Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

M/S Ispat Structurals P. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. As per Order dated 10.10.2000, this Tribunal had directed the appellants to deposit the penalty amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The matter subsequently came up before the Bench on 26.12.2000. On that day, Ld. Advocate for the party appears to have explained the circumstances in which the amount could not be deposited within the stipulated period, and requested for extension of time for compliance with the direction for deposit of the amount. The Bench granted extension of time. Accordingly, the matter has come up today before the Bench. Today, Ld. Counsel submits that he ils yet to receive any response from his clients to his advice for deposit.2. Ld. SDR prays for rejecting the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.3. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am constrained to accept the plea of Ld. SDR. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable on account of non-compliance ...

M/S. Rajasthan Chemicals and Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT534TriDel

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 manufacturers' invoices were issued by M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd., in the name of M/s Guljag Industries ltd Jodhpur. The applicants 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.In view of this Board's circular, prima facie, the balance of convenience 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)....

Mrs. Kamla Gupta Vs. Commissioner, Kendriya

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In the present application, the applicant is seeking the benefit of DPP&W's OM dated 14.7.95 whereby with effect from 1.4.95 the benefit of clearness allowance was made available to government servants covered under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 by an order of the President.2. The applicant is also relying upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Tribunal dated 15.10.99 in OA No. 459/97 with OA No. 460/97, Venkatram Rajagopalan v. Union of India whereby it has been held that the Government servant completing age of superannuation on 31.3.95 and relinquishing charge of his office in the afternoon of that day is deemed to have effectively retired from service w.e.f. 1.4.95. In this background the applicant claims recalculation of his DCRG by adding 97% of pay element towards the DA on the basic pay and other ancilliary retiral benefits.3. Respondents have contested this application on the ground that as per Rule 35 of CCS (Pension) Rules, a Government servant stands relinquished o...

Cce, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Hero Metal Cast Engg.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the impugned order Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the dispute regarding the method of marking of copies of invoices remains decided in favour of the appellants in many cases. The objection regarding the non-declaration of certain inputs also is not justified as scrap is one of the inputs declared by the appellants. In the circumstances, denial of Modvat credit and imposition of penalty are not justified. The appeal is accordingly allowed with consequential relief to the appellant and adjudication order is set aside.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of different excisable goods falling under chapter heading 7325.10. They are also availing the facility of Modvat credit on inputs. Scrutiny of R.T.12 returns of the assessee revealed that Modvat was availed by the assessee on invoices which were not marked in the manner provided under Rule 52A; that on the invoices that S.No. and the description duplicate for transpor...

M/S. Mangal Singh and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of notice. In the notice it was specifically mentioned to appellant to produce the proof in respect of deposit as per the Stay order passed by the Tribunal. In view of these circumstances the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act....

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter was called none appeared for the appellants. On scrutiny of the papers placed before me I find that the appellants have submitted a letter dt. 26.12.2000 stating that they have already deposited a sum of Rs. 87,265/- which was confirmed by the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. It has, therefore, been requested that the matter may now be listed for hearing.2. Since the appellants have deposited the entire amount of duty and there is no penalty imposed, therefore, the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Section 35F is complied with. In the circumstances, the appeal should now come up for regular hearing on 2.3.2001....

M/S. Alfa Machinery Makers Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 13.6.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).Brief Facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of machinery and parts thereof and were availing the benefit of MODVAT credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product. During the period from August, 94 to December, 94, the appellants availed the credit on their input, viz., pig iron on the basis of invoices issued by the depot of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and the depot is not registered as dealer with the revenue department. The appellants also availed the MODVAT credit in respect of lathe machine as an input. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that the extension counter, which supplied the inputs, is not registered with the revenue authorities. Therefore, such invoices are not valid duty-paying documents and the lathe machine is not an input.The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and impo...

M/S. Forgeweli Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The brief facts of the case (sic) the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of rough Forgings and Forged articles and they were availing the benefit of MODVAT Scheme. During the scrutiny of the record, it was found that for the period from 11/96 to 2/97, the appellants wrongly aveiled the MODVAT credit under Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules in their PLA account to the tone of Rs.3,00,962.98. The appellants reversed the credit. For this irregularity, the penalty of Rs.20,000/- was imposed by the adjudicating authority and the same was reduced to Rs.10,000/- by the Commissioner (Appeals).4. The contention of the appellant is that there is no malafide intention for availing the credit in their PLA account and without malafide intention penalty cannot be imposed.5. In this case the appellants we...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. R.H. Industries and M/S.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two Appeals Nos.E/4170/91-NB and E/4171/91-NB were taken together as the issue in both the cases is the same. The issue is admissibility of deemed Modvat credit in view of the exemption under Notification No.206/83-CE dt.1.8.83. The Department held that Modvat credit was not admissible on the inputs as the final product is exempt.The contention of the appellants was that the exemption notification was conditional and that since the notification was conditional, it was the burden cast on revenue to prove that the goods were clearly recognisable as non-duty paid, which they (SIC) not discharge, 2. Argung the case in Appeal No.E/4171/91, Shri J.P.Kaushik, Ld.Counsel submits that the issue in both the above appeals is the same and that the dispute was whether deemed Modvat credit was admissible on the inputs in terms of exemption Notification No.206/83-Ce dt.1.8.83.Ld. Counsel submits that the question of admissibility of deemed Modvat credit on certain inputs came up for conside...

M/S. Advance Enterprises Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.5,87,995.00 in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that against the adjudication order an appeal alongwith application for waiver of duty amount was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the applicants to deposit 50% of the duty demand. Thereafter, the applicants filed application for modification of the Stay order on the ground of financial hardship as their factory was closed since 1996. Applicants had not received any order by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the modification application. On merit, he submits that the credit was denied to the applicants on the ground that the invoice was not pre-authenticated and there are some discrepencies in the invoice. He pleaded financial hardship ...