Delhi Court June 1998 Judgments

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Bansiwala Iron and Steel

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT255TriDel

The respondents herein the month of April and May, 1995 availed Modvat credit of Rs. 1,56,877/- on invoices issued by supplier of inputs which did not mention at all the mode of transport and the motor vehicle numbers by which the goods were allegedly received in the respondent's factory. Revenue has considered this omission in the invoices to be a very vital omission and has proposed to disallow the Modvat credit by issuing of show cause notice. The show cause notice however, was dropped by the Asstt. Commissioner holding that omission to give the mode of transport and motor vehicle number, if any, was merely a procedural lapse and therefore it is not a serious offence to deny the Modvat credit. On the same finding the revenue did not succeed in appeal before the lower appellate authority. Hence, this appeal by the revenue.2. Ld. JDR Shri A.M. Tilak for revenue submitted that particulars which an invoice is required to contain has been prescribed by the Board and the various Collecto...

Commercial Motor Bodies Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT777TriDel

1. Shri P.S. Bedi, learned Consultant submitted that the appellants are claiming the benefit of Notification No. 162/86 as amended by Notification No. 89/90, dated 2-3-1990. According to the Notification as amended motor vehicles for the transport of goods attract nil rate of duty provided no credit of the duty paid on the chassis and on the other inputs have been availed of and the motor vehicle is manufactured out of a chassis on which the duty of excise leviable under the Central Excise Act or under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act as the case may be has been paid, at the rate of 20% ad valorem plus Rs. 4,500 per chassis. Shri Bedi submitted that in the classification list effective from 20-3-1990 the benefit of the said Notification was claimed by the appellants which has been denied. He further mentioned that even though the CL has been approved with modification, no duty was paid by them subsequently on the motor vehicles. He contended that conditions of the Notification have...

Golden Tobacco Mfg. Co. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(79)LC54Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal of M/s Golden Tobacco Mfg. Co. is directed against order-in-appeal No. 1218 of 1991 dated 18.11.1991 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) rejecting the appellant's appeal against adjudication order No. V(24)18/1/Ref/91/4668 dated 30.7.1991 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ambala. The refund application in question was filed by the appellants on the ground that they were entitled to refund of duty paid on the freight element. The claim was rejected on the ground that the price list filed by the appellant had not shown that the declared price included freight. The cost structure attached with the price list submitted to the Assistant Collector also did not mention that freight was one of the elements included in the price. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the price list and other documents filed did not at all show that the price included any freight element, there was no question of allowing any deduction.2. The appellants have explained...

Rathi Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT551TriDel

1. Short question involved in this matter is whether refractory cement described technically as "WHYL Heat A" is entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q as claimed by the appellants. Lower authorities have denied the benefit of Modvat credit under the said Rule. Hence, this appeal before the Tribunal.2. Ld. Advocate Shri Rajesh Chibber has submitted that the lower appellate authority impliedly by referring to the judgment of ramming mass cited by the appellants before the said authority has agreed that refractory cement is covered as an input under Rule 57A and is entitled to Modvat credit. This finding, he submits has not been challenged by the revenue and therefore rejection of the appeal by the lower appellate authority is not correct on its own finding. He, therefore, prays for allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.3. Opposing the contention ld. JDR, Shri A.M. Tilak submits that such a reading of the impugned order as mentioned above, will ...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Galaxy Indl. Corpn.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT209TriDel

1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the respondents can avail of the exemption under Notification No. 53/88 at Sl. No. 40 which prescribes partial exemption when Sl. No. 39 of the said Notification exempts the goods completely subject to the conditions that the inputs are duty paid.2. Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR reiterated the grounds contained in the appeal petition filed by the department. None was present on behalf of the respondents. However, it is observed that under their letter dated 18-4-1998 the respondents namely, M/s. Galaxy Industrial Corporation have submitted that their product namely, article of plastic attract the benefit of both Sl. No. 39 and 40 of the Notification No. 53/88; that it has been held in a number of cases that the assessee has option to pay duty on exempt product. They relied on the decision in the case of Garg Industries v. C.C.E. - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 495 (T) and other various decision.3. After considering the submissions m...

H.V.R. Alloys Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT132TriDel

1. In this bunch of three cases, the appellants herein in two cases claimed the benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid on welding rods and lubricating oil as inputs under Rule 57A. In one of the appeals however, they claimed the Modvat credit on the aforesaid two commodities as capital goods under Rule 57Q. The original authority rejected the first two cases on the ground that these commodities are meant for repair and maintenance of machinery and therefore got excluded from the category of inputs by the exclusion clause in the explanation to Rule 57A. The same reasoning was also applied in rejecting the cases of the appellants by the original authority in respect of their claim for Modvat credit on the aforesaid goods as capital goods.2. On appeal before the lower appellate authority, the said authority rejected the first two cases of the appellants on the ground that they have claimed the Modvat credit as capital goods whereas he has held relying on decisions of the Tribunal mentione...

Gulab Oil Mill Vs. Income Tax Officer. (ito V. Gulab

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are cross-appeals, preferred by the assessee as well as the Revenue, challenging the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1989-90.Since the facts and issues involved are common we have heard these appeals together and the same are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. We first take up the assessee's appeal contained in ITA No.3209/Del/1993. The first effective ground taken is against adopting the annual letting value of the property at Rs. 2,68,800 against the annual letting value declared at Rs. 48,000. The facts in brief are that the assessee-firm had constructed a property at C-45 and C-45/1 Lawrance Road, New Delhi and was given on rent to Gulab Beneficiary Trust on monthly rent of Rs. 4,000 w.e.f. 1st May, 1982, as per rent deed executed. Gulab Beneficiary Trust further let out the property to various tenants at annual rent substantially higher than that paid to the assessee-firm. The AO noted that beneficiaries of Gulab Beneficiary Trust were brothers, sons and gra...

Gulab Oil Mill Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Del)399

ORDERNA THU RAM, A.M.These are cross-appeals, preferred by the assessed as well as the Revenue, challenging the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1989-90. Since the facts and issues involved are common we have heard these appeals together and the same are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. We first take up the assessor's appeal contained in ITA No. 3209/Del/1993. The first effective ground taken is against adopting the annual letting value of the property at Rs. 2,68,800 against the annual letting value declared at Rs. 48,000. The facts in brief are that the assessee-firm had constructed a property at C-45 and C-45/1 Lawrance Road, New Delhi and was given on rent to Gulab Beneficiary Trust on monthly rent of Rs. 4,000 w.e.f. 1st May, 1982, as per rent deed executed. Gulab Beneficiary Trust further let out the property to various tenants at annual rent substantially higher than that paid to the assessee-firm. The AO noted that beneficiaries of Gulab Beneficiary Trust were bro...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Maharaja International Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT426TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed the captioned reference application stating that following point of law arises : 1. "Whether the credit can be allowed on the strength of photocopy of triplicate copy of Bill of Entry, a document which is neither prescribed under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, nor prescribed by the Board in terms of powers conferred under Rule 57G(2) ibid? 2. Whether the Tribunal can arrogate to itself the power of prescribing documents for which under the law, the appropriate authority has been specified and allow Modvat credit on a document, not prescribed by such authority under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise rules, 1944?" 2. The facts of the case was that the respondents herein has taken Modvat credit on photocopy of the triplicate bill of entry on the ground that triplicate bill of entry was lost. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the Trade notice issued by Bombay Customs House inter alia requiring the trade to execute an indemnity bond if th...

Kentech Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT751TriDel

1. M/s. Kentech Associates Pvt. Ltd. have filed the present appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) Order dated 26-6-1997 in which the Modvat credit has been disallowed on the ground that the goods were despatched by the dealer from Area Office, particulars of which were not given in the Registration Certificate.2. The matter is posted for hearing today for admission only. However, taking into consideration the minor issue involved it has been taken up for decision with the consent of both the sides.3. Sh. R.M. Sahai, Ld. Consultant, submitted that M/s. Averi India Ltd. have themselves registered under Rule 174 of Central Excise Rules as dealer of excisable goods on 20th Oct., 1994; that the name and address of the person was mentioned as Mr. V. Wadhwa, Area Officer Manager. He submitted that the Asst. Commissioner while adjudicating the matter has mentioned that the registration was allowed in the name of the Area Officer and therefore the invoice issued from area office was valid ...