Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments

M/S. P.S. Hunjan and Brothers Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal and Stay Petition are posted today. On hearing the ld.Counsel representing the appellant and the ld. DR, I fell that the appeal itself can be disposed of without any order being passed in the Stay Petition.2. Show Cause Notice dt. 28.2.96 was issued to the appellants requiring him to state why modvat credit availed on document No.s 500152 dt.12.9.95 and 500218 dt. 25.9.95 amounting to a total sum of Rs. 10,884-00 should not be reversed. In reply to the Show Cause Notice, petitioner contends that those documents should be treated as documents falling under Rule 52-A of CE Rules, 1944 and modvat credit availed should not be reversed. This contention of the appellant was not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority by observing 'the plea of the noticee that it may be considered as under Rule 52A invoices, as they have been issued by the warehouses is not tenable, as the details required by 52A invoice viz., time of issuance, debit particulars, rate of duty in words and figur...

C.C.E. Delhi Vs. M/S. Indian Aluminium Cables Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On the facts in this case, it has been categorically found that the 'duplicate for transporters' was entered without any intention to defraud the Department. This Tribunal has consistently taken the view that a large number of Final Orders marking of the inscription 'duplicate for Transporter' need not necessarily be printed. In such a situation, I do not find any merit in this application filed by the Department for referring the question for decision by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana....

C.C.E., Meerut Vs. M/S. Integrated Packagings Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT344TriDel

1. The revenue filed this reference application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court : "Whether gate passes issued prior to 01.04.94 but endorsed after that date would fall under the purview of entry No. 10 in the table to the Notification No. 16/94-CE (NT) dated 30.03.94 and would subsequently become eligible documents for taking the credit under Modvat Scheme." 3. In this case the Tribunal, after taking the facts into consideration, held that the respondents also produced the invoices issued by the dealers for availing the modvat credit. The revenue is not questioning the correctness of the invoices. Therefore, if the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of modvat credit on the strength of endorsed G.P.Is., they are entitled for the benefit of credit on the strength of invoices issued by the dealers. The refore, the question of law, as framed by the revenue does not arise out of the facts of the case. The reference application is rejected. (Di...

M/S. Maya Spinners Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Indore.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT461TriDel

1.Appellant herein is an E.O.U. They use High Speed Diesel (HSD) Oil for generating electricity used for the purpose of manufacture of Yarn CT-3 meant for export. On scrutiny of the records, Department found that 1980 ltrs. of high speed diesel oil was not properly accounted for and that 62,983 ltrs. were used for other purposes, other than for manufacture of Yarn CT-3, without payment of duty. When these defects were detected, the assessee was issued Show Cause Notice. He paid duty of 62,983 ltrs., diverted for other purposes. In the Adjudication proceedings, Dy. Commissioner levied Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 73,971/-, being the duty realisable on 1,980 ltrs. short received by the assessee and 62,983 ltrs. diverted for other use. Invoking the provisions contained in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, an equal amount was imposed as penalty. Rs. 20,000/- was also levied as penalty under Rule 173Q of the Cental Excise Rules. Adjudicating Officer also directed the assessee...

C.C.E., New Delhi Vs. M/S. Chanderpur Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue filed this reference application alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the reference application.3. Admittedly, there is a delay of 38 days in filing the reference application and Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that the Tribunal can condone the delays of 30 days. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C., Calcutta vs Omex (India) reported in 1994 (71) E. LT. 778 held that this Tribunal has power to condone the delay of only 30 days after expiry of 60 days as provided under the Act. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal considered the provisions of sec.130(1) of Customs Act, which are peri meteria of Sec. 35 G of the Central Excise Act.4. In view of above discussion, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the reference application is also rejected. (Dictated in court)....

C.C.E. Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Siri Ram JaIn Steel Rolling

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether deemed credit on re-rollable material is admissible as per Government Order No.TS/36/94-TRU dt. 1.3.94 to the SSI Units availing the benefit of Notfn.No.1/93 dt. 28.2.93 after crossing the limit of Rs.75 lakhs. This issue has been answered by a Larger Bench of three Members in the case of M/s. Digamber Foundry & Others vs. C.C.E. Allahabad & Others [2000 (38) RLT 435] holding "we are of the view that the re-rollers whose aggregate value of clearances in a financial year has exceeded Rs. 75 lakhs when they were paying the applicable rate of excise duty on the clearance beyond the value limit of Rs.75 lakhs were not liable for the benefit of Ministry's deemed credit order No.TS/36/94 TRU dt. 1.3.94".In view of the above expressed view by the Larger Bench, the appeal filed by the Revenue is only to be allowed. I do so. The order passed by the lower appellate authority appealed against is set aside....

C.C.E., New Delhi Vs. M/S. Mercury Rubber Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT541TriDel

1. When this petition came up for orders, Id. Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Respondents raised the contention that since more than 120 days expired after filing of the Reference Application, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to refer the issue to the Hon'ble High Court in view of the provisions contained in clause (1) of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The scope and ambit of Section 35G(1) is the issue. I feel that the said of Section 35G(1) is the issue. I feel that the said issue has to be dealt with by a Bench of three Member. Post before a three Member Bench of 5th February, 2001 2. Ld. DR is directed to file sufficient number of copies for being posted before a Larger Bench....

M/S. Shree Raj Texchem Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT140TriDel

1. Show cause notice dt. 30.5.96 was issued to the appellant calling upon him to state why Rs.2,05,017/- wrongly availed as modvat credit should not be recovered from them under Rule 57-U of the C.E. Rules, 1944 and why penal action should not be taken under Rule 173Q. While adjudicating on that notice, by Order-in-Original No.159/97-CE dt.10.7.97, the adjudicating authority observed "in the light of above said discussion & findings, I do not disallow credit of Rs.2,05,017/- to M/s. Shree Rajasthan Texchem Ltd. Dungarpur and drop further proceedings as initiated against them under show cause notice dt.30.5.96". This order was challenged by the Revenue in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The prayer before the Asst. Commissioner was "it is therefore prayed that the matter may be examined for determination of above discussed points and correctness or otherwise of Order-in-Original No.159/97-CE(D) dt. 9.7.97 (allowing a credit of Rs.59,597/- to the assessee) in view of above ...

M/S. Chenab Textile Mills Vs. C.C.E. Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant in this case purchased goods from the dealers covered by invoices issued by them. One such invoice in relation to inputs, which was utilised by the appellant in the manufacture of his finished goods, was not found acceptable as the document on the basis of which modvat could be claimed. This aspect was taken by the Department on the ground that the manufactuerer's details regarding those goods were not seen in the invoice. When such stand was taken, appellant got all such details from the supplier and made it available to the Department. The officers did not accept it on the ground that those details are not authenticated by the officers of the Excise Department. Consequently, modvat claim made by the appellant of the duty paid on the goods, covered by the invoice, was reversed. Hence, this appeal.2. Department has no case that goods covered by the invoice was not subjected to payment of duty; nor have they a case that those goods were not used in the manufacture of finis...

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S. Siya Ram Platex (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application for referring two questions of law made to the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, the second question framed is 'from where under the law has the Tribunal derived is authority to waive the statutory requirements of filing a declaration under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and allow credit without observing the requirements of law". This question to say that the least has been worded improperly. The Department is directed to withdraw that ground.If they want any issue to be referred to the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, the application should be properly framed taking into consideration the legal propriety....