Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Atlas Stampings (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT127TriDel

1. The above application has been filed by the Revenue in terms of Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for reference of the following Questions of law purported to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order No. A-460/99-NB(S), dated 11-6-1999 : "Whether the Gate passes endorsed thrice can be treated as valid documents for availment of Modvat credit under Rule 57A read with Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules Whether the CEGAT is empowered to treat a document not prescribed under proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as valid duty paying document." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of stampings and laminations falling under Chapter 83 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. They were availing of the benefit of modvat credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A. Credit taken on gate passes endorsed three times, was sought to be disallowed by the lower authorities. The Deputy Commissioner di...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mangalam Cement Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT258TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed one ROM and one reference application for making a refert nee stating that a point of law arises. Both ROM and Reference application were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent s herein are engaged in the manufacture of different products. They are availing the credit of duty taken on the inputs and capital goods under Modvat srheme. The department alleged that in respect of certain inputs and capital goods Modvat credit was not admissible to the respondents. The respondents represented before the Asst. Commissioner who disallowed the Modvat crecit on certain items and ordered for recovery thereof under Rule 57-1 for inputs, and under Rule 57U for capital goods. Being aggrieved by this order of the Asst. Commissioner, the respondents filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the cases decided by the Asst. Commissioner were beyond his competence as Modv...

C.C.E. Kanpur Vs. M/S. D.P. Malviya Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Kanpur vide his order dt. 31.1.98 disallowed the modvat credit to the Respondents availed on the Invoice Nos. 676 dt.24.9.94 and No.679 dt. 26.9.94 issued by M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Kanpur. The respondents were issued with a Show Cause Notice dt. 8.2.97 by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Kanpur in which it was inter alia alleged that they had availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.15,586.02 on the invoice Nos. 676 dt. 24.9.94 and 679 dt. 26.9.94 issued by M/s.TISCO, Kanpur irregularly since the Kanpur Depot of M/s. TISCO was not registered under Rule 174. The Asst. Commissioner vide his order dt.31.1.98 confirmed the demand on the respondents stating that though M/s. TISCO, Kanpur later got themselves registered with Central Excise but both the invoices did not contain details of manufacturer, therefore, the invoices could not be accepted as valid documents for the purpose of modvat cr...

C.C.E. Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Bhandari Export Inds. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT552TriDel

1. The Respondents manufacture 'Cotton Blended Yarn' classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 5205.11/5206.11 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide his Order dt. 19.11.97 and 27.01.98 held that the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 5,41,450/- availed by them on the capital goods viz., 'Electrical Control Panel (S.H. 8537.00), Airtight Door Butter Fly Damper (S.H. 8537.00) on 7.9.96 and 25.2.97 was admissible to them under the provisions of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Department filed appeals and the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his order dt. 25.4.2000 observed that the stated capital goods did not fall under the excluded clause of Explanation to Rule 57Q(1) and accordingly held that the credit was admissible and rightly allowed. He observed that the credit was admissible on the impugned goods even prior to 2.7.96 i.e., prior to amendment vide Notfn. No.14/96-CE(NT) dated 23.7....

Kudremukh Iron Ore Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT769TriDel

1. Issues raised in all these appeals are common. They relate to the availability of exemption from Customs duty as per Notification No.13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-1981 as amended subsequently. Appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, got spare parts imported for their Wabco Trucks, P & H Shovel, Motor Graders, CAT Front End Loader, Terex Front end Loader, Komatsu Dozer, 35T Capacity Haulpack Truck, Poclain Excavator and Water Sprinklers. These equipments were, according to the appellant, part of the machinery used in their mine where iron ore is being mined and exported to foreign countries. The spares imported for the above mentioned machines were claimed to be spares of machinery used for the purpose of manufacture of article meant for exports out of India and so falling within the purview of Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-1981 as amended by subsequent notifications. On this basis it was stated that those spares imported are not liable to duty. But those spares were cleared on...

Ard Polypacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC547

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. ARD Polypacks (P) Ltd. is whether Machchhar Jali and Hexagonal nets are classifiable under Heading 39.25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) or are classifiable under sub-heading 3926.90 of the Tariff. Shri B.B. Gujral, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture netting of plastic in rolls from the duty paid polyethylene granules; that these nets are of uniform quality and are of general use; that the Assistant Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 87/98 dated 17.6.98 had classified their products namely shopping bag net, packing net, protective sleeving net, poultry cage floor net, serimount net under Sub-heading 3926.90; that, however, in respect of their remaining two products namely, machchhar Jali and hexagonal net, the Assistant Commissioner classified them under Sub-heading 3925.30 holding them akin to the article mentioned in Sub...

Manjeet Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT153TriDel

1. Appellant No. 1 is aggrieved by confiscation of his truck used for transportation of smuggled goods which have been confiscated by the Commissioner, while appellants No. 2, who was the driver of the concerned truck and son of appellants No. 1, is aggrieved by the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs upon him.2. The brief facts of the case are that DRI officers intercepted two persons namely Shri Navinder Singh and Shri Mangal Singh, driver and cleaner respectively of truck bearing No. MP-09-KA-9751 which was searched and found to contain goods of foreign origin such as, Torches, Silk clothes, Crystal glass wares, Video cassettes totally valued at Rs. 69 lakhs. The goods were seized under the reasonable belief that they had been smuggled into India, since neither the driver nor the cleaner, could produce any document showing legal 3. Statements of both the persons were recorded. Shri Navinder Singh stated that the truck belonged to his father Shri Manjeet Singh; that he went to Muza...

B.H.E.L. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT240TriDel

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 80,75,841/- confirmed as duty on Bus ducts manufactured by the appellants herein, consequent upon their classification under CET Chapter heading 8544.00.2. None appears for the appellants; hence we heard the learned DR and perused the records.2. We find that in the case of Vikas Engineering Associates v.Commissioner of Customs, Allahabad reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 219, the Tribunal has upheld the classification of bus ducts under CET sub-heading 8538.00 as part suitable for use solely or principally with apparatus of heading 85.35, 85.36, or 85.37. Therefore, prima facie, classification under CET sub-heading 8544.00 is erroneous and the demand raised thereunder cannot prima facie be sustained. In view of the Tribunal's decision, appellants have made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty pending the appeal. We order accordingly....

Seth Liladhar Biyani and Sons Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC192

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Seth Liladhar Biyani & Sons is whether the process of purification undertaken by them amounts to manufacture and whether re-find saltpeter is classifiable under Heading 25.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as alternatively claimed by the Appellant or under Heading 28.34, as upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants obtain saltpetre from mines which contains 89% Potassium Nitrate and impurities including other salts; that the mined material is dissolved in water at 100C when Potassium Nitrate dissolves fully giving rise to a saturated solution thereof which is removed to a wooden tank and left to evaporate when saltpetre containing 94% Potassium Nitrate settles as white crystals; that thus the Appellant is engaged in the purification of saltpetre by the Crystallisation process carried out on the saltpetre obtained by minin...

Asiatic Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT920TriDel

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order, dated 30-9-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).2. The appellant vide letter, dated 21-7-2000 made a request to decide the appeal on merit.3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant made an import of Spoons and Shovels. The Assistant Collector held that these are 'Consumer Goods' and are covered by Para-7(12) of the Exim Policy, 1992-97 hence these are importable only under the Special Import licence. As the goods were imported without valid import licence the Assistant Commissioner confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allow to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 45,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 8,000/- was also imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant filed appeal and the same was rejected.5. In the ground of appeal, the contention of the appellant is that the goods in question are not consumer goods and as the appellants are engaged ...