gms. and valued at rs.8,38,800/-, were fatehpuria at ajmeri gate, beawar on 3.3.97 by preventive officers of customs, jodhpur. the gold biscuits were found wrapped in a newspaper and kept in an almirah. sh. shyam sunder fatehpuria could not produce any document evidencing licit import or purchase of the gold biscuits. therefore, the officers, believing that the gold biscuits were liable to be confiscated under section 111 of the customs act, seized the goods under panchnama. statements of shyam sunder fatehpuria were recorded by the officers under section 108 of the customs act on 3.3.97 and 4.3.97. in his statement dated 4.3.97, shyam sunder claimed that he had purchased the gold biscuits from 7 persons of beawar and he named those persons also. statements of 6 out of the 7 persons were also recorded under section 108 of the customs act. all the 6 persons denied having sold any gold biscuits to shyam sunder. on 11.3.97, shri raj kumar, son of shyam sunder, submitted to the additional commissioner of customs, jodhpur a bill no. 4 dated 1.3.97 of rs.8,70,000/- issued by m/s bajrang bullions, ahmedabad.shyam sunder and raj kumar claimed that the gold biscuits had been purchased under the said bill from bajrang bullions, ahmedabad. the bill was sent by the additional commissioner of customs, jodhpur to the customs commissionerate, ahmedabad for verification and report. the assistant commissioner of customs (preventive), .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 2001 (TRI)

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Dogra Distilleries (P) Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Mar-08-2001

1. these are three appeals filed by the revenue. in appeal no.e/3034/2000 d, the respondents are m/s. dogra distilleries, (who have filed cross objections), and in appeal no.e/3035/2000 d and no.e/3077/2000 d, the respondents are m/s. kashmir distilleries pvt. ltd., (who have also filed separate cross objections in each appeal). the matter relates to the eligibility of the procurers of khandsari molasses to the benefit of small scale exemption under notification no.1/93 ce dated 28.2.93. all the three appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. the commissioner of central excise (appeals) in his order-in-appeal dated 28.6.2000 (appeal no.e/3035/2000-d and appeal no.e/3077/2000 d) had held that the procurers of the khandsari molasses were entitled to the small scale exemption under notification no.1/93 ce dated 28.2.93.a similar view has been taken by him in the order-in-appeal dated 24.12.99. para-4 of the order-in-appeal dated 6.10.99 is extracted below:- "4. i have considered the matter. i find that it has very clearly been stated in the rule 7 a of ce rules, 1944, that the molasses procured by the appellants are treated as if manufactured by the appellants. since the notification no.1/93 ce does not debar the procurer - manufacturers from its benefit as is done in the case of inputs which are cleared by a manufacturer of final product and are treated as if manufactured by the manufacture of final products. accordingly, i hold .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2001 (TRI)

M/S Tech Steels Vs. Cce Bhopal

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Apr-19-2001

Reported in : (2001)(75)ECC863

1. m/s tech steels have filed present appeal against the order-in-appeal no. 783-ce/bpl/2000 dt. 20-7-2000 passed by the commissioner (appeals), bhopal.2. shri ravi madan proprietor, submitted that they received two works order from m/s technologist india for manufacture of m.s.hoops out of raw material supplied by them; that the labour charges were inclusive of excise duty; that they by mistake paid excise duty on the full contract value whereas the excise duty was payable on the assessable value arrived after deduction of the duty element from the contract value; that the assistant commissioner rejected their claim far refund of duty paid by mistake in excess partly as time barred and partly holding that there was no calculation error, that the commissioner (appeals) also rejected their appeal, under the impugned order upholding the adjudication order. he, further, submitted that refund claim is not hit by time limit as it can be filed within three years if duty is paid by mistake as per the general rules laid down by the central board of excise & customs in f. no. 276/10/90-cx 8a dt.3-1-1991. he also mentioned that the appellants had not charged the excise duty separtely in the bills as the conversion charges were inclusive of excise duty.3. countering the submissions, shri sumit k.dass, ld. dr., submitted that as the refund claim was filed on 5-4-94 for the duty paid during the period from 23-3-1992 to 26.2.94, part of the claim was beyond the period of six months .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 07 2001 (TRI)

M/S. India Trade Promotion Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jun-07-2001

Reported in : (2001)(132)ELT25TriDel

1. the matter is posted today for considering the waiver of predeposit of the service tax amounting to rs.493.19 lacs and penalty of rs.88,300/- imposed on m/s. india trade promotion organisation. as the issue involved is in narrow compass we take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. shri v. lakshmi kumaran, learned advocate, submitted that the applicant is engaged in the mission of developing and promoting exports, imports and upgradation of technology through the main medium of trade fares held in india and abroad; that the activities of itpo are promotional in nature and it is not a profit oriented organisation; that the commissioner of central excise, delhi-1 has confirmed the demand of service tax and imposed penalty holding that they are liable to service tax as mundap keeper as they provide the service of space/building/structure to the participants. the learned counsel further mentioned that as provided under section 85 of the finance act, 1994, an appeal against any assessment passed by the central excise officer under section 71, 72 or 73 lies with the commissioner of central excise (appeals); that accordingly they filed the appeal with the commissioner (appeals), new delhi who under the impugned order dismissed the appeal holding that the commissioner (appeals) does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the order passed by a commissioner of central excise; that the appellate tribunal in the case of bharti cellular ltd. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 2001 (TRI)

M.P. State Industries Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Raipur

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Apr-10-2001

1. the brief facts in the case are that the appellants filed the refund claims of rs.7.74,451.91, rs.32,092.90 and rs. 75,919.77 in respect of the duty paid by them under protest. these refunds had become due to the consequent upon the order no. 402/89 dated 4.10.89 passed by the cegat and the order dated 30.5.92 passed by commissioner (appeals), in their favour. in this decision of the cegat, it was held that 26 units of m/s m.p. state industries corporation are entitled to exemption under notification no. 175/86 dated 1.9.86 as amended and they should get benefit of explanation no. v of this notification. consequently the duty paid by them became refundable to them. the assistant collector of central excise, bhilai-ii issued a show-cause notice dated 13.9.90 calling them to show cause why the claims filed by them should not be rejected. however, on consideration of the representation made by the party, the assistant collector allowed the refund claims vide his order dated 24.7.95 but ordered these amounts to be credited in the consumer welfare fund establishing under section 12 c of the central excise act, 1944. the assistant collector in his order observed that the tribunal granted exemption to the party under notification no. 175/86 but its order is silent about the refund to be granted under the amended section 11b. the assistant collector relied on the judgement of the hon'ble supreme court in uoi vs. jain spinners [1992 (61) elt 321] in which it is held that on 20.9. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 2001 (TRI)

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Escorts Ltd. and M/S. Goetze

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Feb-19-2001

1. these two appeals have been preferred by the revenue against the common order in appeal dated 9.2.98 passed by the commissioner (appeals) vide which she had upheld the impugned order in original dated 2.12.94 of the assistant commissioner allowing modvat credit in respect of ramming mass to the respondents who were using the same for internal lining/coating of steel crucibles in order to preserve heat during the period the moten metal was held in crucibles.2. none has come present on behalf of the respondents though notice for today's hearing was sent to them on 11.1.2000. no request for adjournment had been also received from them. the appeals pertain to the year 1998. therefore, i proceed to decide the appeals on merits after hearing shri a.k. jain, learned sdr.3. i have heard shri a.k. jain, learned jdr and gone through the record.4. the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of piston rings and cylinder liners falling under chapter 84 of the central excise tariff.they are using the ramming mass for internal lining/coating of steel crucibles for the purposes of preserving heat during the period the molten metal was held in crucibles. the question as to whether the ramming mass can be said to be modvatable input or not, already stands settled by the larger bench of the tribunal, in, 1994(71) elt 776 (lb). in that case, it has been ruled by the bench that the ramming mass is to be considered as input eligible for modvat credit under rule .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 2001 (TRI)

Cce, Pune Vs. M/S. Telco

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : May-10-2001

Reported in : (2002)(148)ELT652TriDel

"in view of the fact that hydraulic power pack and coolant unit is itself a machinery, will not make them non-eligible for the benefit of notification no. 281/86 once they satisfy the conditions prescribed in the notification. hydraulic power pack and coolant unit are used in the factory for repair and maintenance which will include replacement and as such the benefit of notification is available".2. the facts on the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. the appellants filed a classification list effective from 29.10.90 wherein they classified hydraulic power pack and coolant unit under chapter sub-heading 8479.00 and claimed exemption under notification no. 281/86 dt. 24.4.86 as amended. on scrutiny of the classification list the department noticed that hydraulic power packs were nothing but hydraulic engines. a scn was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as why hydraulic power packs should not be classified under chapter sub-heading 8412.00 and why exemption under notification no. 281/86 should not be denied to them and why duty should not be demanded. in reply to the scn the appellants submitted that the department has not adduced any evidence to show that hydraulic power pack is a hydraulic engine and hence classifiable under sub-heading 8412.00 it was argued that hydraulic power pack is a device and is used for transmitting power whereas an engine is a machine that consumes fuel and converts the fuel energy .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2001 (TRI)

Groz Becket Asia Ltd. Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jan-23-2001

Reported in : (2001)(129)ELT759TriDel

1. the issue involved in this appeal tiled by m/s groz beckert asia ltd, is whether the modvat credit is available in respect of tempering oil, cutting oil and nickel catalyst under rule 57a of the central excise rules.2. shri. k.k.anand, ld. advocate mentioned that he is not pressing matter regarding availability of credit in respect of nickel catalyst.he submitted that tempering oil is used in tempering process during the manufacture of hosiery and knitting machines needle; that the oil is employed as heat transfer medium for indirect heating of needle in the process called tempering; that the hardened needles after quenching are kept for certain time in hot oil bath having temperature up to 275 degree c; that due to this process stresses are relieved and needle acquire more toughness. he, further, explained that cutting oil is used for the slot cutting in the needle; that every needle is required to have a slot and during the process of slotting, cutting oil is continuously poured on to the needle so that a proper and smooth slot is cut. he, therefore, submitted that both these oils are used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product and as such are eligible for modvat credit; that the additional commissioner has dis-allowed the modvat credit holding only that the impugned oils were not used as fuel. i also heard shri. s.c.pushkarna, ld. dr. (sic) 3. i have considered the submission of both the sides. the ld. advocate has explained the use of both tempering .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //