Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments

Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC231

1. In this ROM filed in 52 appeals disposed of by a common Order, Petitioner wants to have a clarification of the points stated in paragraph 8 of the order and the period mentioned in paragraph 2 thereof.2. While dealing with deductions, namely, distributors discount and commission to consignee distributors, stock liquidation discount and uniform discount, we observed in paragraphs 8 of the order that When such commission is excluded, we arrive at the assessable value. That assessable value should be the basis for the assessment of the goods removed from the factory. This legal position cannot now be disputed. So we hold that the entire removal should be assessed on the basis of the value after deducting the commission extended to Distributors.Actually the word "commission" used in the above 2 sentences should have been avoided and the word 'discount' should have been used.Accordingly, word 'commission' seen in the closing part of paragraph 8 will stand substituted by the word 'discou...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bamcee Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT126TriDel

1. This order will dispose of three appeals, one filed by the Revenue bearing No. E/1463/94-B and the other two by assessees namely M/s.Bamcee Ltd., being A. No. E/1337/94-B and Inter-chrome (P) Ltd. No.E/1338/94-B, against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 17-3-94 passed by the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had modified the Or-der-in-Original of the Assistant Collector regarding the excisability of the sheets of different sizes/lengths made by slitting and shearing, from flat rolled sheets in coil form.2. The assessees M/s. Bamcee Ltd. and Interchrome Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in slitting and shearing of coils of CRCA, GI cold-rolled and cold-rolled sheets. They had been receiving duty paid materials from the open market and did the job work of slitting and shearing of the same. They claimed that their activity could not to be treated as manufacture under Central Excise Act and they even did not avail Modvat credit or deemed credit thereon. They accordingly, cleared the slit goods on ...

M/S. Hitkeri Potteries 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) whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit was denied on the ground that the duplicate copy of the invoice on the strength of which the credit has been taken is rubber stamped with marking 'Duplicate Copy'.3. The contention of the appellant is that a show cause notice was issued on the ground that the credit has been taken on the original copy of invoice and at the time of hearing before the adjudicating authority they produced the Duplicate copy of invoice which is printed as 'Duplicate'. Appellant now produced the original copy and duplicate copy of the invoice bearing printed marking as 'Original' and 'Duplicate'. In view of this situation, as the finding of the lower authorities that the Duplicate copy is rubber stamped as 'Duplicate copy', the whole issue requires re-consideration. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for dec...

M/S. Rajit Paints 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 whereby the credit has been denied the appellant on the ground that the invoices on which the credit was taken did not have the reference of RG 23D Register.3. The contention of the appellant is that now Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules is amended by Notification No.7/99-CE(NT) dated 9.2.99 and amended rules provides that the credit shall not be denied on the ground that any of the documents mentioned in sub-Rule does contains all the particulars required to be contained therein under these rules, if such documents contains details of payment of duty description of goods, assessable value, name and address of the factory or warehouse.The Board issued a Circular No.441/7/99-CX dated 23.2.99 containing (SIC)guidelines in respect of the Notification No/7/99-CE(NT) dated 9.2.99 and it was specified in the circular that guidelines are applicable to the pending cases and the pending cases are to be disposed of accordingly. The amend...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Nagpal Alloys Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT475TriDel

1. The respondents made a request to decide the appeals on merits and filed a copy of earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. K.C. Alloys & Steels & Others- Final Order No.3. The issue involved in these appeals is already covered by the decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the respondents. In this case the Tribunal held that: "We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Notification No. 49/97-CE., dated 1-8-1997 exempts waste and scrap, falling under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, arising in the course of manufacture of ingots and billets of non-alloy steel in an induction furnace unit, on which the duty of excise is paid under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. It is admitted fact that runners and risers had arisen during the process of manufacturing the ingots as this fact is mentioned in the show cause notices issued to the Respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order has...

Podar S.R. Mills Vs. Comissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. Notice for today's hearing of stay application , was sent to the appellants by registered post on 14.11.2000, but no response has been received from them. Therefore the stay application of the appellants is ordered to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appellants are directed to deposit the entire duty amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which their appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to them, under Section 35 of the Act. To come up for reporting compliance on 7.2.2001....

M/S. Rajasthan Cylinder and Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty. The total duty amount of Rs. 4,63,265/- was confirmed on the applicants, M/s. Rajasthan Cylinder & Containers Ltd.; duty of Rs. 1,04,640/- was confirmed on the applicants M/s. Poddar Steel Rolling Mills and of Rs. 57,503/- was confirmed on Shree Containers P. Ltd..2. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that the applicants availed the benefit of modvat credit on duplicate copy of invoice, which is a valud duty-paying document. His submission is that credit is being denied on the ground that the dealer could not produce the duplicate copy of invoice issued by the manufacturer. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur vs Shree Ram Vinyl & Chemical Industries Ltd. reported in k1999 (105) E.L.T. 294 and in the case of C.C.E. vs Unichem Trading Co. (P) Ltd. reported in 1998 (102) E.L.T. 284.3. Ld. D.R., appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that in the ...

Singhal Steels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. At the outset, ld. Counsel of the appellant has submited that in connected appeals filed by the other assessee against the same Order-in-appeal, the other Bench of the Tribunal has directed them to pre-deposit twenty percent of the duty amount for the purpose of hearing the appeal. He requests that said order of the Tribunal be followed in this case as the issue involved in this appeal and the other appeals is the same and the impugned order is also common.2. Ld. JDR has no objection to this submission of the Counsel.Therefore, without going into the merits of the stay application, in terms of the order of the Tribunal passed in the connected six appeals, the appellants in this appeal also are directed to make pre-deposit of 20% of the total amount of duty of Rs.79,009/- i.e. Rupees Sixteen thousands (round figure) with in the period of eight weeks from today.On deposit of the amount, the deposit and recovery of the balance amount of duty shall stand stayed during the pendency of t...

M/S. Vardhman Spo. Mills Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has come present on behalf of the appellant. The perusal of the file shows that earlier also on 7.7.2000, this appeal was dismissed for want for prosecution. However, later on, the appellant applied for restoration of appeal on the ground that their counsel mistook the date and for that reason could not appear. The prayer of the appellants was accordingly accepted and the appeal was ordered to be restored vide order dated 25.10.2000. In the presence of the counsel,the appeal was posted for hearing on that very date for today. But today again none has come present on behalf of the appellants. It appears the appellants are not at all interested in prosecution of the appeal. Therefore the appeal is ordered to be dismissed for want of prosecution....

C.C.E., Delhi Vs. M/S. Jindal Strips

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of parts of EOT cranes, was allowed.2. The contention of the revenue is that the parts of cranes are not capital goods under Rule 57 Q of Central Excise Rules as they are not used for production or process of any goods or for bringing cut any substance for final product.4. Rule 57 Q of Central Excise Rules, at the relevant time, provides a table for legible capital goods used in the factory of manufacturer. As per the Table, the EOT cranes falling under 84.26 of the Central Excise Tariff are eligible for the benefit of MODVAT credit as capital goods.S1. No.5 of the Table prescribes that components, spares & accessories of the goods special at s1.nos.1 to 4 are eligible for the benefit of MODVAT credit. As the revenue is not disputing the eligibility of modvat credit in respect of EOT cranes, therefore, as per the provisions of Rule 57 Q of the Central Excise Rules, the part...