Delhi Court December 1997 Judgments

J. Sons Engg. Corporation (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT706TriDel

1. The issue relates to eligibility of Modvat credit on the basis of subsidiary gatepasses.2. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the ld. Counsel submits that they availed Modvat on the basis of subsidiary gatepasses after June 1994 and for mere technical offence and on the basis of this minor irregularities Modvat credit cannot be denied.3. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue the ld. DR submits that as per Notification No. 16/94 credit on subsidiary gatepasses was eligible only till 30th June, 1994 and since in this instant case credit has been availed after the date the same is not admissible.4. Considered. Since Notification No. 16/94 indicates cut off date for availing Modvat credit and the Modvat credit on subsidiary gatepasses has been admittedly availed after the specified date Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal. In view of this the impugned order is upheld and appeal rejected....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhikhlal Dwarkadas

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT438TriDel

1. Vide show cause notice dated 30-6-1983 it was alleged that the respondents in this appeal were receiving scoured fabrics and were removing the same after bleaching without payment of duty. Duty amounting to Rs. 1,17409.58 was demanded under the Notice. The Assistant Commissioner in his order held that the assessee had filed declaration which were verified by the department. The Assistant Commissioner observed that even if the process undertaken by the assessee that is of keiring was equated with bleaching then also the assessee could claim the benefit of Notification No. 130/82. On his dropping the proceedings the jurisdictional Commissioner caused an application be filed before the Collector (Appeals) in terms of Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order observed that the assessees' claim for benefit of the notification was already verified by the department, that the show cause notice did not give any details as to fro...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Savita Chemicals (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT416TriDel

1. This is a Department's appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 22-8-1991.2. Learned DR stated that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of 'Liquid Paraffin I.P.'. After coming in force of the new tariff, the assessees filed a classification list classifying 'Liquid Paraffin I.P.' under Chapter Heading 2901.90 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 234/86, dated 3-4-1986. They also furnished a certificate from the Drug Controller in support of their claim.3. The Assistant Collector approved the classification list. However, in 1988, the Department directed the assessees to classify the product under 2710.99. The assessees filed a writ petition against these directions before Hon'ble Bombay High Court which issued an order dated 10-3-1988. The order in brief is (i) Department to withdraw show cause notice dated 18-2-1988 (ii) the Department can issue a fresh show cause notice for reclassification of the product and (iii) to give personal hearing...

Express Rubber Products Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT495TriDel

1. This Appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 60/89, dated 8-11-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara confiscating 600 kgs. tread rubber though allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 4,000/-, confirming demand of Rs. 5,88,962/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of 'Tread Rubber' commenced production in March 1986 without taking out Central Excise licence and without conforming to Central Excise procedures and cleared the goods during the period 22-4-1986 to 6-8-1986 without payment of central excise duty. Central Excise Officers visited the premises on 13-8-1986, discovered the above irregularities, seized 600 kgs. of the finished product available in the factory and started investigation. Deputy Collector, Central Excise, issued show cause notice dated 21-10-1986 recording the above facts and alleging contravention of various rules by reason of fraud, wilful mis-statement of f...

Phosphate Co. Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT40TriDel

1. This is a miscellaneous application seeking directions to the Commissioner for complying with the Tribunal's Final Order No.146/1995-C, dated 16-5-1995.2. Learned Counsel stated that in spite of the Tribunal's order and their repeated requests, the officer concerned has not sanctioned the refund due to them as a consequence of their succeeding in appeal. The amount in question had been pre-deposited under Section 35F and was required to be returned as their appeal had been accepted. He would, therefore, request that suitable directions may be given.3. Learned DR stated that they have received a communication from the Commissioner in this connection mentioning that the Board had been requested to file an appeal against this order in the Hon'ble Supreme Court but they are not able to state the latest position and in these circumstances, the refund has not been paid.4. In response to further queries from the Bench as to whether any stay has been obtained, learned DR stated that the le...

Jagatjit Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT746TriDel

1. The appellants imported Polyrome Bonificateur (Essential Oils) and claimed classification under Heading 3301.19. They sought clearance of the goods under OGL in terms of Para-22 of the Export and Import Policy. The invoice indicated classification under HSN Code No. 3302.10 which corresponded with Sub-heading 3302.90 of the ITC. Since the goods were not essential oil of citrus fruit but mixtures of odoriferous substances and since the import of such goods was not eligible under the OGL, a show cause notice was issued alleging liability of goods to confiscation for lack of authorisation and also for misdeclaration. The Collector in his impugned order, apart from the invoice also relied upon the Data-sheet supplied by the suppliers which showed that the imported substance was a mixture of several oils such as cinnamon, winter green and clove etc. He held that the goods were liable to confiscation and prescribed a fine of Rs. 25 lakhs and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. The ...

Delhi Development Authority and Another Vs. T.D. Kalra and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. By a common order dated 22.8.1995, District Forum-II disposed of 21 complaints filed by different complainants as common questions of law were raised. The undisputed facts are that the complainants were successful in the draw of lots and were issued letters of allocation calling upon them to deposit 90% of the estimated cost of the flat by four instalments by the dates specified in the letter. The complainants managed to deposit the amount within the prescribed time even though the complainants had to raise funds from other sources by paying-considerable amount of interest and had to suffer great inconveniences because of the possibility of the cancellation in the event of default. By a Notice issued by DDA in the Press, the dates for payment of one or more instalments was deferred on the ground that the construction of the flat was not yet completed and DDA was not in a position to deliver possession to the allottees. The complainants claimed compensation ...

Wool Worth Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT467TriDel

1. The captioned stay petition has been filed for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 7,93,262/-.2. Arguing the stay petition Shri A. Upadhyay, ld. Counsel tor the applicant submits that the applicants are 100% Export Oriented Unit; that they procured cement; that they were entitled to the benefit of duty paid on cement. The ld. Counsel submitted that they claimed this benefit under Notification No. 1/95. He submitted that this Notification permitted duty free procurement of goods for setting up an Export Oriented Unit. He submits that cement is capital goods for the purpose of setting up of the unit. He submits that since cement is a spare (capital goods), therefore, the applicants were entitled to the benefit of duty on this item and prays that pre-deposit of duty may be waived.3. Shri P.K. Jain, ld. SDR, appearing for the Respondent Commissioner opposes the request and submits that cement cannot be a spare (capital goods). He submits that Notification No. 1/95 does...

Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT107TriDel

1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a demand of Rs. 42,33,717.06 raised against the party by subject Show Cause Notice on removal of 2,565.499 MT of finished caustic soda during the period from August, 1990 to March, 1995.2. Arguing the stay application for dispensing with the pre-deposii of the duty as aforesaid and penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakh, Shri A.P. Mathur, the ld. Advocate, submitted that the Applicants are engaged in the manufacture of Caustic Soda; that for manufacture of Caustic Soda, they require Brine solution; that brine solution contains a number of impurities; that these impurities are to be removed before the brine solution can be converted into Caustic Soda. He submitted that for removing these impurities, Caustic Soda is used. He submitted that thus, Caustic Soda is both an input and also the final product. The ld.Counsel sumitted that during the material period, viz. August, 1990 to March, 1995, the applicants used 2,565.499 MT of cau...

Nestle India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT443TriDel

1. By the impugned Order-in-Original dated 21-3-1995 Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 12,12,585/- availed by the appellants apart from imposing a penalty of Rs.l lakh on them.2. The short question raised in the Appeal is the admissibility of original invoices as duty paying documents for purposes of Modvat credit after the amendment of Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules with effect from 1-3-1994.3. Appellants are manufacturers of instant soluble coffee, noodles and condensed milk falling under Chapters 4, 19 and 21 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also availing Modvat credit in respect of duty paid on the inputs used for manufacturing their final products under Rule 57A for which they relied on original invoices issued by the manufacturers as the duty paying documents.4. They were issued a Show Cause Notice on 11-10-1994 alleging that they had wrongly availed Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 12,12,595/- (sic) on...