Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Jay Enn Casting Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the present reference application, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh had prayed that the following question of law arising out of the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/1217/98 NB (SM) dated 22.09.98 be referred to the Punjab & haryana High Court:- "the procedure prescribed under trade notices can be dispensed with by appellate authority asking the original adjudicating authority to verify the receipt of inputs when the verification can only be done form the records at this belated stage and in no way can be equated with the physical verification which was sole purpose behind issue of trade notices to plug the evasion? 3. Similar question has earlier been proposed by the same Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh and the Tribunal had not agreed to refer the similar question to the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the reference application of the Department has been dismissed.4. Following the same, the reference application is dismissed. Ordered accordi...

J.C.T. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC698

1. The issue involved in the appeal, filed by M/s. J.C.T. Ltd. is whether Modvat Credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules is available in respect of Rustop and Survo System-68.2. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture Steel wires out of Wire Rod; that Rustop is an anti-rust material and is used for lubricating the steel wires so that they do not catch rust; that this is a part of manufacturing process only; that Survo system 68 is used in wire drawing machines; that without applying Survo system-68, the production of steel wires is not possible. He relied upon the decision in the case of Addisons and Co, Ltd. v. CCE 1990 (48) ELT 280 (T), wherein modvat credit was allowed in respect of anti-rust and anti-corrosion oil applied on finished tools. He also relied upon the decision in the case of CCE v. Dwarkanath Steel Strips Ltd. , wherein Modvat Credit was allowed in respect of resulted DW used for lubrication of the final product of st...

Jagriti Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT841TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Jagriti Industries, the matter relates to the classification of the goods which the appellants had described as crude unmachined castings classifiable under Heading No. 73.25 of the Central Excise Tariff, and which were considered by the Central Excise Authorities as machinery parts. The appellants had availed of the benefit of exemption Notification No. 275/88-C.E., dated 4-11-1988 while the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities were of the view that the goods as cleared were classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff, and that the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E., dated 4-11-1988 (as amended) was not available to the goods classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Tariff. A duty of Rs. 1,64,917.65 was demanded for the period 8-3-1989 to 28-2-1990 under show cause notice dated 10-5-1993. Penal provisions were invoked. For justifying the demand beyond the normal period of limitation, it was alleged that the assessee...

Moon Light Printer and Paper Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT170TriDel

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of wax coated paper with Central Excise registration. The officers of the Directorate General of Anti-evasion visited the appellants' factory on 28-11-1996 and carried out a surprise check of the stock of finished products and raw materials. They found the following excess and shortages : (i) Wax coated paper - Excess of 1768 kgs. over the (final product) recorded balance in RG 1 register (ii) TD plain paper - Excess of 5147 kgs. over the (raw material) recorded balance in RG 23A Pt. I register (iii) Plain poly film - Excess of 1247 kgs. over (raw material) recorded balance in RG 23A Pt. I register (iv) Kraft paper - Shortage of 6038 kgs. vis-a- (raw material) vis recorded balance in RG 23A Pt. I register 2. The officers also searched the residential premises of Shri Rajesh Rustagi, Partner of the appellants' firm on the same day and seized Indian currency amounting to Rs. 2.5 lakhs on the basis of a belief that the said amount w...

Everest Laminators Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT158TriDel

1.The issue in dispute in the above appeal relates to the excisability and consequent duty liability of Bitumenised kraft paper. The period in dispute is March to June 1976.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein purchase duty paid kraft paper classifiable under TI 17(2) of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and then bitumenised the same by an application of bitumen liquid between two sheets of kraft paper pressed against each other and sandwiched between them. The products are then marketed as bitumenised kraft paper. Two show cause notices, one dated 31-7-76 raising a demand of Rs. 12,764.70 for the period 16-3-76 to 26-5-76, and the other dated 31-7-76 for Rs. 1682.50 for the period 27-5-76 to 28-6-76 were issued on the ground that the process of bitumenisation amounts to manufacture and that the bitumenised kraft paper is classifiable under TI 17(2). The Assistant Collector confirmed the total demand of Rs. 14,447.20; the lower appellate auth...

K.K. Saksena Vs. Indo Rama Synthetics (i) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(58)DRJ764

K.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner while his application for discharge was pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was only a nominee Director of IDB1 and as such, he was not liable to be prosecuted in view of the provisions of 1DBI Act.2. Since the application for discharge moved on behalf of the petitioner is already been pending before the learned Trial Court, it would be in the fitness of things that the petitioner approaches this Court only alter disposal of that application.3. Under the circumstances, this petition stands disposed of. Till the disposal of the application filed on behalf of the petitioner before the trial Court, personal appearance of petitioner shall stand exempted and he would be appearing through his counsel only. Non-bailable warrants issued against him are also cancelled.Copy of...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chemical and Metallurgical Design Co. L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(57)DRJ246; [2001]247ITR749(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This judgment will cover I. T. Rs. Nos. 132 to 135 of 1978,2. Expressing doubt about the correctness of the ratio indicated in CAT v. Marketing Research Corporation, reference has been made by a Division Bench for interpreting the scope and ambit of Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').3. The background in which the reference has been made is as follows : At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Act :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed is entitled to exemption under Section 80-O on the gross receipts and not on the net income ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the disallowances made by the Income-tax Officer of the consultation fees an...

M/S. L.M.L. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT269TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal is the denial of modvat claimed by the appellant against attested triplicate copies of the invoices. The appellants claimed the credit against triplicate copies vide their letter dated 3.11.98 stating that original and duplicate copies of the invoices had been lost during the transit of the goods. The appellant received in reply a letter C.N. V(30328-Modvat/95/6366 dt. 27.11.98 from the Superintendent (Technical), Central Excise Div.II, Kanpur, stating that the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division-II Kanpur has disallowed the modvat credit as, triplicate copies of invoices are not specified document to avail modvat credit under Central Excise Rule, 1944. The appeal against the Supdt. letter was also rejected by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appals) Ghaziabad.The present appeal is against these orders.2. The appellants have submitted that the letter of the Supdt., intimating them of rejection of the modvat credit is a gross violation o...

M/S. Singla Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant seeks stay of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.50,000/- as confirmed in the impugned order in appeal. The appellants' submission is that no penalty was imposable in view of the setting aside of the duty demand. They have relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel V. State of Orissa reported in 1978 (2) ELT (J.159) SC and other decisions in support of their case. As the appellants have a strong prima facie case, the stay as sought for is granted....

M/S. Advance Lamp Components (P) Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT78TriDel

1. The present appeal is directed against denial of modvat credit to the appellant.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of glass and glassware for which soda ash is one of the inputs. The appellant was eligible for modvat credit of the duty paid on soda ash. They purchased two consignment from M/s. Ashok Chemical, Ferozabad under cover of invoice Nos. 7348 and 7349 dated 20.7.94. The amount of duty involved was Rs. 65,158/-.The credit has been denied on the ground that the dealer (M/s Ashok Chemical) form whom the purchase was made has not taken registration, as required under Notification No. 32/94 dated 4.7.94.3. The appellant have submitted that at the time of purchase of the goods the appellant was not aware of the requirement that the dealer was required to take registration. It has also been submitted that the fact about duty having been paid on the goods could have been verified by the Central Excise Authorities. Instead of that credit has been denied arbitrary. The appellants su...