Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Shri Arun Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Customer, New

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) where by the Gold of foreign origin was ordered to be confiscated and a penalty of Rs.15,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant was working in 5 Star Hotel as From Office Cashier. During the search of the Guest locker No.21 in Hotel Obaroi New Delhi, keys of which ware recovered from the appellants, seven pieces of foreign marked gold of 24 carat purely valued at Rs.1,16,208/- and 2 pieces of foreign marked gold coins of 21 carat of purity valued at Rs.3,569/-. A gold pendent was recovered from the locker number 21. Along with this gold, foreign currency was also recovered from the locker. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant and the adjudicating authority confiscated the gold and imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/- under Section 112 of Customs Act.The appellant filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld ...

Cce, New Delhi Vs. Mauriya Udyog Ltd.

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 from Final Order No. S/1197-1198/98-NB(S) dated 26.11.98 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal Nos.E/2360-2361/98-NB(SM).2. On careful examination of the facts of the case, I note that modvat credits taken by the respondents on inputs and capital goods to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs were denied by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the duty-paying documents on the strength of which the credits wee taken did not contain complete particulars in terms of Notification No. 33/94-CE(NT) dated 4.7.94 and on certain other grounds. In the appeal filed by the assessees against the order of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the lower authority for re-consideration of the assessee's claim on the basis of their explanation with regard to the particulars furnished in the invoices. Against the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue filed the afor...

M/S. Telemecanique and Controls (i) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this Reference application for referring the question of law to the Hon'ble High Court.2. Learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue raised a preliminary objection by saying that the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed at the admission stage under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act and Section 35G of the Central Excise Act provides a question of law can be referred to the Hon'ble High Court arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act.4. The appeal filed by the appellant 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 to Rs.50,000/-. Section 35G of the Central Excise Act provides that a question If law can be referred to the Hon'ble High Court arising out of an order passed under Section 35C of Central Excise Act...

Cce, Meerut Vs. M/S. Bharat Electricals

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. Bajaj Sons Ltd.

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....

M/S. Jindal Shoes Factory, Agra Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Under cover of letter dated 10.1.2001, the applicants seek leave to withdraw the above ROM application. Leave granted - the application is dismissed as withdrawn....

C.C.E, Kanpur Vs. M/S. Kothari Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT282TriDel

1. The revenue filed this reference application for referring the question of law to the Hon'ble High Court arising out of Misc. order passed in the Rectification of Mistake Application.2. The Tribunal, vide final order No. A/563/97-NB(S) dated 10.7.97 dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Thereafter, the revenue filed an application for rectification of mistake in the final order passed by the Tribunal. The rectification of mistake application was disposed of by Misc. Order No. M/511/98-NB(S) dated 17.11.98 on the ground that when a gahnite taken in the appeal was not taken at the time of arguments, is not an error apparent on record. "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in not rectifying a mistake apparent from record merely because the judgement was dictated in open Court in the presence of departmental representative." 5. The rectification of mistake application, filed by the revenue, was dismissed on the ground that the plea raised by the revenue in the grounds of appeal...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Inder Singh and Sons

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. There is a delay of 3 days in filing the above reference application arising out of the Final Order of the Tribunal by which modvat credit was held to be available to the assessees on MS scrap and steel scrap (re-rolled). Learned DR states that initially the Tribunal's order was accepted by the Commissioner, but subsequently, it was directed by the Chief Commissioner vide his fax dated 6.9.99 to file a reference application, which was received in the Registry of the Tribunal on 7.9.99, while the last date for filing the application was 4.9.99. No explanation has been given for the delayed direction to file the reference application. Since the delay has not been explained at all, let alone satisfactorily explained, I decline to condone the aame. The reference application is, therefore, dismissed as time barred....

Unco Steel Industries Vs. Cce, Chandigarh S.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

The appellants, M/s. UNCO Steel Industries (Regd.) have prayed for decision on merits and in their written communication dated 9.12.2000 had referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Rampur Engg. Pvt. Ltd. = 1998 (103) ELT 428 (Tribunal).2. Shri S.C. Pushkarana, JDR submits that the invoices were issued in this case by the dealer and did not contain all the requisite information. Even subsequently, full information was not forthcoming.He refers to the discussion by the Dy. Commissioner in the Order-in-Original. He submits that a reasonable view has been taken by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise and wherever relief was required that has already been extended in favour of the appellants. A modvat credit of Rs.91,892/- had been allowed and only a credit of Rs.40,998/- had been dis-allowed for the reasons recorded in the order. He further submits that an amount of penalty of Rs.5,000/- is also justified in the facts and circumstanc...

M/S. Jasch Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants seek implementation of the Tribunal's Final Order No.119/2000-C dated 29.2.2000 by which the appeal filed by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who had allowed the benefit of Notification 14/92-CE dated 1.6.92 to PU foam waste and scrap cleared by the assessees was dismissed, by grant of refund of Rs.8,31,404.19/- paid on the product during the period in dispute.2. We note that the application came up for hearing on 9.11.2000 and again on 13.12.2000, when the learned DR was to check up whether the amount had been refunded to the assessees. Inspite of two opportunities, no information is forth-coming. We, therefore, direct the Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the refund application in accordance with law and report compliance to the Tribunal on 16.3.2001....