Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

M/S. Punjab Concast Steels Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC114

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s Punjab Concast Steels, the issue involved is whether Modvat Credit under Rule 57A of the Cental Excise Rules was available to them on the strength of the invoice issued by dealers without mentioning the rate of duty and amount of duty in words and on the basis of invoice issued by unregistered dealer.2. Shri Kulvinder Singh, ld. Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants availed of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs on the strength of invoices issued byu various wholesale dealers during July and August, 1994; that all the dealers except M/s BDA Steels Ltd,, got themselves registered with the Department in the month of July 1994 itself; that he is not pressing the prayer for allowing Modvat Credit on the strength of invoices issued by M/s BDA Steels Ltd as they did not get themselves registered with the Department. He then submitted that the Assistant Commissioner had examined the invoices which clearly contained the particulars as required under Noti...

M/S Hotline Teletubel Components Vs. Cce Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s Hotline Teletube & Components LTd., the issue involved is whether they were eligible to avail of refund of the modvat credit amount in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final goods exported out of India, on or after 1-3-97 in view of the provisions of Rule 57F(17) of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, ld. Advocate,submitted that the Appellants manufacture Black and White Picture Tubes and avail of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs; that besides clearing the picture tubes for home consumption, they export the same under bond without payment of Central Excise Duty; that they had exported picture tubes during the period from October 1996 to December 1996 and as they were not able to utilise the Modvat Credit of the duty, they filed a refund claim interms of Rule 57F(13) of the Central Excise Rules on 19-3-97; that the Assistant Commissioner, under adjudication Order No. 108/97 dt.20-5-97, rejected their refund claim, ...

M/S. Seksaria Biswan Sugar Vs. C.C.E.,lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1024TriDel

The appellants manufacture 'V.P. Sugar' falling under Chapter heading 1701.39 & 1703.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and Molasses which is subject to specific rate of duty of Rs. 50/- per Qtl. On 8.8.97, their factory premises was visited by the Central Excise Officers. The stock taking of molasses was conducted and it was observed that each of the Tank No. 3, 4, 5 & 6 held either excess or short quantity of molasses as against the quantity reflected in their stock cards. The excess/shortage noticed in each of these Tank is as follows: 2. Accordingly, the appellants were issued a show cause notice and on hearing the party, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Sitapur Dn. vide his Order dt. 27.7.99 held that there was overall excess of 1838.3 Qtls. of molasses (in tank No. 3 & 5) and he ordered this to be confiscated under Rule 173-Q read with Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The party was however, given an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Kapsons Electro Stampings

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Tribunal following their earlier decision in the case of M/s.Moosa Haji Patrawala (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai - 1996 (64) ECR 125 (Tribunal) had rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. There was no dispute that the duty paying documents had been issued before 1.4.94 and had been endorsed thereafter.2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the respondents herein in spite of notice being sent to them on 16.1.2001.3. I have heard Shri K.Panchat Charam, JDR and have gone through the records.4. The view taken by the Tribunal has already been endorsed by the Hon'ble High Court.5. I do not find any merit in this present reference application filed by the Revenue. The reference application is dismissed. Ordered accordingly....

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S. O.B.S. Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue in the present reference application had prayed that the following question of law be referred to the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court:- "Whether the credit can be allowed on the strength of endorsed bill of entry, a document, which was neither prescribed under Rule 57 G (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 nor prescribed by the Board's in terms of powers conferred under Rule 57 G (2) ibid." 2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the respondents. When the matter had come-up last on 2.2.2001, one Shri R.L. Mehta, Consultant was present and the matter was adjourned for today in his presence.3. I have heard Shri K. Panchat Charam, JDR and have gone through facts on records.4. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter related to the modvat credit being taken on the strength of endorsed bill of entry.The bill of entry was in the name of M/s. Mewar Polytex (P) Ltd. and the modvat credit, after the bill of entry was duly endorsed in their favour, was taken by M/s....

C.C.E. New Delhi Vs. M/S. Escorts Communications Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is a Reference Application filed by the Revenue in respect of the Final Order No.A/211/98-NB dt. 12.3.98 under the provisions of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. In terms of the afore-stated provisions, the Commissioner or the other party may require the appellate Tribunal to refer the matter to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order and the appellate Tribunal shall on receipt of such application draft a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court.3. On perusal of the Petition of the Revenue in the present case, it is observed that there is no question of law framed arising out of the impugned order on which a statement of the case may be drafted for reference to the High Court and therefore, there is no case for reference made out under the present Petition. When the matter was called, Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the Revenue was not able to locate any question in the Department's Petition and he sought time for this discrepancy to be r...

Cce Kanpur Vs. M/S Sarha Soap and Cosmetics (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application, filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur for referring the following question of law, arising out of Tribunal's Final Order No. A/65/99-NB (SM), dt. 18-1-1999 to the Hon'ble High Court:- "1. Whether the provisions prescribed under Notification No. 4/94-CE (NT) dt. 31-03-94 were not statutory in nature which should have been followed by the party; 2. Whether the provisions of Notification No. 15/94-CE (NT) dt. 30-3-94 and Notification No. 21/94-CE (NT) dt. 12-5-94 requiring therein to give certain details on invoice in respect of duty payment etc, are not statutory requirements. 3. whether the case law of M/s Saraf Silicate, reported in 1998 (25) RLT 928 can be relied upon in the present case when the terms of procedure and substantive law has not been followed in the present case. In fact Notification No. 15/94-CE (NT) dt. 30-3-94 is not applicable in the present case. Notification No. 21/94-CE (N.T) dt. 12-5-94 is applicable which has not been disc...

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S. Rishabh Dev Textitles

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application filed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Jaipur) for referring the following question of law, arising out of Tribunal's Final Order No. A/294/98-NB dt. 30-3-98 "Does the Tribunal have the power to allow the benefit of modvat credit to the goods under Rule 57Q of CE Rules, 1944 which are otherwise not specifically mentioned in the rule itself?" 2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents, M/s Rishabhdev Textile,s inspite of notice. I also observe that no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondents on 22nd December 2000 when the application was posted for hearing. I, therefore, take up the reference application for decision after hearing Shri S.C.Pushkarna, Ld. DR, and after perusing the records.3. The Appellate Tribunal under Order No. A/29498-NB has allowed capital goods credit in respect of Voltage Stabilise/Voltage Regulator under Rule 57Q following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Jaipur Vs. Shjanti Synthe...

M/S. Rama Processors Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of penalty imposed on M/s Rama Processors.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the applicant nor there was any request for adjournment. As the matter is posted for hearing stay application which is in a very narrow compass and the 75% of the penalty imposed has been realised by the Revenue out of the securities furnished by the applicant at the time of provisional release of the goods, Itake up the stay Application for disposal, I also heard shri S.C.Pushkarna, Ld. JDR.3. The Assistant Commissioner under the Adjudication Order No. 71/99 dt. 7-5-99 had confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 8,014/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- which had been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.I observe from the Adjudication Order itself that the entire duty had already been deposited by the applicant by debiting PLA on 7-9-94 and the Assistant Commissioner had direct...

Commissioner Central Excise, Vs. M/S A.K. Automatics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC696

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether modvat Credit is available to the Respondents, M/s A.K.Automatics in respect of CRB Plus, Hyspi-EP, Rx Super and Magna-100 used as coolents in turning and grinding process.2. When the matter was called no none was present on behalf of the Respondents of inspite of notice. I also observe that the Respondents had never earlier appeared when the matter was posted for hearing. I, therefore, take the appeal for disposal after hearing Shri S.C.Pushkarna, Ld. DR, and after persuing the records including the Cross Objections, filed by the Respondents.3. The Ld. Dr reiterated the grounds as contained in Memorandum of Appeal wherein it is mentioned that the impugned goods are not inputs under Rule 57A as these are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products; that these are used merely for maintenance of the machinery installed. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Kanoria Suger & General M...