Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

M/S. Pretty Women, Shri Raman Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT353TriDel

1. In these applications, filed by the appellants praying for waiver of pre-deposit of the respective amounts of penalties imposed on them by the Commissioner of Customs as per the impugned order and for stay of recovery of the said amounts pending the appeals, the applications have submitted that the adjudicating authority imposed the penalties on them contrary to the mandatory requirements of Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962 and that pre-deposit of the amounts will cause undue hardships to them.2. I have carefully examined the records. One of these applicants namely M/s Pretty Woman were, at the material time, engaged in the manufacture and export of gold jewellery, as a unit set up in 1993 in the Nodia Export Processing Zone (NEPZ) under the EPZ scheme governed by the provisions of Exim Policy 1992-97. Under the scheme, they used to procure, duty-free, the primary gold required as raw material for manufacture of jewellery, from M/s metals and Minerals Trading Corporation Ltd. (M...

Hello Agro Food Products Ltd., Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amounts. A total duty amount of Rs.98,661.68 confirmed by the adjudicating authority was paid by the applicants on 19.09.1997, the date on which Central Excise offices visited their factory and detected excesses and shortages of their finished goods namely potato chips. A penalty of Rs.98,661.68 was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act on the ground that the applicants had wilfully evaded Central Excise duty. Another penalty of Rs.20,000.00 was imposed on them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the party had violated various provisions of the Rules. The appeal filed against the order of the adjudicating authority was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per order dated 03.08.2000. The appeal before the Tribunal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority upheld the findings of the adjudicating authority after observing that the facts on the...

M/S Incon Industrial Controls Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The stay application filed by the appellants is for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty of Rs.10,000.00 imposed on them by the lower appellate authority while remanding the dispute on merits to the adjudicating authority as per order dated 11.08.2000. ON a careful examination of records and on hearing both sides, I find that the appeal itself requires to be disposed of at the present stage. I, therefore, allow this application unconditionally and proceed to dispose of the appeal finally.3. The dispute on its merits is that the appellants, in January-February 1995, took Modvat credit on certain inputs described in the manufacturer's invoices as "heavy duty fuse unit" and classified therein under Tariff Sub-Heading 8537.00, but the Department sought to disallow the credit on the ground that the inputs were declared as "fuses" and "switches" and classified under Tariff Sub-heading 8535.00 by the appellants in their declaration filed under Rule 57G. As per the impugned order,this disp...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT929TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 22.11.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal). In this case, the refund claim filed by the appellants under Rule 173 L was rejected on 8 the ground that the value of returned goods is less than the excise duty paid on the goods is less than the excise duty paid on the goods at the time of clearance.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plastic moulded furniture and they were clearing the same on payment of duty. The appellants received certain defective plastic furniture in respect of which appellants informed the revenue.The appellants re-made the defective goods received in the factory and cleared again on payment of duty. The appellants filed a refund claim in respect of defective goods received in the factory and (sic). A show cause notice was issued for rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the goods, received back by the appellants, in nothing but plasti...

Cce, New Delhi Vs. Haryana Coated Paper Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1.The Revenue has filed this application claiming that certain questions of law have arisen form Final Order No. A/1229/98-NB(SM) passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. F/1204/98-NB.2. On a careful examination of the records, I find that the only question involved in the Revenue's appeal was whether an invoice marked as "duplicate for transporter" with rubber stamp was a valid invoice for the purpose of availing modvat credit. It is further noted that the Tribunal answered the said question in the affirmative and rejected the Revenue's appeal by following the earlier decision in the case of CCE, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Wires Ltd. [1998 (29) RLT 79 (CEGAT). The Tribunal held that the expression "marking" occurring under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules implied not only printing but also marking in any other manner such as by stamping. The Tribunal, therefore, accepted invoices with rubber stamped-marking "duplicate for transporter" as valid document for availment of modvat credit. th...

M/S. Simba Frp (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT431TriDel

1. This is a Misc. Application filed by M/s. Simba FRP Pvt. Ltd. requesting for allowing the benefit of Modvat credit to them in respect of the inputs and capital goods used in manufacture of the goods which were held to be dutiable by the Appellate Tribunal vide Order NO.1062/99-C dated 23.12.99.2. Shri S.V. Arya, learned Advocate, submitted that as the impugned products has been held to be Flush Door classifiable under Sub-heading 4410.11 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act attracting excise duty, they are eligible for the Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs and capital goods which were used in or in relation to manufacture of the impugned goods; that it is well settled law that if the goods which were initially considered to be exempted goods, are held to be dutiable, the benefit of Modvat credit is to be extended to the manufactarer; that it has been held in Veena Organics (P) Ltd. vs.CCE, 1992 (59) ELT 87 (T) that the Tribunal simply could not shut out the argum...

Cce, Meerut Vs. M/S. Bharat Electrical

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in these three reference applications filed by the Revenue is whether the gate passes issued prior to 1.4.94 but endorsed thereafter, would be covered by the expressions used in Entry No.10 in the Table to the Notification No.16/94 CE (NT) dated 30.03.94.The Tribunal following their earlier decision in the case of Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise = 1996 (83) ELT 620 (Tribunal) had held that in the absence of any other allegations, the modvat credit was not to be denied solely on the ground that a valid gate pass had been issued prior 1.3.94 but was endorsed thereafter when the procedure had undergone a change.2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the respondents herein. Shri Swatantar Kumar, JDR represented the appellants/Revenue.3. Shri Swatantar Kumar, JDR submits that this Tribunal had already made reference to different High Courts including the Bombay High Court with regard to this legal issue involved.4. I consider t...

C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Packwell Products India

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this Reference application for referring the question of law in the Hon'ble High Court.3. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal at the admission stage under Rule 35B of the Central Excise Act as the Rule 35B provides that the Tribunal may in his discretion refuses to admit the appeal where the amount of fine and penalty does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- and Section 35G of the Central Excise Act provides that a question of law can be referred to the Hon'ble High Court arising out of an order passed under Section 35 C of Central Excise Act. The present order passed by the Tribunal is not an order passed under Sec.35-C of the Act, hence the reference application is dismissed as non-maintainable....

C.C.E., New Delhi Vs. M/S. Gurind Sales

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this reference application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court: 1. "Whether exclusion of machines, machinery, plant equipment, tools under clause (i) of the explanation to sub-rule (1) of Rules 57A of the Rules 1944 would cover exclusion of parts of the machines, machinery, plant, equipment, tolls". 2. Whether the grinding/polishing wheels were eligible for modvat credit under rules 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944".3. The Tribunal, while passing the final order, relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613. In this case the Tribunal held that parts, of machine and machinery are eligible inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.C.C.E., Patna vs Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. reported in 1999 (31) RLT 800 approved the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. (sup...

C.C.E., Meerut Vs. M/S. Sunny Paper Cones

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT767TriDel

1. M/s. Sunny Paper Cones are engaged in the manufacture of paper cones/spiral paper tubes and were availing the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of inputs used in or in relation to the final product. A show cause notice was issued to them on the ground that the MODVAT Credit, taken on the strength of G.P. I endorsed after 31.3.94, is not admissible. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. On appeal, filed by M/s. Sunny Paper Cones, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of gate passes endorsed after 31.3.94. Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribuna and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/1634/969 NB (S) dated 21.5.96, after following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt.Ltd. vs C.C.E.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 incorporation of Rules 57A to 57J in the Central Excise Ru...