Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S Shree Cement Ltd., Beawar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding lubricating oils and greases to be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules for the period March 1997. The main ground raised by the appellants is that lubricating oils and greases were notified for the first time as eligible capital goods under Notification No.6/97-CE(NT) dated 01.03.1997 for the purpose of availment of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules and therefore these goods could not be considered to be eligible for any Modvat credit for any period prior to 01.03.1997. Ld SDR Shri M.D.Singh has emphatically pressed this ground of the appeal for consideration. I am not impressed. A Larger Bench of the Tribunal had considered the entire gamut of the issue in the case of CCE Vs Modi Rubber Ltd & Others. [2000 (38) RLT 718]. The Bench held that lubricating oils and greases were eligible inputs for availment of Modvat credi...

Shri Ram Prasad Vs. C.C., Amritsar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that he has no instructions whether the appellant has complied with the Stay order.2. The Tribunal vide Stay Order No. S/788/00-NB (S) dated 9.11.2000 directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for hearing of the appeal. The appellant has not produced any evidence to show that he has complied with the stay order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of Sec. 129 E of the Customs Act....

M/S. Pithampur Poly Products Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The notice of hearing in the present stay application for today was issued to the party and their advocate on 17.11.2000. The notices were addressed to the full addresses show in the memoranda of appeal.However, today, there is no representation for the applicants. The respondent is represented by ld. SDR Shri M.D.Singh.2. It is noted that neither the PIN code of the applicant's postal area nor even the name of district/State figures in the address of the party as given in the memorandum of appeal and connected papers available in the file. Almost like-wise is the case of the advocate's address as furnished in the papers. The Registry ought not to have accepted the papers in this form. The Registry shall hereafter insist that the correct PIN code of the postal area of the appellants as well as the names of the District and State should be given in the memoranda of appeals and all papers connected therewith. Any non-mention of these particulars in the addresses should be treated as ...

M/S. Gypsy Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT97TriDel

1. This is an appeal against disallowance of Drawback. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported certain raw materials in terms of Notification No. 80/95 dt. 31.3.95. Public notice under which this Notification No. 80/95 was issued provided "In case of exports made against quantity based Advance licences issued on or after 1.4.95 in discharge of obligations in terms of Notfn. No. 80/95 dated 31.3.95, drawback at the rate equivalent to Central Excise allocation of rate of drawback shall be admissible. The goods in this case were exported in discharge of export obligation. The LUT/BG were discharged and licences were made transferable on 16.4.97. The appellant applied for grant of quantity based licences on 6.6.96, 19.6.96, 28.11.96 which were issued to him on 20.6.96, 7.11.96 and 13.12.96. Exports against these licencese were effected during June to September, 1991, September, 1996 to November, 1996 and November, 1996. The exports are governed by the provisions of Exim Poli...

Cce, Raipur Vs. M/S. Larsen Toubro Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Matter called. No appearance of, or representation for, the respondents. However, their request in writing has come on record seeking an adjournment of the hearing. Ld. SDR Shri M.D.Singh represents the Revenue and submits that the issue involved in this appeal stands squarely covered in favour of the Revenue by a decision of the Tribunal's Larger Bench. He has cited the decision as JAYPEE.REWA CEMENT Vs CCE, Raipur [2000 (38) RLT 1111].2. I have carefully examined the impugned order and the grounds of this appeal. I have also perused the order of the Larger Bench. I find that the question whether explosives used by cement manufacturers in mines off the factory premises for the mining of limestone, one of the raw materials required for the manufacture of cement, were eligible inputs for the purpose of availment of Modvat credit under Rule 57A was considered at length by the Larger Bench in the aforecited case and the question was answered in the negative. The issue involved in the ...

M/S. M.M. Deuing and Finishing Mills Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appel has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 10.8.99 passed by the Commissioner allowing abatement of duty not from 13.1.199 to 21.5.99, as claimed by them but from 18.1.99 to 21.5.99 under Rule 96-ZQ(7) of the Central Excise Rules.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of manmade and cotton knitted fabrics falling under Tariff Heading 60 of the CETA. Before 13.1.98 they were working under Self Removal Procedure and paying duty ad valorem on the basis of clearances. However, on 10.12.98 Government issued Notification No.36/98-CE read with Notification No.41/98-CE(NT) under sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the Central Excises Act, 1944, whereby the said Ad valorem system, was converted into Compound Levy Scheme. That notification was also made applicable to all manufacturers who were engaged in the manufacture of processed textile fabrics. Under the Compound Levy Scheme the assessees were required to pay monthly lump sum in place of day to day paymen...

M/S. Kota Industries Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT86TriDel

1. The contention of the applicants is that MODVAT credit was denied to the applicants on the ground that the invoices were issued by M/s.Guljag Industries Ltd., Jaipur whereas the manufacturer's invoices were issued by M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. in the name of M/s. Guljag Industries Ltd., Jodhpur. The appellants relied upon the Board's Circular No. 441/7/99-CX dated 23.2.99 whereby the Board has clarified that in view of notification No. 7/99-CE dated 9.2.99, the MODVAT credit shall not be denied on minor procedural lapse.2. In view of this Board's Circular, prima facie, the balance of conveinence is in favour of the applicants, hence the pre-deposit of whole of duty is waived for hearing of the appeal. To come up for arguments on 19.02.2001. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. Mahalaxmi Steel Rolling Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1.None has come present for the appellants in both these appeals.Notice for today's hearing was sent to them on 4.12.2000, but no response has been received. No request has also been received from their side. Moreover, both these appeals are even legally not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act. In appeal No.E/2981/2000-NB(S) the penalty amount involved is Rs.2000/- which the Assistant Collector imposed on the appellants and the Commissioner(Appeals) affirmed the same. This amount had not been disputed at the time of filing of the appeal. Similarly in Appeal No.E/2982/2000- NB(S), modvat credit of Rs.1865.04 was disallowed and penalty of Rs.500/- was imposed by the Assistant Collector through the order in original and the Commissioner(Appeals) affirmed that order. The appellants have not deposited both these amounts while filing of the appeal.2. No stay application has also been moved in both these appeals seeking waiver of the pre-d...

Ram Krishan and Ram Lakhan Vs. Cc, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals filed by S/Shri Ram Krishan and Ram Lakhan are directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Customs), Lucknow imposing penalties of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively on the said appellants. The stay applications are for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amounts and stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeals.2. The matter had come up before the Bench for the first time on 01.09.2000. On that day, the Bench directed the Registry to issue notice to the parties as well as their advocate. Accordingly, the notices were issued. The parties were represented by their advocate before the Bench on 30.10.2000. On that day, the matter was adjourned to 23.11.2000. On 23.11.2000, the appeals were admitted and stay applications were posted to 04.01.2001 for hearing. Notices of hearing were issued to both the appellants as well as their advocate on 04.12.2000. Such notices were addressed to the full and correct addresses as furnished in the memoranda of ...

Sh. Pyare Lal Vs. C.C., Amritsar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant.The Tribunal vide order No. S/796/00-NB (S) dated 9.11.2000 directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for hearing of the appeal. The appellant has not produced any evidence to show that he has complied with the Stay Order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of Sec. 129 of the Customs Act Act.(Dictated in Court)....