Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Malwa Cotton Spinning Mils

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. have filed the present application for rectification of mistake (ROM) with reference to this Tribunal's Final Order No.A/589/2000 NB (SM) dated 3.4.2000. In the ROM application, the applicants have submitted that as they have complied with the provisions or Rule 57 G (6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, their claim had been rightly allowed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the applicants. The ROM application had come-up for consideration earlier on 8.9.2000 when no one appeared on behalf of the applicants. The matter again came-up on 3.11.2000 when in spite of notice being sent on 20.09.2000, no one appeared. Again, in the interest of justice, the matter was fixed for today and the notice was sent on 17.11.2000. None appeared in spite of several notices.3. Shri M.D. Singh, SDR submits that the Tribunal had relied upon the Larger Bench decision as per Order NO. A-136-42/2000 NB dat...

M/S. Partap Steel Rolling Mills Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT741TriDel

1. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Amritsar Division vide his Order dt. 11.10.95 disallowed the modvat credit amounting to Rs.14,533.66 to the appellants availed by them on the refractory items and further imposed a penalty of Rs.1,000/- on them. The Asst.Commissioner in his order has observed that they filed a declaration in respect of this item under Rule 57-T on 23.8.94 but took the credit on 18.7.94. It is stated that these goods were received by the party on 18.7.94 whereas the declaration was made on 23.8.94, after the receipt of the goods and after availment of credit on 21.7.94. He has observed that the appellants have violated the provisions of Rule 57-T(1). He has further observed that they have also not given any plausible explanation as to how the inputs could be termed as capital goods showing their use in the plant and machinery.2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his Order dt.29.10.99 observed that by their very nature and use, the refrac...

M/S. Modern Syntex Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT96TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s Modern Syntex (I) Ltd, the issue involved is whether refund of excise duty paid in excess by them is hit by Principle of unjust enrichment.2. Shri K.K.Anand, Ld. Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants had sold six machines, during period July 1998, to October 1998 to M/s Modern Threads (India) on payment of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 14,32,376/- which was equivalent to the modvat credit already taken by them at the time of purchase of these machines; that as per the provisions of Rule 57 S(2) (b) of the Central Excise Rules, the duty on the capital goods was to be calculated by deducting 2.5% of the credit taken for each quarter; that accordingly they requested the Assistant Commissioner for refund of Rs. 5,01,334/- under their letter dt 22-12-98; that in the meantime the Assistant Commissioner, incharge of the factory of their customer, under Order-in-Original No. 106/98 dt.16-3-99, disallowed excess Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 4,75,744/- ...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Steel Strips Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the present application for condonation of delay (COD), the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II had prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 26.10.98. The appeal was filed on 30th March' 99. The main ground taken in the appeal is that the office of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh-II was re-organised and came into existence w.e.f.1.6.98 and initially there was some mixing-up of the files. He has discussed the date-wise delay in communication dated 9.11.2000.2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the assessee, M/s.Steel Strips Ltd., in spite of notice being sent to them on 11.01.2001.3. Shri M.D. Singh, SDR submits that there was no wilful delay and the Commissioner has explained the date-wise position and prays for condonation of delay.4. Keeping in view the explanation of the Revenue, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.5. The matter is adjourned for regular hearing on 20th March, 2001.Issue...

M/S. Man Industries (i) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Man Industries (India) Ltd. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), in both the matters, had dismissed their appeals for non-compliance with requirement of pre-deposit. He has not gone into the merits of the case.2. Shri A.K. Chopra, Company Representative submits hat the matter relates to the modvat credit on the lubricants used in the maintenance of machinery and the matter is covered by the Tribunal's earlier decisions but he is not able to precisely locate the said decisions.3. Shri M.D. Singh, SDR submits that as the matter has not been decided on merits by the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), the appellants be directed to make some pre-deposits and then the matter could go back to the appellate authority for de novo consideration.4. After hearing both the sides and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the appellants to pre-deposit Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) within a period of 4 we...

M/S. Shree Polytex P. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of Rs. 74,250/-, disallowed as Modvat Credit (sic) under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.2. Shri O.P. Agrawal, learned C.A., submitted that they had availed of Modvat Credit on the strength of gate-passes which were endorsed three times; that the Asstt. Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 275/96 dated 21.8.96 dropped the demand following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.B.S. Organic Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, 1990 (45)s ELT 70ls; that however, on appeal Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Order relying on the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE vs. Shri Gopal Krishan Poly Industries, 1996 (84) ELT 235. The learned C.A. further submitted that what is relevant is substantial compliance with the provisions of the law and as they have substantially complied with the law the benefit of Modvat credit cannot be denied to them; that in the case of CCE, Jai...

M/S. Insulators and Electricals Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC105

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s Insulators and Electricals Co. is whether the modvat credit is available to them on the basis of Gate Pass after 30-6-94.2. Shri A. Ansari, Ld. Advocate, submitted that before the introduction of invoice, the excisable goods were cleared from the factory under GP-I; that the Gate Passes remains to be valid document showing duty paid nature of the inputs even after 30-6-94; that invoice as well as gate passes have same information required for availing modvat credit; that the only difference between two documents is name os the document only; that the legal position is same in both cases because the information required by the Deptt. was duly given in the gate pass. He, further, submitted that the Central Board of Excise and Customs had issued a Circular No. 76/76/94 dt. 6-11-94 which provides relief to manufacture/dealers during the transitional period i.e. change of Gate Pass to invoice. He finally mentioned that the Madras High Cour...

M/S. Phoenix Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT82TriDel

1. The facts in this case are that the asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, NOIDA initiated the proceedings against the appellants on the grounds that they imported 'Mid Sole Sheets' through the Air Cargo Units, Customs House, New Delhi vide Bill of Entry No.208312. The date of this Bill of Entry is stated to be 30.1.95. It is alleged that they availed the modvat credit amounting to Rs.55,194/- on the strength of this Bill of Entry after expiry of six months in violation of the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Accordingly, vide his Order dt. 26.9.97, the Asst.Commissioner has denied them the credit of the aforesaid amount under Rule 57-I.2. The party filed an appeal but the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad vide his Order dt. 23.8.99, dismissed the appeal of the party upholding the above order the original authority.3. The present appeal is against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri. S.D. Gaur, Consultant for...

M/S. Birla Vxl Ltd. (Ocm Woollen Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal field by M/s. Birla VXL Ltd. OCM Woollen Mills, Amritsar, the matter relates to the availment of the modvat credit on the basis of the documents, which according to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) were not the proper documents. In para-5 of the impugned order, it has been observed by the appellate authority that the assessee has taken modvat credit on the basis of the invoices, which were other than duplicate/original copy. He has confirmed the view taken by the adjudicating authority wherein the Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise had confirmed the demand of Rs.24,570/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,500/-.2. Shri R. Sudhinder, Advocate submits that the matter relates to the initial stages of the Scheme when the provisions regarding documentation on the strength of which the credit was to be taken, were not very clear. He submits that in any case, the dealer, who had issued the invoice in question i.e M/s. Sharda Chemicals of Delhi had obtained re...

M/S. R.R. and Company Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application M/s R.R. & Company, have requested for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amounting to Rs. 10,762/- imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. and penalty of Rs 2000/- under Rule 173Q (SIC) 2. The applicants under their letter dt. 15-1-2001 have requested to decide their application on the basis of submissions made by them and grounds of appeal. I therefore, heard Shri A.K. Jain, Ld. DR and perused the records. In this case the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 10,762/- was confirmed in respect of Branded Tabacco which has been removed without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority has also imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Act and under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Act separately and confiscated the seized goods under Rule 173Q with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-. As the applicant has already paid the entire amount of duty, the recovery of entire amount of penalty imposed on him is stayed during the pen...