Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

M/S. Jaipur PolyspIn Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal whereby the refund filed by the appellants was held to be time-barred.The appellants filed the refund claims in consequence to the orders-in-appeal passed in their favour. The adjudicating authority allowed the refund claims. The revenue reviewed the order passed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the refund claims are time-barred and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order allowed the appeal filed by the revenue.Ld Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that as the appellants filed this refund claim, as consequential relief in view of the order-in-appal passed in their favour, the claim cannot be held to be time-barred. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of National Engg. Indus. Ltd. (Final Order No. A/2237-2239/00-NB(S) dated 5.12.2000). He, therefore, prays that the appeals be allowed.In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appe...

M/S. Cosmo Metal Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appeal is admitted after examining the records and hearding 1d.JDR Sh. A.K. Jain. Ld. Advocate for the appellants is not present, reportedly, on account of his being pre-occupied with case before another Bench.2. The total amount of duty involved in the dispute is Rs. 27,718.14.Out of this amount Rs. 20,000/- was deposited by the party on 30.12.99, which fact is not contested before me. The remaining amount and stay recovery thereof, pending the appeal. The present stay application stands allowed unconditionally. The appeal will be heard on 14.3.2001....

Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta @ Arujn Vs. C.C. Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts in this case are that on 25.11.95, the Police Officers of P.S. Colonelgnj, Allahabad handed over the present appellant along with for Cold biscuits of foreign origin bearing the mark "999.0 Australia, Johnson Matthy, 10 Tolas", totally weighing 466.600 gms. valued at Rs.2,35,633/- to the Customs and Central Excise Officers, Allahabad. On interrogation, the appellant in his statement dt. 25.11.95 stated that he resided under P.S. Colenelgnj, Allahabad that he had come to Allahabad along with three friends that he along with his friends had gone to meet S/Shri Vijay Kumar Mishra, Deepak Kumar Mishra, Jayram Mandal, Basant Kumar and Vinod Kumar who were arrested on the allegations of gold smuggling. He admitted the recovery of foreign gold biscuits with foreign marking from his person and stated that he had no documents showing licit importation/Customs duty in respect of recovered gold biscuits. The proceedings were initiated against the appellant. These culminated in...

M/S. National Engg. Indus. Ltd., Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty.2. In these cases, the MODVAT Credit was denied to the applicants on the ground that the dealer had not produced the duplicate copy of invoice issued by the manufacturer.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the Tribunal, vide Stay Order No. S/878/00-NB(S) dated 26.12.2000 in the case of Shree Krishna Rolling Mills (Jaipur) Ltd. vs C.C.E., Jaipur, which is against the same impugned order, granted unconditional stay.He, therefore, prays that the applications be allowed.5. In these cases, the Commissioner (Appeals), disposed of 17 appeals by a common order-in-appeal and the Tribunal in the case of Shree Krishna Rolling Mill (Jaipur) Ltd. (supra), which is against the same impugned order, waived the pre-deosit of duty.5. In view of the above stay order, the pre-deposit of duty is waived for hearing of the appeals and the registry is directed to list the appeals on 14.02.2001 alongwit...

M/S. Controls and Switchgear Co. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. There is no representation for the appellants today inspite of notice. However, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to dispose of this matter after examining the records and hearing ld. Departmental representative.2. The appellants are manufacturers of Electrical goods and are availing the facility of modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. They took modvat credit of Rs. 1,30,786.65 on inputs in April 1994. A part of this credit was taken on the strength of original copy of invoice as the duplicate copy had been lost in transit. Another part of the above credit was taken on the strength of invoices issued by unregistered dealer and the remaining credit was taken on the strength of gate passes issued prior to 31.3.94 but endorsed after that date. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner allowed the entire credit. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was reviewed by the jurisdictional Commissioner, whereupon the department preferred appeal to the...

C.C.E., Bhopal Vs. M/S. S.K. Tyres and Tubes

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT122TriDel

1.The revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no requirement for filing fresh declaration under Rule 57G of the Rules while switching over from full exemption to MODVAT Scheme, if the manufacturer had/earlier filed a declaration for availing the MODVAT Credit.4. The contention of the revenue is that the respondents filed a declaration for availing the MODVAT credit and they availed the benefit of MODVAT Scheme. Thereafter, the respondents opted for availing the benefit of exemption under notification no. 1/93 and thereafter the respondents again opted for MODVAT Scheme. The objection of the revenue is that the when the respondents opted for MODVAT Scheme second time, they are required to file a fresh declaration. The Tribunal in the case of standard Detergents Pvt. Ltd. vs C.C.E. reported in 1999 (34) RLT 767, after relying upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal, h...

M/S Amrit Tank Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. There is no representation for the appellants, However, they have requested for a decision on merits without hearing them. I have carefully examined the records and have heard ld. JDR Sh. S.C.Pushkarna for the respondents.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products and were availing the facility of modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules during the relevant period.They took modvat credit of Rs. 2,81,768/- on S.S. Plates (H.R. Coils) during the quarters ending December, 1995 and March 1996. The credit was disallowed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the party had not filed the necessary declaration under Rule 57G. The assessees' application under Rule 57H for allowing the modvat credit was also rejected by the Assistant Commissioner for the reason that the provisions of Rule 57H were invocable only in respect of any stock of inputs existing on the date of filing of the Rule 57G declaration, the...

Cce, Delhi Vs. M/S. Swarajya Cement Indus. (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals ).2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no suppression of facts on the part of the respondents, hence demand is time-barred.3. In this case, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of clinkers and cement. A show cause notice was issued on 29.9.94 for demand of duty for the period from 20.3.90 to 16.9.90 on clinkers. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand after invoking the extended period of limitation under sec. 11A of the Central Excise Act. The respondents filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), vide impugned order, allowed the appeal.4. Ld. D.R., appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that the respondents had not filed any classification list in respect of clinkers, which are used by the respondents captively. He submits that the respondents had not filed any classification list and they suppressed the facts with intent to evad...

M/S. National Engg. Indus. Ltd. 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. In these cases, the benefit of MODVAT credit is denied on the ground that the parts are specifically excluded from the main definition of capital goods.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that in applicants' own case, the Tribunal, after relying upon the Circular dated 02-12-96, allowed the applications for waiver of pre-deposit unconditionally.3. Heard ld. D.R., who reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.4. In view of the Board's circular No. 276\110\96-TRU dt. 2.12.2000-NB (S) dated 5.12.2000, granted unconditional stay in applicants' own case. In view of the earlier stay order, the pre-deposit of whole of the duty is waived for hearing of the appeals. Registry is directed to list the appeals on 06.02.2001 alongwith appeal no. E/2870/2000-NB (S)....

M/S. Cimmco Birla Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal involved a sum of Rs.13,139/- as duty and a sum of Rs.1,000/- as penalty imposed on the appellants by the asst.Commissioner of Central Excise, Gwalior vide his Order dt. 17.6.96 and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal vide his Order dt.. 17.8.2000. The matter is listed today for admission. When the matter was called, there is no one for the appellants despite the notice dt. 4.12.2000 sent to them. There is no communication from them either requesting for adjournment or stating the reasons for their non-appearance. It therefore seems that the appellants are to interested in prosecuting their appeal. Keeping in view the small amount involved in this appeal, the admission of the same is refused under the second proviso to Section 35B (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944....