Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Appollo Electric Industries Vs. Cce, Delhi-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On 10.2.97 the Central Excise of MOD-4,Delhi visited the factory premises of the appellants. On stock taking of the finished goods and the raw material in the factory,it was observed that there was an excess of 1,55,000 metrs of PUC insulated drop, wire which was finished product of the party,of the balance recorded in the RG I register.Out of this quantity,the party pleaded that they had manufactured 1,05,00 mtrs on 9.2.97 and 60,000 mtrs on 10.2.97 which were duly entered in RG I register of the party. However, the Central Excise authorities held the whole of the quantity of 1,55,000 mers of wire found present in the factory, was not recorded in the statutory account. Further, they also found the raw materials viz 1920 kys of PVC compound and 950 kgs of copper wire,on which the party had availed modvat credit but the same were found in excess as against the balance shown in their RG 23 part - II account. In fact this account showed nil balance so far as the inputs materials were ...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Escorts Ltd. and M/S. Goetze

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the common order in appeal dated 9.2.98 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which she had upheld the impugned order in original dated 2.12.94 of the Assistant Commissioner allowing modvat credit in respect of ramming mass to the respondents who were using the same for internal lining/coating of steel crucibles in order to preserve heat during the period the moten metal was held in crucibles.2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents though notice for today's hearing was sent to them on 11.1.2000. No request for adjournment had been also received from them. The appeals pertain to the year 1998. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeals on merits after hearing Shri A.K. Jain, learned SDR.3. I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, learned JDR and gone through the record.4. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of piston rings and cylinder liners falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff.They are u...

Ms Kanika Marbles Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT628TriDel

1. The brief facts in these appeals are that on 1.3.97 the officers of the Central Excise Division, Ajmer visited the factory premises of the appellants M/s Kanika Marbles Granites. On physical verification of the stock, 5320.69 Sq mtrs of the finished product viz. irregular marbles slabs were found short as against the entry made in statutory record. A statement was recorded from Shri O.P. Khandelwal, Director of the Company who admitted these aforesaid shortage. He further stated that due to his prolonged absence, the parties who get their block shown in their factory, had lifted the marble slabs forcibly. The party deposited a sum of Rs. 1,59,621/- in their PLA on 12.3.97 in respect of the duty involved on the shortage of marbles slabs.2. Subsequently, M/s Kanika Marbles and Shri O.P. Khandelwal, Director, were issued a show cause notice dated 27.4.98 in which M/s Kanika Marbles were called upon to show cause why duty amount of Rs. 1,59,621/- should not be recovered from them under...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appeal os the Revenue earlier was held to be not maintainable for want of compliance with the requirements of Rule 216 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 35-F of the Central Excises Act by the Tribunal vide order dated 16.11.99. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable, with further observations in that order by the Bench that it was without prejudice to the Department's liberty to take necessary measures for maintaining the appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals). The department has through the Commissioner of Central Excise filed the present application for restoration of the appeal as all the necessary documents including Statement of Facts, had been furnished as per the requirement of Rule 216 ofthe Rules.2. I have perused the documents filed with the present application and the statement of facts and in my view the provisions of Rule 216 of the Rules have been complied with by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal is now...

Shri Balvinder Singh and Shri Vs. Cce New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. The perusal of the file shows that vide order dated 9.10.00 both the appellants were directed to made pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs each within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order for entertainment of their appeal for hearing on merits. But they did not make compliance with this order of the Tribunal rather their counsel sought extension for two months for making the pre-deposit of the amount and the same was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2000. The compliance was ordered to be reported for today. today none has come present on behalf of the appellants and no proof of compliance of the stay order of the Tribunal dated 9.10.2000 had been also intimated by them personally or by their counsel.2. The file further reveal that on 5.2.2001 the appellant moved an application for modification of the stay order dated 9.10.2000, on the ground that the appellants due to financial hardship, will not be able to make pre-deposit of Rs...

M/S. Pashupati Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. in this appeal filed by M/s. Pashupati Castings (P) Ltd., the issue involved is regarding determination of annual production capacity of the induction furnace installed in their factory.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Appellants instead of notice, nor there is any intimation from them or their Advocate for adjournment of the matter. As no one was present at the time of last hearing on 14.12.2000 I take up the appeal for disposal after hearing Shri M.D. Singh , learned S.D.R. and perusing the case records.3. The Appellants have submitted in their memorandum of appeal that the Commissioner fixed annual capacity of production to be 11,200 MT under Order No. 39/97 dated 30.8.97: that as their actual production during 1997-98 and 1998-99 was much less than the annual production fixed by the Commissioner they requested him under their letter dated 8.9.99 to redetermine capacity of production under Section 3A(4); that the Commissioner under the impugned O...

M/S Uniworth Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter was called, there was no one present for the appellants. Notice for hearing for this date was sent to the appellant on 4.1.2001. There is no communication from them either giving reasons for their absence or request for an adjournment. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting their appeals. The same are accordingly dismissed for non prosecution....

M/S. Bajpur Cooperative Sugar Vs. Cce Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order in appeal dated 23.8.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he upheld with minor modification the order in original of the Assistant Commissioner who imposed penalty of Rs. 56,894/- on the appellants for violation of the Rules 226 and 173-Q the Central Excise Rules besides imposing redemption fine of Rs. 5000/-.3. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of cane sugar and molasses falling under Chapter 17 of the CETA. On 17.10.92 the preventive Officers of Central Excise Officer, Rampur visited their unit and checked physical stock of molasses stored in three steel tanks. the quantity of molasses in these tanks was measured by taking a dip reading and then converting into quintals with the help of a conversion chart maintained by the appellants. On comparison of that quantity with the quantity recorded in RG. 1. 3298.197 Qtls. molasses were found in excess which wee not accounted for in th...

M/S. G.S. Radiators Ltd. Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ludhiana vide his Order dated 4.1.96 disallowed the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 31,513/- to the appellants on the ground that the invoice on the strength of which the modvat credit had been availed, did not bear the duty paying particulars. He has observed in his Order that in view of the statutory notifications the invoices on the strength of which the modvat credit had been availed, were deficient in the requisite particulars. He accordingly, disallowed the modvat of the aforesaid amount to the appellants and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,000/- on them. The appeal of the party is rejected by Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his Order dated 13.6.2000.2. I have heard Shri R.S.Saini, consultant for the appellants and Shri S.C.Pushkarna, JDR for the respondents. The Ld. consultant for the appellants submits that the documents in question are the three invoices in respect of which the discrepencies are all...

M/S. Bhanu Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce Jaipur - I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The facts in this case are that the appellants were disallowed the modvat credit amounting to Rs.11,967/75/- This credit was availed by them on the strength of GP I dt 31.3.94 which was endorsed on 1.4.94 in their favour. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vide his order dated 29.8.96 disallowed modvat credit of the stated amount.The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi vide his Order dated 28.5.99 allowed the appeal of the party by setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the party had already debited a sum of Rs.15,159/-(Rs. 11,967.75 - Rs.3,791/- as interest) on 22.1.98 in their RG 23 A part-II account under protest.2. Consequent to the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 15,159/- on 14.7.99. This refund claim of the party is rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vide his order dated 1.10.99 on the ground that in the absence of v...