Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Punjab Hammers (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M.s.Punjab Hammers Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Rough Forged Products and were availing the benefit of MODVAT credit on the inputs used in or in relation to their final product. A show cause notice was issued to M/s. Punjab Hammers Pvt. Ltd. for denial of MODVAT credit on the ground that the Gate passes endorsed after 1.4.94 were not valid duty paying documents in view of the Notification No.16/94-CE(N.T.) dated 30.3.94. The adjudicating confirmed the demand.M/s. Punjab Hammers Pvt. ltd. filed an appeal and the same was allowed by the commissioner (Appeals). Revenue filed the appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after relying upon the decision of Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 1996, (83) E.L.T. 620 (Tribunal) dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.2. The Revenue filed Reference application for referring the question of law to the Hon'ble High Court.3. The MODVAT Scheme was first introduced in March, 1986 vide ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. J.K. Leatherite Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT459TriDel

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, inspite of notice. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the respondents.2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in respondents' own case, held that if a manufacturer choses not to avail the duty exemption, he is entitled to avail the benefit of taking the Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of final products.5. The contention of the revenues is that in terms of Notification No.217/86, dated 1-3-1986, the PVC film/sheet, if captively consumed in the manufacture of laminated fabric of Chapter 59, are exempt from payment of duty, hence, the respondents could not pay duty on their own. The contention of the revenue is that the decision of the Tribunal in respondent's own case, vide final order No. A/1047/97-NG, dated 21-10-1997, is...

C.C.E. Meerut Vs. M/S. Super Cassettes Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT838TriDel

1. These appeals have been filed out of time. Department has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the papers. On hearing the ld. Counsel representing the Respondents, I feel that the Department has properly explained the delay. So, the delay caused in filing these appels is condoned. I take up the appeals on merit for disposal.2. In these four appeals filed by the Revenue, the question is regarding the propriety of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in awarding interest on the amount refunded because of the delayed payment. As a result of decision of Hon'ble High Court and the Tribunal, Department had to refund money to the assessee. Since the refund took place after a long lapse of time, they claimed interest.The (sic) to pay the interest. They took up the matter in appeal.Appellate Commissioner awarded interest for the period during which money was illegally detained by the Department. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said order passed by...

Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT70TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against demand of duty of Rs. 5,03,167.32 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,25,000/-.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Steam Turbines. Steam turbines have thousands of parts. Certain parts of steam turbines are manufactured by the appellants within the factory. These parts are solely and principally used only for steam turbines. The appellants are also purchasing parts from outside which are duty paid parts of steam turbines. These parts are purchased by the appellants by placing order.3. In respect of the parts of steam turbine which are manufactured and captively consumed, the appellants claimed exemption under Notifica tion No. 217/86 dated 2-4-1986. In respect of those parts which are purchased from outside and on which duty has already been paid by the respective manufacturers of those parts, the appellants are availing the Modvat credit. Classification list have been filed by th...

C.C.E., Allahabad Vs. M/S. Hindalco Indus. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue filed this reference application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court: "Whether item-Sulphuric Acid required for production of Aluminium and products thereof can be considered as input eligible for MODVAT Credit under Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 or not?" 3. The contention of the revenue is that the sulphuric acid does not appear to be an input eligible within the ambit of an expression in or (SIC) in relation to the manufacture of final product used in Rule 57-A of Central Excise Rules. On the other hand, in reference application, the revenue is admitting that the sulphuric acid is stated to be used to remove carbon coating which settles on the heating tubes and it is essential for running and maintenance of heating tubes, which is a part of the plant and machinery. The Tribunal in the Final Order, relied upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Indus. Ltd. vs C.C.E., Allahabad reported in 1996 (8...

C.C.E., Raipur Vs. M/S. Raymond Cement Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue filed this reference application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court: "Whether the MODVAT credit on explosives used for blasting of Lime Stone mines for obtaining "Lime Stone" a basic raw material for manufacture of cement, is admissible or under Rule 57-A of Central Excise Rules, or otherwise, which are subsequently transported to the cement units to be used for manufacture of cement." In this case the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 2566-73/96-NB dated 28.10.96 held that MODVAT credit was available to the explosives used in the mines by the cement manufacturers, after relying upon the earlier decision in the case of Associated Cement Co.reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T.415.The contention of the revenue is that the explosives are used in the mines, which are away from the cement factory, therefore they are used in the factory where the cement is being manufactured. Rule 57 A of Central Excise Rules provides that MODVAT credit shall be taken ...

Sita Steel Tubes (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by CIT (Appeals) on 5-7-1993 relevant to assessment year 1989-90. The main grievance of the assessee relates to the fact that the CIT (Appeals) had wrongly included rental income under the head "Income from house property" rather than "business income". Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee entered into an agreement with M/s. Goel Industrial Corporation (its sister concern) on 27-4-1984 whereby a portion of land was taken on lease for 10 years on a monthly ground rent of Rs. 500. Thereafter, it constructed a building thereon and an amount of Rs. 6,94,045.92 was spent on its construction upto 31-12-1986. After constructing it, the assessee let out the same to M/s, PEE CEE Casings Pvt. Ltd. on a monthly rent of Rs. 26,100. This property consisted of a brick built shed covered with GC sheets. The assessee claimed the rental income as "business income*. The learned Assessing Officer after considering ...

Sita Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]79ITD436(Delhi)

ORDERPer Syal, A.M.This is an appeal filed by the assessed against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on 5-7-1993 relevant to assessment year 1989-90. The main grievance of the assessed relates to the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly included rental income under the head 'Income from house property' rather than 'business income'. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessed entered into an agreement with M/s. Goel Industrial Corporation (its sister concern) on 27-4-1984 whereby a portion of land was taken on lease for 10 years on a monthly ground rent of Rs. 500. Thereafter, it constructed a building thereon and an amount of Rs. 6,94,045.92 was spent on its construction up to 31-12-1986. After constructing it, the assessed let out the same to M/s. PEE CEE Casings Pvt. Ltd. on a monthly rent of Rs. 26,100. This property consisted of a brick built shed covered with GC sheets. The assessed claimed the rental income as 'business income'. The learned as...

B.M.C. Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC198

"Whether when part of goods imported is found to be liable to confiscation, department is entitled to confiscate the entire consignment of the goods and consequently penalty imposed or whether only the offending portion of the consignment is to be confiscated and penalty limited to that portion." 2. The admitted facts of the case are that appellants made import of garments declaring the same in the Bill of Entry as completely pre-mutilated old Synthetic/Woollen rags. On examination, it was found that part of the consignment contained pre-mutilated Synthetic rags cut into two pieces and part of the consignment was found to be of non-mutilated serviceable garments. The adjudicating authority confiscated the non-mutilated serviceable garments and allowed the same on payment of redemption fine. The importers, as well as the Revenue, filed appeals before the Commissioner of Customs and Commissioner of Customs vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the importer and allowed the ap...

Shree Krishna Rolling Mill Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT160TriDel

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Shree Krishna Rolling Mills (Jaipur) Ltd., for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 79,479/-.2. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules has been dis-allowed to them on the ground that the supplier of the inputs, which is a registered depot of M/s. SAIL, had not received the inputs under the cover of "Duplicate copy for Transporter"; that on similar issue the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/1735/2000/NB, dated 24-8-2000 in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. KEC International Ltd. have allowed the Modvat credit holding that there was no violation of any Rule committed by the manufacturer. Shri A.K. Jain, ld. DR, submitted that the facts in KEC International case are different from the facts in the present matter; that as supplier had not received the input under the cover of specified duty paying documents, he is not eligible to...