Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Kakkar Complex Steels (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT361TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed this application stating that a point of law reading as "Whether credit is allowable on Hot Tops which function as appliance that becomes unusable after frequent use in manufacturing process and is not consumed as such?" 2. Arguing the case, Shri M.D.Singh, ld.SDR submits that a SCN was issued to the assessee. The Asst.Commissioner while adjudicating the case confirmed the demand and also imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/-. In appeal, the Commissioner upheld the demand but dropped the penalty. He submits that the Tribunal decided the issue is favour of the assessee holding that hot tops are modvatable items. He submits that a point of law arises as there was decision of the Tribunal earlier also wherein it was held that hot tops are not modvatable items. He, therefore prays that the mater may be referred to the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court for their considered view on the issue.3. Shri B.M.Sharma, ld.Consultant opposes the request and submits that this i...

M/S. Ajar Shila (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as appellant failed to comply with the Stay order.3. The contention of the appellant is that adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.20,000/- and imposed total penalty of Rs.22,000/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The duty of Rs.20,000/O was already deposited by the appellant and this fact was admitted by the Revenue and even the adjudicating authority noted this fact. The amount of Rs.22,000/- was deposited by them after passing the stay order and this fact was brought to the notice of Commissioner (Appeals) vide letter dated 13.4.2000. The contention of the appellant is that in spite of compliance their appeal was dismissed for non-compliance to the stay order ...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Diamond Steel Rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this reference application filed under sub-section I of Section 35 G of Central Excise Act 1944 the Revenue has sought the reference of the following question to the High Court: "Whether gate passes issued prior to 1.4.94 but endorsed on or after that date would fall under the coverage of Entry No.10 in the table to the Notification No.16/94-CE (NT) dated 30.3.94 and would consequently became eligible documents for taking credit under the Modvat Scheme?" 2. The learned DR stated that the issue sought to be referred in this case has already been referred (to Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Moosa Haji Patra Wala Pvt. Ltd. and to Chandigarh High Court in the Jindal Steels case). As the issue is already under reference to the High Courts this reference application also is allowed....

M/S. Riken Instrumentation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant made a request to decide the appeal on merit.Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of Industrial Laminates was denied to the appellant on the ground that they had not declared the same in the declaration.2. The contention of the appellant in appeal memorandum is that they had declared Insultating Tapes under Heading 8546.00 of Central Excise Tariff and Industrial Laminates are also falls under the same tariff.The contention of the appellant is also that the Commissioner (Appeals) in their own case in respect of previous period vide order in appeal No.1294/CE/APPL/CHD/99 dated 26.7.99 allowed the same benefit.3. Heard learned SDR who reiterates the finding of the lower authorities.4. The appellant availed the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of Industrial Laminates falling under Chapter Heading 8546.00 Central Excise Tariff and in their declaration they mentioned ...

M/S. Birla Vxl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit was disallowed on the ground that the appellant had not declared the inputs in their declaration.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellants had declared RENOCID. F. Blue as input in their declaration and as per allegation of the Revenue they had taken credit on RENOCID.F. Blue 5SR. He submits that the appellants had declared the Chapter Heading of the input on both RENOSID. F. Blue and 5 SR. Learned Counsel submits that the 5SR is in respect of the shade of dyes. He further submits that Rule 57-G has been amended vide Notification No.7/99-CE dated 9.2.99 whereby it is prescribed that no credit shall be denied on the ground that the declaration filed under the Rules does not contain all the details required to be contained therein. His submission is that the Board issued Circular No.441/7/89-CX dated 23.2.99 clari...

Montana Valves and Compressors Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC266

1. This is an application stating that a mistake has crept in the Final Order No. A/963-66/99-NB dt.29.10.99. It has therfore been prayed that the mistake may be rectified.2. The mistake is reported to be that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Union of India v. Kumar Trading Co. held that "A close scrutiny of Section 111(o) pre-supposes that goods should be of exempted category, but there is no exemption notification pertaining to these goods has been brought to the notice of the Court.Section 111(o) in the present case is wholly inapplicable. In fact, the goods were imported under the letter of credit issued by M/s. Nitu Enterprises of Nepal from another contracting party M/s. Kumar Trading Co. of Dubai. Goods were being transhipped from Dubai to Kathmandu via Calcutta Port. Therefore, the Customs Authority could not have checked these goods as there is no such provision for such goods being confiscated on a mere apprehension that they are bona-fidely (sic) meant to be t...

Kejriwal Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT226TriDel

1. The issue in these nine appeals is the same, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that SCNs were issued to M/s. Kejriwal Enterprises, M/s. Priyanka Metals and M/s. Gautam Metals Industries & Others alleging that the appellants had taken Modvat credit illegally in-as-much as it was alleged that M/s. Kejriwal Enterprises availed Modvat credit of duty paid on copper bars without actually receiving the bars in the factory premises and utilised the said Modvat credit for payment of duty on goods which were never produced out of the said bars. It was alleged that M/s. Kejriwal Enterprises issued 57F(2) Challans to various rollers without sending/receiving any goods. It was also alleged that M/s. Kejriwal sold the copper bars in the open market without debiting the Modvat credit availed of and that they issued Bogus Gate Passes to various persons without sending the goods so as to facilitate avai...

industrial Cables (i) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC236

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 13.1.98 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. Arguing for the assessee Shri J.R Kaushik, submitted that issue relates to refund claim. Refund claim has been rejected by both the authorities below that refund claim was barred by time. He submitted that both the authorities of the view that refund claim should be filed within 6 months from the date of payment of duty on monthly returns were made. In the instant case the party has filed refund claim within 6 months from the date of finalisation of provisional assessment.Accordingly refund claim is not barred by time as it was held by the Tribunal in several cases. Further, he said that issue with reference to unjust enrichment has not been examined. He also submitted that in the similar facts and circumstances in the very appellants' case the matter has already been remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the issue with reference to the unj...

Premier Clearing Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT758TriDel

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi revoking the CHA Licence issued to the appellants under Rule 21 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.The Licence which was valid upto 18-6-99 has been revoked on the ground that the performance of the CHA/appellant has not been found to be satisfactory regarding the quantity or value of cargo cleared, as per the norms fixed by Public Notice 33/96, dated 5-7-96. In terms of Regulation 12(2) of the CHALR, 1984, the performance of the CHA has to be satisfactory with reference to quantity or value of cargo cleared conforming to the norms. Although the fall in the business of the CHA was due to medical problems faced by the CHA, the provisions of the Regulations do not contemplate any leniency on sufficient grounds being shown....

Jindal Polymers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT431TriDel

1. These two appeals arise out of the same order and, therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants manufacture the polyester chips/yarn/fibre. The appellants used furnace oil as fuel in the factory. They accordingly took Modvat credit of Central Excise duty on furnace oil at the rate of 15% ad valorem. The Notification No. 14/97-C.E., dated 3-5-1997 issued under Rule 57A restricted the credit to 10% on furnace oil. The department alleged that the Modvat credit on furnace oil used as fuel in the factory was restricted to 10% as per Notification No. 5/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994.The department, however, observed that the restriction imposed by Notification No. 5/94-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 14/97-C.E.would be applicable in respect of inputs mentioned in Rule 576 also and, therefore the appellants were entitled to Modvat credit only to the extent 10% and not the entire duty paid on ...