Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

M/S. Multi Marbles (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the applicant in spite of notice. Copy of the notice was also issued to the Consultant of the applicant. In these circumstances the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty is dismissed and the applicants are directed to deposit the whole of the duty and penalty amount within a period of 4 weeks from the receipt of this order. To come up for reporting compliance on 15.2.2001....

M/S. Punjab Woolcombers 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 Rs.1,29,664/- and penalty of Rs.30,000/-.3. The contention of the appellants is that the benefit of MODVAT credit was denied to the applicants on the ground that dealers were registered with the Revenue Department but in their declaration, they had not mentioned the item S.O. Dyes and OSAA. The contention of the applicants is that in respect of S.O. Dyes at the time of registration they filed declaration which was duly received by the Revenue and later on, this was incorporated in their registration certificate. Their contention is that requirement under Central Excise Rules is that the dealer should be registered, it is only the Trade notice issued by the Chandigarh Collectorate which says that their must be declaration by the dealer in respect of the item. The applicants also pleaded financial hardship of the items. The applicants also pleaded financial hardship and they had approached the Board of Industrial and ...

C.C.E. Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Aarti Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT637TriDel

1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 16.2.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of alloy and non-alloy steel wire and also availed benefit of MODVAT credit. During the period from 3/96 to 5/96, the respondents cleared 162.192 Mts. of tyre beed wire to M/s. Ralson India Ltd. and M/s. Dewan Rubber India Ltd against CT-2 certificates. The respondents availed the benefit of MODVAT credit amounting to Rs. 4,19,189/- on the inputs used in the manufacture of tyre beed wire. Notification no.49/94 provides that tyre beed wires are exempt from payment of duty when supplied as intermediate goods to the ultimate exporter. The tyre beed wires were used by M/s. Ralson India Ltd. and M/s. Dewan Rubbed India Ltd. in the manufacture of tyres which were exported. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the ground that no MODVAT credit is available on the inputs used in the t...

M/S. Acc Cement Cos. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against denial of Modvat credit on explosives used in the mines fromwhere lime stone is produced for use in the factory.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is a cement factory, For manufacture of cement lime stone is one of the raw-materials. Lime stone is procured from in the mines, For breaking the rocks containing lime stone explosives are used. The appellant submitted that explosives are inputs and therefore, they should be allowed the benefit of Modvat credit on explosives. The authorities below denied them the benefit and hence the appeal before me.3. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri R.C.Pandey, Ld. Counsel in his usual fairness submits that the issue has been decided against the appellant by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case reported in 2000(38)RLT.1111, He submits that his only contention is that an appeal against this order of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal has been admitted in the Supreme ...

M/S. Siddharth Petro Products Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT400TriDel

"I hold that the ground for disallowing the credit is too flimsy and accordingly, I hold that the subject modvat credit is admissible to the appellants. However, I also hold that the appellants should have approached the jurisdictional Officers for accepting the rectified documents before taking the modvat credit and to that extent, I hold that imposition of penalty on the appellants is justified and I uphold the same".2. In the impugned order of adjudication, the Ld. Asstt. Commissioner had imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/- under Rule 173Q.3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of lubricating grease and are availing Modvat credit. The Department observed that the assessee had wrongly taken and utilised Modvat credit of duty amounting to Rs.2,46,060. When they came to know of this they themselves voluntarily debited the whole amount of Rs.2,46,060/- on 28.4.95. The Department issued a SCN calling upon them to show cause as to why ...