Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Laxmi Engineering Industries Vs. Cce Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application filed by M/s Laxmi Engineering Industries requesting for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 74,856/- as dis-allowed modvat credit and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the applicants. The ld. JDR, Shri Swatantra Kumar, pointed out that the applicant has neither filed the reply to the show cause notice nor attended personal hearing before the Assistant Commissioner. He, further, mentioned that the applicant has taken the modvat credit after the expiry of six months from the date of issue of invoice which is not permissible under the law. The applicant has mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal that the impugned Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) is against the principle of natural justice as it was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to them; that the credit was taken on 30-5-98 on the basis of invoices dt. 29-11-97; that for computing the limitation the day of issuance of documents must be exclud...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicant filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. A/1333/99-NB(SM) dated 2.12.99.3. The contention of the applicant is that before the Tribunal they made tow submissions in respect of their claim. Their first contention was that when they had declared the capital goods in broader manner, the same would covered the goods in question irrespective of the fact that they had filed declaration subsequently for the same. The contention of the applicant is that, the Hon'ble Tribunal decided the issue, whether the order of the Assistant Commissioner condoning the delay was proper or not however, no decision is given on the issue in respect of their declaration on broader manner, whether it would be sufficient for availing the MODVAT credit for the goods in dispute.4. The Tribunal in the Final order in Para-4 noted the pleas of the appellants taken in their grounds of appeal. The Tribunal after considering the pleas of the appellant that the authorities bel...

M/S Punsumi India Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Today the matter is posted for hearing stay application filed by M/s Punsumi India Ltd against the Order No. 1074/(KDT)-CE/JPR-I/2000 dt.9-10-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Jaipur,upholding penalty of Rs. 5,000/- against the Respondents. As the issue involved is in very narrow compass, I take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. Shri Randhir Singh,Ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Aluminium Electrolytic capacitors which are used in Telecommunication equipments and Audio Video Appliances; that testing is an essential part of their manufacturing and marketing process; that the capacitors go out of satisfied tolerance with the passage of time if kept unused; that for correcting the para meters, they are retesting and reconditioning the capacitors if these are kept beyond a period of one year in stock; that during the retesting/reconditioning, or the capacitors get rejected; that the Commissioner (Appeal) under the imp...

M/S. Rama Times, Delhi Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC763

1. Matter called. There is no representation for the applicants.However, their request in writing has come on record seeking adjournment. The respondents are represented by ld. JDR Shri Swatantra Kumar.2. As rightly pointed out by ld. JDR, this application has been filed seeking rectification of interim order (stay order passed by the Bench) and such an application is not maintainable under Sub-section 2 of Section 129B of the Customs Act. The said provision of law contemplates only rectification of mistakes in the orders passed by the Tribunal under sub-section 1 of Section 129B. Any stay order passed by the Tribunal directing the appellants to make pre-deposit of any amount for purposes of hearing the appeal on its merits is an order passed under Section 129E of the Act and not under sub-section 1 of Section 129B. It follows that stay orders of the kind under reference are not rectifiable under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act. The present application is, therefore, clearly not ma...

Sh. Vijay Kumar JaIn Vs. Cc Shillong

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT137TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, tiled by Shri Vijay Kumar Jain, is whether the gold biscuits bearing foreign mark seized from the possession of Abdul Rahim are liable to confiscation and whether penalty is imposable on the Appellant.2. Shri J.S.Agarwal, ld. Advocate, submitted that Appellant had been dealing in various good under the name and style of M/s Mohan Ceramics at Jodhpur since 1993; that in December 1995, he commenced trading in gold bullion also, that he had purchased 11 gold biscuits from M/s Sanghvie Enterprises Mumbai under Bill Nos. 210 and 202 dt. 27.11.1996 on cash payment; that in order to get better price, he had sent 11 gold biscuits with his employee Abdul Rahim to shillong for sale through one dealer G.C.Goel; that as said Goel and his son Sanjay Goel were out of Station, Abdul Rahim started his journey back to Jodhpur and he was intercepted on 2-2-1996 at Paltan Bazar, Guwahati and gold biscuits were seized under the Customs Act; that the Commissioner of c...

Cce, New Delhi Vs. M/S. G.E. Motor India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT253TriDel

1. This is an application for reference to the Hon'ble High Court filed by the Revenue.2. The facts of the case are that by the impugned order this Tribunal held that Modvat credit was admissible if taken on the strength of gate passes which were issued prior to 1.4.94 but were endorsed subsequently and credit thereon was taken before 30.6.94.3. Arguing the case for Revenue Shri A.K.Jain, Ld. DR submits that similar issue was decided by the West Regional Bench at Bombay and that when the Department preferred an application requesting for referring the matter to the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CCE vs Moosa Hazi Patrawala reported in 1997 (92) ELT.588. The Tribunal allowed the request of the Department. He submits that in the instant case also the request may be allowed as the facts in the case are identical.4. Shri Rajan Gupta, Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing for the respondent has no objection if the reference is made to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.5. I have heard the rival ...

Cce Chandigarh-i Vs. M/S Pamwi Tissues Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application for condonation on delay in filing the appeals by the Revenue. Shri M.D.Singh, Ld. SDR mentioned that the Commissioner(Appeals) under the impugned Order disposed of four appeals; that the Revenue had filed a consolidated appeal on 22-9-2000 which was in time; that subsequently seperate appeals were filed in which four days delay had taken place. He, therefore, requested that the delay of four days for filing the appeal may be condoned.3. The Ld. Advocate for the Respondents has requested for adjournment on account of some personal difficulty. As the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals are listed today, the same were heard without adjourning the matter. I find that the order is dt.28-6-2000 which was received by the Department on 30-6-2000 and an appeal was filed by the Revenue on 22-9-2000. The Registry directed revenue to file three more appeals as the impugned Order had disposed of four different orders. Accordingly the Revenue has f...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Haryana Concast Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT769TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed the above application for reference of the following questions stated to have arisen out of Final Order No.A/103/97-NB dated 6.1.97: 1. Whether the modvat credit can be taken on the original copies of the invoices under Rule 57G read with Notification No. 23/94-CE(NT) dated 20.5.94 and Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (ii) Whether the gate passes issued before 1.4.94 and endorsed after this date are valid documents under rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the purpose of availing the modvat credit thereon. (iii) Whether fire bricks are eligible for availing modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when such bricks are used for lining the surface of the furnaces and hence these are considered parts of machines. Such items are excluded from the eligibility in terms of the Explanation under Rule 57A 2. The brief facts leading up to the filing of the reference application are that the assessees who are manufacturers of n...

M/S. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT122TriDel

1. This is an application for rectification of mistake said to have crept into the Tribunal's Final Order No. 319/2000-C dated 7.6.2000.2. Shri O.J. Chacko, learned Advocate, submitted that the Applicants have relied upon the decision in the case of Bezel Pharma Vs. CCE, Bombay, 1998 (103) ELT 449 (T) wherein the benefit of Notification No.171/70-CE was extended to the samples of Medicaments retained in the factory; that the said decision applies to the applicant's case on all four; that the Tribunal in the Final Order did not give any finding on the said decision nor it was distinguished, and therefore, there is an apparent mistake on the record of the Final Order; that non-considering the judgment cited before the Tribunal amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record as was held by the Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Tobacco Co.Vs. CCE, Raipur, 2000 (39) RLT 834 (CEGAT).3. Opposing the Application Dr. D.K.Verma, learned SDR, submitted that in Bezel Pharma case the Tribunal...

Cce Chandigarh Vs. M/S Standard TapulIn Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application filed by the Revenue for staying the operation of the Order No. 1281/CE/Chd//2k dt. 30-6-2000, in which Commissioner (Appeal) confirmed the amount of duty as demanded by the Assistant Commissioner but set aside the penalty.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents and notice had been received back from the postal authorities. In view of this fact the stay application is taken for deposal after hearing Shri M.D.Singh, Ld.SDR, and persuing the records.3. As the Ld. Commissioner has upheld the demand of duty in the impugned Order and has only waived the penalty no irreparable loss and injury is suffered by the Department. Accordingly the stay application for staying the operation of the impugned Order is rejected.4. The appeal is posted for final hearing on 19-3-2001. A copy of this order may also be served to the Respondents M/s Standard Tarpulin Industries, Jammu, through Ld. SDR....