Delhi Court June 1998 Judgments

Collector of Central Excise Vs. D.S.M. Sugar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT433TriDel

1. Short question involved in this appeal is whether on taking Modvat credit in respect of electric wires and cables under Rule 57Q as capital goods the respondents herein are liable to be imposed with a penalty under Rule 173Q or not.2. In order to examine the aforesaid question, brief facts which are relevant are given below.3. The respondents herein took Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 22,440/- in respect of the aforesaid goods under Rule 57Q. The revenue challenged the aforesaid Modvat credit and alleged that it was wrongly taken. The Asstt. Commissioner concerned disallowed the said Modvat credit and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-.On appeal the respondents herein did not succeed on the question of availability of Modvat credit in respect of the aforesaid goods. The said Commissioner (A), however, observed that the penalty of Rs. 2,000/- would not be imposable if the credit taken by the respondents herein is lying unutilised in RG23 C Part II account. It is against this observa...

Swarajya Cement India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC264

1. The appeal is against the order-in-appeal dated 7/8-2-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi allowing the departmental application filed under Section 35E(4) and holding the appellant herein, M/s. Swarajya Cement India (P) Ltd. to be liable to pay duty on their product, cement after including the value of gunny bags in which the same was being packed. The claim of the appellant which was allowed by the Assistant Collector was that the gunny bags were durable and returnable there was an arrangement between them and their consignment agent for return of the bags and hence their cost was excludible from the price of cement for arriving at the assessable value of the latter. The Assistant Collector's decision accepting the claim of the respondent was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) with the direction for de novo decision after hearing them and after verification of relevant facts and passed a speaking order.2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri Naveen Mu...

Sarajya Cement India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(78)LC833Tri(Delhi)

1. The appeal is against the order-in-appeal dated 7/8.2.1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). New Delhi allowing the departmental application filed under Section 35E(4) and holding the appellant herein, M/s Swarajya Cement India (P) Ltd. to be liable to pay duty on their product, cement after including the value of gunny bags in which the same was being packed. The claim of the appellant which was allowed by the Assistant Collector was that the gunny bags were durable and returnable and there was an arrangement between them and their consignment agent for return of the bags and hence their cost was excludible from the price of cement for arriving at the assessable value of the latter. The Assistant Collector's decision accepting the claim of the respondent was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) with the direction for de novo decision after hearing them and after verification of relevant facts and pass a speaking order.2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri Naveen M...

Jay Pee Laminations Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT210TriDel

1. A duty demand of Rs. 15,385/- has been confirmed on shortage of CRGO steel sheets (Modvat inputs for the manufacture of CRGO steel stamping) detected on 13-8-1993 and Modvat credit of Rs. 94,000/- has been disallowed on the ground that this amount of credit had been taken on damaged inputs, which were not at all used in the manufacture of final products. A penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has also been imposed upon the appellants herein.2. We have heard Shri R.S. Pandey, Id. Consultant and Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, Id. DR.3. The explanation of the appellants that there was no shortage and physical weighment was not correct since the weighing machine installed in their premises, is of 5 tonnes capacity, whereas physical weighment of serial numbers 53, 60 and 61 of the Panchnama shows weight of 6526 kg., 6468 kg. and 6398 kg. respectively, is not tenable since the Panchnama was signed and accepted by the representative of the appellants without any demur and it is only in reply to the show caus...

Rakesh Utpal Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The complainant constructed House No. F-19/ 58 in Sector, 8, Rohini in the year 1992. The complainant had been obtaining insurance policy from the opposite party from year to year covering risk against fire and damage due to earthquake, flood and inundation etc. The last renewed policy for Rs. 35 lakhs was in force for the period 12.4.1994 to 11.4.1995. From 24.7.1994 to 31.7.1994, there was heavy down-pour. On 28.7.1994, there was an earthquake in Delhi region. The case of the complainant was that as a result of heavy rains the flood water entered the building and inundated the basement of the building and as a result of rain and earthquake the building developed cracks and suffered substantial damage. The Insurance Company was informed, Mr. A.K. Dhingra of M/s. Select Surveyors, inspected the building on 4.8.1994 and found water still standing in the basement floor. He also noticed damage to the building including cracks at various places. He took photogr...

Hi-tech Gears Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT564TriDel

1. The Appellants have filed the captioned Appeal, accompanied by a Stay Petition, being aggrieved by the Order of the ld. Commissioner Appeals, holding that Modvat credit can be taken on the Transporter's Copy (Duplicate) as provided under Rule 52A.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Gears and Shafts of two-wheeler motor vehicles.They availed Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 23,421/- on inputs received under Invoice No. 136, dated 29-8-1994. The Department alleged that since the Appellants have availed Modvat credit on the original invoice it was not the document prescribed for the period of taking Modvat credit under Rule 57G, therefore, they should have availed Rule 52A and should have taken credit on the strength of duplicate of the invoices.The Appellants contended that Rule 57G was amended with effect from 19-1-1995 thereunder Original, Duplicate, Triplicate copies etc. were prescribed and since they had taken credit much ear...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rampur Engg. (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT428TriDel

1. Shri D.K. Nayyar, ld. JDR prays for admission of appeal filed by the department. The lower appellate authority has allowed the Modvat credit on the basis of invoices in which certain particulars were supplied subsequently by the original manufacturer i.e., the Stock Yard of Indian Iron and Steel Co.2. Shri Nayyar has contended that the aforesaid order passed by the lower appellate authority is not correct in law inasmuch as the invoice was not correct in the first instance, on the basis of which Modvat credit could be allowed. Subsequent supply of material particulars cannot entitle the respondents herein to take the Modvat credit. For this proposition he relies on Tribunal's judgment of a Single Member in the case of Durga Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 283 (Tribunal). He also relies on Apex Court's judgment in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 454 (S.C). In the said judgment it has been held, points ou...

Unipatch Rubber Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT748TriDel

1. Relevant facts material for disposal of this appeal are as follows :- The appellants herein press for admissibility of Modvat credit in respect of the following three invoices whose relevant particulars are given at page 58:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. INVOICE DATE OF DATE OF DATE OF AMOUNT OF NO. & DATE RECEIPT OF ENTRY IN ENTRY IN MODVAT 2. It is apparent from the above particulars that the credit in all these three cases has been taken in RG 23 Part II after six months of the issue of the duty paying documents. However, the credit of stock in RG 23 Part I had been taken within six months of the date of invoices.3. Ld. Advocate Sh. Pragyan Sharma submits that having taken the credit in respect of quantity within six months of the date of the relevant invoices, the appellants herein are entitled to the Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs in terms of those invoices. The credit could not be taken on the date of taking...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Amrit Petrochemicals Inds.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT633TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, dated 25-3-1991.2. Learned DR stated that Chapter 27 covers mineral fuels mineral oils etc., whereas Chapter 38 applied to miscellaneous chemicals products.The classification preferred by the department was under sub-heading No. 2710.99 as Mineral Oils (residuary item) whereas the assessee preferred under 3811.00. The product is marketed in the name and style of an oil saver of engine. Later on, at appellate stage, this has also been argued that its function is to improve the viscosity. Viscosity improves and anti-knock preparations are covered by Chapter Heading 3811.00 but then these should be essentially chemical products of a type which Chapter 38 covers whereas this item, at the best, can be called an oil preparation. Hence it should fall under Chapter 27, It is also reported by chemical examiner, after testing the said product at C. Ex. Laboratory, that the oil conten...

Mahindra Cranks (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(79)LC681Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Mahindra Cranks (P) Ltd., Punjab, the matter relates to the benefit of the project import to the second hand machinery imported. The import contracts were registered for 27 machines. Actual import was of only 10 machines. When the contract was taken-up for finalisation, the appellants could not submit any documents. The matter was adjudicated and a differential duty of Rs. 2,24,241 was demanded. The Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that in spite of repeated reminders the necessary documents for finalisation of the contract had not been submitted.2. Shri R. Swaminathan, Consultant submitted that since during the relevant time the conditions in Punjab were disturbed, the appellants could not procure all the machines covered by the Contract and while they have installed machines imported, no proper certificate could be obtained in time. He further submitted that if an opportunity is given then the appellants would be able to satisfy t...