Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

M/S. Horological Components Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT676TriDel

1. The appellant is the manufacturer of watch components, meter parts and quartz clock parts falling under chapters 91 and 92 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing modvat credit on the inputs in terms of the provision of the Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They had filed a declaration dated 13.9.93 with the concerned central excise authority inter alia declaring free cutting stainless steel rods falling under sub heading 7222.20 as one of the inputs for the purpose of availing modvat credit. They availed credit amounting to Rs. 18,276/- on this input on 23.4.94. However, the proceedings were initiated against them on the grounds that they had taken the modvat credit of the aforesaid amount without filing declaration in respect of this item. After considering submission made by the party, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Shimla vide his order dated 1.12.95 confirmed the demand of Rs. 18,276/- on the appellants.2. The appell...

M/S. United Engg. Vs. C.C.E., Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Assistant Commissioner, central Excise Division-I Kanpur vide his order dated 12.5.98 has denied the modvat credit amounting to Rs.1,36,195.33 to the appellants taken by them on the strength of invoice issued by the Deport of M/s SAIL. The Assistant Commissioner in his order has observed that vide notification No.23/95 (SIC) No.24/95(NT) dated 30.5.95, it was made mandatory that the modvat credit could be availed only on duplicate for transporter's copy of the invoice and in notification Nos 32/94 and 33/94(NT) dated 3.7.94 it was mandatory that the modvatable invoice could be issued only by registered dealers. He has observed that the party failed to furnish any documents to establish that the deport of M/s SAIL were registered as a dealer in terms of these notifications.2. On appeal the Commissioner(Appeals),Ghaziabad vide his order dated 23.2.2000 upheld the findings of the original authority and rejected the appeal of the party. The Commissioner(Appeals) further observed in...

C.C. Amritsar Vs. M/S. Bajaj Sons

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts in this case are that M/s. Bajaj Sons, Delhi imported 200 bags of Garlic weighing 10,000 kgs. from Pakistan and filed a Bill of Entry No.2669/99 dated 31.7.99 through M/s. Kishore international, Amritsar (the CHA) for the clearance of the same at Customs Rail Cargo, Amritsar. The importer classified the goods under sub-heading 071290.40 under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and also under the same EXIM Code of the ITC (HS) for classification of Export and Import Policy, 1997 - 2000.2. The Customs Authorities felt that the goods imported did not appear to be classifiable under the aforesaid EXIM Code, as the same related to the dried vegitables. The imported Garlic did not appear to be the dried one. The samples were drawn from the consignment and sent to the Plant Protection Officer, Plant Quarantine and Fumigation Station, Amritsar asking them to clarify as to whether the imported Garlic were fresh or dried. The Plant Protection Officer, Plant Quarantine and Fumigatio...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S. Dayal Anand Sand Coating Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, preferred by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether Modvat credit was available to M/s. Dayal Anand Sand Coating Co. on the strength of the invoices issued by a dealer who was not registered with the Department and the invoices did not contain the details as required under Notification No. 33/94-CE(NT) dated 4.7.94.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the respondents inspite of notice. From the perusal of the records it is observed that the Respondents under their letter dated 4.4.2000 had requested to decide the matter on merits on the basis of their submissions to the effect that they had produced the requisite registeration certificate No. 36/Dealer/R-XV/D-III/94 before the Commissioner (Appeals) and he allowed the Modvat credit after he was fully satisfied; that all the invoices with requisite particulars were also produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) at the time of hearing before him.3. Shri M.D. Singh, learned SDR submitted t...

M/S. Kobra Drugs Ltd. Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Today the matter is posted for hearing of application for restoration of appeal. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf o the applicant, M/s Kabra Drug Ltd. They however, under their letter dt. 3-2-2001 have submitted submissions for consideration.2. Shri K. Panchatcharam, Ld. JDR, mentioned that the application were directed by the Tribunal vide Stay Order No. S/603/99 NB (SM) 17-12-99 to deposit Rs. 1 Lakh on or before 31-2-2000; that the compliance was to be reported on 7-2-2000; that as no one appeared on 17-2-2000 nor any evidence was produced to show that they had complied with Stay Order the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act Vide Final Order No.A/190/2000/NB(SM) dt/ 7-2-2000; that the applicants subsequently filed Restoration. Application No. E/ROA/64/2000 which came up for hearing on 19-10-2000; that the Tribunal, after considering the submissions, extended the time for making deposit on or b...

Ms Indra Marshal Oil Engines Vs. Cce Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. W.E.F. 1.4.94 the Central Excise department introduced the mode of payment of duty by the assessees on the invoices instead of Gate Passes being followed before that date. Correspondingly the assessees could also avail modvat credit under "Rule 57A read with Rule 57G on the Strength of the duty paid by the manufacturers on the invoices issued by them.2. The appellants M/s Indra Marshal oil Engines, Indore manufactured IC Engines falling under chapter 84. They were also availing modvat credit under Rule 57A. It was observed that they had availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 1,17,609.45 on the strength of 3 Nos GPs issued on 4.5.94, 16.5.94 and 25.5.94 By M/s Laxmi Industries, Jullunder. They were accordingly issued show cause notice dt. 8.11.94 in which it was alleged that the GP is on the strength of which they had availed the modvat credit could not be treated as valid documents for the purpose of availing credit under Rule 57G(2) since the Gate Pass system under Rule 52...

M/S. Shree Silica Products (P) Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Shree Silica Products Pvt. Ltd. the appellants, are engaged in the manufacture of Non-alloy Steel Ingots which are chargeable to duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that they had filed claim for abatement unde Rule 96Z0 under their letter dated 1.12.1998 as their production of ingots and billets remain closed continuously for more than 7 days from 31.1.98 to 10.2.98; that they had informed the Asstt. Commissioner unde their letter dated 2.2.98 regarding closure of production and also intimation regarding start of production under their letter dated 10.2.98; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order allowed the abatement only for 7 days. He, further, submitted that their production was closed from 31.1.98 but the intimation about the same could be given to the Department only on 2.2.98 as 31st January, and 1st February were closed holidays for the Central Government; that the impugned Order has been passed with...

M/S Vishwanath Prasad Santosh Vs. Cce Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT569TriDel

1. This is an application by M/s Visnwanath Prasad Santosh Kumar for Restoration of their ROM application which has been dismissed for non-prosecution vide Misc Order No. M/207/2000-NB dt. 27-10-2000.2. Shri P.N.Awasthi, Ld. Advocate, submitted that the ROM Application was posted for hearing on 27-10-2000; that he had sent a letter to the Tribunal which was received by the Registry of the Tribunal on 25-10-2000, requesting for Adjournment of hearing on account of Deepawali Festival; that this letter was not placed before the Bench in absence of which ROM application was dismissed for non-prosecution. I also heard Shri K. Panchatcharam, Ld. DR, who leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench.3. I have considered the submissions, and I observe that the letter addressed by the Ld. Advocate was received by the Registry on 25-10-2000 which is apparent from the rubber stamp of the Tribunal on the letter of the Advocate. As this request was not placed before the Bench, the ROM applicati...

M/S. Sudhish Goenka Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vide his order dated 19.2.99 confirmed a duty of Rs.3,11,736.00/- on M/s Mewar Bottling Company. He further imposed a penalty of equivalent amount on them under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 9,264 is imposed under Rule 571 (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Additional Commissioner in his order has also imposed penalties of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5000/- respectively on Shri Sudhish Goenka, Director and Shri Ram Kishan Choudhary--an employee of the appellants under Rule 209 A.2. The above stated charged parties, filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. But their appeals are rejected by the appellate authority.3. The appellants have filed second stage appeals before CEGAT alongwith the stay petitions. The stay petition of M/s Mewar Bottling Company is disposed off by the CEGAT vide order dated 20.12.2000 in which it is observed that these appellants had transferred their ...

M/S. Hyvolt Electricals Vs. C.C.E. New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1.The facts in this case are that the appellants manufacture Copper wire bars/ingots, copper wire of refined copper and enamelled insulated winding wire of copper falling under Chapter Tariff Heading No. 7407, 7408 and 8544 respectively. They were availing modvat credit on the inputs under Rule 57A. On 8.12.96, their unit premises were visited by the Central Excise party. On physical stock taking, 87962.220 kgs. of copper cathode (raw material) valued at Rs. 83,56,411.00 involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 12,53,462.00 were found in excess of the recorded balance in their Form IV/57-F(3) Register. Also 4521.050 kgs.and 3272.150 kgs. of copper wire finer than 6 mm was found short of the recorded balance in these Register. Shri Yogesh Mittal, Partner of the appellants in this statement of even date deposed that the raw material found in excess was received in their factory on 7.12.96 form ICD, Tughlaqabad on behalf of M/s. Veekay General Industries, Delhi without cover of challans/Bill...