Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Govind Rubber

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT701TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-appeal dated 17.12.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the Order-in-original dated 17/18.8.99 of the Deputy Commissioner who held the claim of the respondents for the refund of duty and penalty amount as time barred.2. The fact giving rise to this appeal, may briefly be stated are as under: 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of tyres and tubes. A demand of Rs.3,94,000/- was confirmed against them by the Assistant Commissioner, besides the imposition of penalty of Rs.5,000/-, vide order-in-original dated 17.3.97 for having availed the modvat credit illegally. However, in appeal against that order by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed them credit of Rs.2,97,350/- and disallowed credit of only Rs.96,650/- and also reduced the penalty amount of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.4000/- vide order dated 31.3.98. The respondents deposited Rs.96,650/- vide debit entry No. 55 dated 1...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Pfizer Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 21.3.2000 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the Order-in-Original dated 28.5.99 of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing the modvat credit to the tune of Rs.96,541/- by not condoning the delay of 76 days in filing the declaration under Rule 57 T of the Central Excise.The respondents are engaged in manufacture of bulk drugs. They filed declaration under Rule 57 T before the Assistant Commissioner on 19.12.97 with a prayer to condone the delay of period of 76 days. The Assistant Commissioner however, refused to condone the delay and as a result thereof, the respondents were served with a show cause notice dated 23.6.98 to show cause as to why the amount of Rs.96,541/- of which they had wrongly taken the credit, be not recovered from them, under Rule 57-U of the Rules, along with interest. After getting their reply to that show cause notice, wherein they questioned the corr...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. U.P. Twiga Fibre Glass

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has come present on behalf of the respondents for contesting the reference application filed by the Revenue. The Revenue has sought the reference to the High Court against the Final Order No.A/774-775/97 NB (SM) dated 26.9.97. The perusal of the file shows that on 21.1.97, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised the preliminary objection that the reference application of the Revenue was time barred. The Counsel also invited attention of the then Bench to the reference application wherein at Section 5 & 6, Revenue has mentioned the date of the Final decision as 26.9.97 and the receipt of its copy on 10.6.98 The Bench thereafter directed the Revenue to file an affidavit of the concerned officer regarding the date of receipt of the copy of the Final Order only on 10.6.98, i.e. after nine months of passing of the Final order. The matter was adjourned to 10.1.2000 by the Bench for filing of affidavit.2. On 10.1.2000, the requisite affidavit was not filed and t...

Bhawani Shankar Castings Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants M/s. Bhawani Shankar Castings against the impugned order in appeal dated 21.3.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has dismissed the appeal summarily under Section 35 F of the Act for non-compliance with his Stay order dated 7.9.99 requiring them to make pre-deposit of Rs.2 lakhs.2. The ld. Counsel for the appellants has challenged the validity of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), on the main ground that the stay order for the non-compliance of which the appeal of the appellant had been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), was passed, without hearing them. Even before the passing of impugned order dismissing the appeal itself, the appellants were not heard by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Ld. JDR on the other hand, has not been able to refute this ground of the appellants. He has not disputed that the appellants were neither heard at the time when the stay order was passed by the Commissioner (Appea...

Taran Taran Co-op. Sugar Mills Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT146TriDel

1. The short question involved in these appeals is the valuation of molasses manufactured by the sugar mills (appellants in these cases).The appellants had paid duty treating the price they realised on sale of the molasses as the assessable value of molasses. Revenue raised further demands on the ground that the State Govt. had agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 100.00 per quintal as subsidy. An argument has also been raised that the State Govt. had fixed rate of Rs. 300.00 per quintal as the sale price of molasses. It has been submitted before us by the appellants that they had not received any subsidy from the State Govt., nor had any order been passed under the statute fixing the sale price of the molasses at Rs. 300.00 per quintal. The Sale price realised by them was the whole and sole consideration for which they sold the molasses in question.2. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellants had received any further consideration for the sale of molasses. No order under a...

Simplex Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT381TriDel

1. The appellants in Appeal No. E/2377/2000-D moved a Miscellaneous Application for recalling/modifying the order of stay, No. S/72/2000-D, dated 31-10-2000. In the appeal they challenged the imposition of duty of Rs. 9,07,825.67 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 80,000/-. In that appeal, the appellants prayed for staying the operation of the order imposing the above duty and penalty. Stay order stood posted to 31-10-2000. On that date inspite of the notice none appeared on behalf of the appellants to move stay application. So this Tribunal directed the appellants to make deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The appeal was posted for today for reporting compliance. Today, the representative of the appellants' company while moving Miscellaneous Application submitted that the company was closed way back in 1995 and that the notice for posting the case on 31-10-2000 did not reach any of the office of the...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bajaj Carpet India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC605

1. This appeal at the instance of the Revenue is against order-in-original No. 5/Commr./MRT-11/97, dated 2-9-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut. As per that order, assessee was made liable to pay duty for six months immediately preceding the date of issue of show cause notice. He dropped the demand raised on account of incorrect availment/utilisation of Modvat credit and also penal proceedings contemplated against the assessee in the show cause notice.Aggrieved by the confirmation of duty liability for the period of six months, the assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal as E/1978/97-D. That appeal was allowed by this Tribunal by Final Order No. 523/98-D, dated 14-7-1998, 1999 (105) E.L.T. 235 (Tribunal) by setting aside the order of the Commissioner. By virtue of the said decision, order-in-original passed by the Commissioner got merged in the final order passed by this Tribunal.2. Order of the Commissioner was reviewed by the Board on 28-8-1998.Pursuant t...

Light Publication Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT378TriDel

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 22-3-1993 passed by the Collector, Central Excise.In the impugned order the duty amounting to Rs. 5,99,423.23 was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was also imposed. The Collector of Central Excise also ordered for confiscation of Land, Plant & Machinery and permitted the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs.2. Brief facts of the case are that appelLints are engaged in the manufacture of Printed Cartons and Printed Catch Covers and they were availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE., dated 1-3-1986 which was amended by Notification No. :i44/87-C.E., dated 30-10- 1987 to the effect that the benefit of the notification is not admissible to the units registered with Director General of Techrical Development Units (DGTD) as per Para 4(b) of Notification No.175 /86-C.E. The appellants applied for registration as DGTD Unit and the same was granted on 26-7-1988. The Unit of ...

Sawhney Export House Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC232

1. This Tribunal disposed of Appeal No. C/3044/90-A as per Final Order No. 2640/96^A, dated 7-8-1996 observing: "It is now contended on behalf of the appellants, if there was no "order" as contemplated by law, by the Assistant Collector confiscating the goods, levying redemption fine and penalty and demanding duty, the higher duty paid, redemption fine and penalty paid would have to be refunded. This is a matter for the appellants to take up with the Assistant Collector. With this observation, the appeal is disposed of." In compliance with the direction given as above, appellant moved the Assistant Collector for getting the refund. On account of the continued pressure exerted by the appellant to take the refund, it appears that the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Unit, New Delhi sent communication No. VIII (1) 20/Misc./153/97/Pt./126 dated 4-2-1999 requiring the appellant to furnish the documents mentioned therein and "all other relevant documents in origina...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Polyset Plastics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC631

1. The respondents herein are licensed manufacturers of nylon brake gear bushes and brake gear bushes. They filed classification lists under sub-heading 39226.90 (sic) as "other articles of plastic" and claimed exemption from duty in terms of Notification 53/88, dated 1-3-1988. In the remarks column of the classification list the end-use of the products was described as "Support Bogie Brake Gear in Railways". The classification lists were approved finally by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, extending the benefit of the Notification. Doubts arose about classification of the product on the basis of the end-use and hence the Revenue preferred appeals before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay seeking classification under sub-heading 86.07 without the benefit of any exemption. The lower appellate authority upheld the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, on an interpretation of the Chapter Notes to Chapter 86, Chapter 39 and Section XV and Section XVII of the C...