Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

M/S. U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT559TriDel

1. The appellants are manufacturers of sugar and are availing the facility of modvat credit on capital good sunder Rule 570 of the Central Excise Rules. In October, 1996 they took modvat credit on certain capital goods namely, "A.C. Supply Geared Motor" and "Brass Tubes." Both the lower authorities disallowed the modvat credit taken on A.C. Supply Geared Motor on the ground that no declaration had been filed in respect of the said capital goods. In respect of Brass Tubes, both the authorities disallowed the modvat credit on the ground that the credit was taken prior to installation of the capital goods in the assessees' factory. In the present appeal, the appellants have challenged the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals).2. I have heard both sides after examining the record. Ld. Advocate Sh.Bipin Garg for the appellants submits that the appellants had, in fact, filed a declaration on 11.12.95, wherein they had declared the capital goods (A.C. Supply Gea...

M/S. Shiv Pratap Verma Sr Mills Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing their appeal M/s. Shiv Pratap Verma SR Mills Ltd. are required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- imposed on them by way of penalty. Shri A.P. Mathur, Advocate submits that the goods seized had been provisionally released and the appellants had paid the appropriate Central Excise duty.2. We have heard Shri A.P. Mathur and Shri Mewa Singh, SDR and have gone through the facts on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of Rs.5000/ (Rupees five thousand) by way of penalty and stay its recovery till the disposal of the appeal. Shri A.P. Mathur, Advocate prays for early hearing of the matter as the appeal itself was filed in the year 1991. To come up for regular hearing on 6.7.2001....

M/S. Bodar Marble and Stone Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the Order-in-Appeal dated 25.8.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the Order in-Original dated 2.7.99 of the Assistant Commissioner, crediting their refund claim to the Consumers Welfare Fund.2. The sole grievance of the appellants against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is that they were not heard and their request for adjournment was wrongly declined by the Commissioner (Appeals) before passing the order. Shri N.N. Jindal, appearing for the appellants has stated that on the date of hearing, his wife sick at Bombay and he had sent a request for adjournment but the same was not allowed and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice.3. Ld. SDR has not disputed that this impugned order had been passed without giving proper hearing to the appellants. He has no objection if the matter is sent back to the concerned Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo hearing of the appeal after affording an opportu...

M/S. Maruti Textile Agency Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant made a request to decide the appeal on merits. The appellant filed this appeal against the order in original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The order in original consists of 168 pages, whereas the appellant filed only 10 pages of the order in original. The appellants are directed to file the complete copies of the order in original within a period of 2 weeks from the receipt of this order. Adjourned to 10.4.2001. Copy of this order be supplied to both sides....

M/S Darshan Vanaspati Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed these appeals against the common order in appeal whereby the penalties under 173 Q of Central Excise Rules were imposed.2. Learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellants availed the benefit of MODVAT credit on the capital goods in the year 1995 and they were manufacturing vegetable oil which was dutiable at that time. With effect from 23.7.1996, the vegetable oil was exempted from payment of Central Excise duty. He submits that on receipt of show cause notice, the appellants reversed the credit taken on the capital goods. He submits, in view of this situation, the penalties imposed on the appellants is on higher side and the penalties should be reduced.3. Heard learned SDR who reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.4. In the present case three show cause notices were issued to the appellants for recovery of the MODVAT credit on capital goods and for imposition of penalties and the final product non-dutia...

M/S. Reby Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.3,14,800/- and penalty of the same amount under 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the penalty under 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules is not imposable on the applicants as the provision was came into effect from 23.7.96 and the demand is made prior to this period. He further submits that the applicants receipt the inputs under the valid Gate passes duly defaced by the Revenue authorities and the payment had been made to the suppliers of the goods which was not denied by the Revenue. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding their application for waiver of pre-deposit without considering their submissions, directed the applicants to deposit the dues for hearing of the appeal. He submits that thereafter, the applicants moved an application for m...

C.C.E. Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Punjab Concast Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT91TriDel

1. These are four Revenue appeals against Order-in-Appeal dt. 27.6.2000 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue before him filed against the Orders-in-Original passed by the Asst./ Dy.Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana, in which, he had allowed the modvat credit to the Respondents -/M/s. Punjab Concast Steel Ltd. on the strength of Gate Passes issued before 31.3.94 and endorsed after this date. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has relied on the decision of the CEGAT in the case of M/s. Moosa Hazi Patrawala (P) Ltd. reported in 1996 (83) ELT 620 (T), in which the Tribunal has held that the endorsed Gate Passes are not comparable to the issue of Gate Passes and the modvat credit on such Gate Passes would be admissible even after 31.3.94.2. I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the Revenue. The Respondents are not represented and their 1d. Counsel, Shri Kulvinder Singh has sent a communicati...

M/S. Gupta Pigments and Chemicals Vs. C.C. Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Original dt. 7.4.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (G), Mumbai. The Commissioner in his order has imposed a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on his order has imposed a penalty o Rs.5 lakhs on the appellants under Section 112(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 besides imposition of Rs. 5 lakhs as redemption fine on them.The brief facts of this case are that the appellants imported a consignment of Used Dry Batteries (Rain Grade) of the value of Rs.19,70,556/- (CIF) and filed a Bill of Entry No.2780 dt.7.8.96 with the Customs authorities at Bombay Port. The proceedings were initiated against the appellants on the ground that as per the Import & Export Policy in force at the relevant time, the import of dry batteries was restricted and was permitted only against the licence for the purpose of processing and re-use. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also vide their order dt.5.5.97, had directed that no authorisation/permission would be given by any autho...

M/S. Monto Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed these appeals against the common order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants availed the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of inputs used in or in relation to their final product. The appellant on receipt of the inputs in the factory filed declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules alongwith the application for condonation of delay in filing the declaration. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dated 16.10.98 and 3.11.98 declined the request for condonation of delay. These orders were duly received by the appellant. Admittedly, no appeal was filed against these orders by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.3. The duty was demanded on the inputs which were received by the appellants and availed the MODVAT credit without filing the proper declaration. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty. The appellants filed the appeals and he same...

Gp. Capt. B.P. Dasgupta (Retd) Vs. Chief of Air Staff and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)837; 90(2001)DLT676; 2001(57)DRJ570

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. He served Indian Air Force for more than 31 years. After his retirement from Air Force service he was re-employed with Air Force. At that point of time, respondent No.3, namely, Director, Air Force Group Insurance Society (AFGIS) released a Circular for filling up the post of Deputy/Assistant Director (Financial Analyst). This Circular was sent to all Commands/Stations/Wings and Units of Indian Air Force and was dubbed as Post Retirement Rehabilitation measure under AFGIS. Certain qualifications to be fulfilled for that post were also specified in the Circular. At the end of the Circular, it was stated that 'APPLICATIONS INVITED PURELY AS A POST RETIREMENT REHABILITATION MEASURE'. The petitioner also applied for this post and was selected for the post as 'Financial Analyst'. He joined AFGIS on 5th July, 1995. One month after his joining the petitioner was issued Appointment Letter dated 9th August, 1995 which stipulated terms and co...