Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S Autocratic Indus. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This matter, which is not figuring today's cause list, has been taken up by the Bench suo motu under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules in the presence of ld. SDR Shri M.D.Singh and ld. Advocate Shri K.K.Anand representing the applicants and respondents respectively.2. As per order passed on 26.02.2001, this application was rejected.The said order is hereby recalled.3. As rightly submitted by ld. SDR, the Bench while passing the Final Order dated 18.02.1999 had not recorded any decision on the issue of limitation, though it had recorded the submissions made by both sides on the said issue. On the merits of the dispute, the Bench recorded a considered finding and upheld the contentions of the assessees. I note that such a decision on the merits of the dispute ought to have been necessarily proceeded a definite decision on the preliminary issue of limitation. Therefore, there is an apparent error on the face of the Final Order dated 18.02.1999. In this view of the matter, it is f...

M/S. Kirti Works (Tablets) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appeal No. E/3096/89-C of M/s. Kirti Works was rejected by this Tribunal vide its final order No. 448/96-C dated 9-6-1996 on the ground that appellant had failed to keep bank guarantee alive as ordered in this Tribunal's stay order. This restoration application seeks the restoration of that appeal and its disposal on merits. The application submits that the appellant had all along kept the bank guarantee alive as ordered in the stay order. They were not present when the appeal was taken up for final hearing and they also did not get a copy of the final order of the Tribunal as their consultant at whose address the final order was sent, never delivered the copy to them, the consultant having stopped his practice. In these facts and circumstances, we feel that this is a fit case, to meet the ends of justice, for restoration of the appeal to its original number. Having restored the appeal, we have also heard the representative of the appellant as well as the learned Departmental Repre...

M/S. Chenab Textile Mills, Kathua Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These stay applications filed by the appellants in the six appels are for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts mentioned below:E/Stay/32/01-NB(S) 1,06,085.34 1,06,000.00E/Stay/28/01-NB(S) 9,76,319.54 9,80,200.00E/Stay/25/01-NB(S) 3,48,697.00 3,49,000.00E/Stay/26/01-NB(S) 91,411.21 91,000.00E/Stay/29/01-NB(S) 3,81,829.83 3,85,000.00E/Stay/27/01-NB(S) 7,82,702.42 7,83,000.00 ___________________________________________________________________________ 3. Ld. Advocate Shri J.P. Kaushik for the applicants submits that adjudicating authority disallowed Modvat credits on inputs and capital goods and imposed penalties on the assessees for alleged wrong availment of credit. As regards both inputs and capital goods, the credits were disallowed on the ground that the goods had not been declared under Rule 57G/57T of the Cental Excise Rules. Ld. Advocate further submits that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) without proper...

M/S. Puneet Steel and Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT435TriDel

1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of an amount of duty of Rs.7,26,352/- and an amount of penalty of Rs.2,50,000/-.2. The applicants were working under Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and were paying duty on the basis of annual capacity of production (ACP) determined by the jurisdictional Commissioner. While so, on 26.05.1998, they requested the Commissioner in writing for discontinuing to work under Section 3A of the Act and w.e.f. that date paid Central Excise duty on the basis of actual production. The Department was not agreeable to such payment and, therefore, by show-cause notice (SCN) directed the applicants to pay the differential duty of Rs.7,26,352/- on the basis of the ACP determined under the provisions of Rule 96ZO read with Section 3A, for the period September 1998 to January 1999. This was resisted by the party. The dispute was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner who confirmed the demand of duty against them and imposed ...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Autocratic Indus. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This matter, which is not figuring today's cause list, has been taken up by the Bench suo motu under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules in the presence of ld. SDR Shri M.D.Singh and ld. Advocate Shri K.K.Anand representing the applicants and respondents respectively.2. As per order passed on 26.02.2001, this application was rejected.The said order is hereby recalled.3. As rightly submitted by ld. SDR, the Bench while passing the Final Order dated 18.02.1999 had not recorded any decision on the issue of limitation, though it had recorded the submissions made by both sides on the said issue. On the merits of the dispute, the Bench recorded a considered finding and upheld the contentions of the assessees. I note that such a decision on the merits of the dispute ought to have been necessarily preceded a definite decision on the preliminary issue of limitation. Therefore, there is an apparent error on the face of the Final Order dated 18.02.1999. In this view of the matter, it is fe...

M/S. Mo Engineering Pvt. Limited, Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. After carefully examining the records and hearing both sides, I feel that this appeal itself requires to be disposed at this state.Therefore, I allow this application and take up the appeal for final disposal.2. It appears that both the lower authorities have passed their respective orders without personal hearing of the party. Whether sufficient opportunity was given to the party for personal hearing is not relevant for the present. It is, however, noted on the face of the record that, in the appeal filed by the party before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of the Assistant Commissioner disallowing certain Modvat credit and imposing penalty, they had raised a specific ground that the order of adjudication passed in 1999 in adjudication of show-cause notice issued in 1993 was not liable to be sustained. The appellants also cited case law in support of the said ground. But ld.Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the said ground at all. The lower appellate authority ou...

M/S. Dhiman Steel Rolling Mill, Vs. Cce, Chadigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On careful examination of the records and on hearing both sides, this matter is found to be fit for admission. The appeal is admitted.2. Ld. Advocate Shri K.K. Anand for the applicants submits that the entire amount of duty amounting to Rs. 45,349.35 has already been deposited and that what remains to be deposited is only the penalty amount of Rs. 2,000.00. He prays for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount. I have heard ld. JDR also.3. In view of the fact that the entire amount of duty of over Rs. 45,000/- has been paid by the party and what remains to be paid is only a meagre amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards penalty, I allow this application in the interest of justice and direct the Registry to bring up the appeal for hearing in the due course....

M/S. AustIn Circuits Ltd. Bhopal Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit duty amount of Rs.67,044/- and penalty amount of Rs.1,000/-.2. I have examined the records and heard both sides. The applicants had taken Modvat credit to the extent of Rs.87,044/- on imported inputs on the strength of Bill of Entry on 10.11.1995. The credit so taken was reversed by them on 23.05.1996 allegedly on oral advice received from the Departmental authorities. On 23.05.1996, the party took re-credit of the duty in their RG 23A Pt.II, allegedly on the strength of some order passed by Additional Commissioner of Central Excise in similar matters in favour of the party. The Department, by show cause notice (SCN), challenged the assessee's action. The party contested the Department's proposal for disallowing the credit. The Assistant Commissioner adjudicated the dispute and disallowed the entire credit and imposed penalty of Rs.1,000/- on the assessees. The appeal filed against the Assistant Commissioner's order was rejected by the ...

Cce, Raipur Vs. M/S. Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is Revenue's appeal. Ld. SDR Shri Swatantra Kumar submits that there is a communication from the Commissioner stating that the Central Board of Excise and Customs has found this case not to be a fit case to be pursued in this appeal. He has brought on record a copy of the said communication. I have perused the documents and have found ld. JDR's submission to be correct.2. Since the Department does not want to pursue this appeal, I reject the same....

M/S. AustIn Circuits Ltd., Bhopal Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs.67,044/- and penalty amount of RS.1,000/-.2. I have examined the records and heard both sides. The applicants had take Modvat credit to the extent of Rs.87,044/- on imported inputs on the strength of Bill of Entry on 10.11.1995. The credit so taken was reversed by them on 23.05.1996 allegedly on oral advice receive from the Departmental authorities. On 23.05.1996, the party took re-credit of the duty in their RG 23A Pt.II allegedly on the strength of some order passed by Additional Commissioner of Central Excise in similar matters in favour of the party. The Department, by show cause notice (SCN), challenged the assessee's action. The party contested the Department's proposal for disallowing the credit. the Assistant Commissioner adjudicated the dispute and disallowed the entire credit and imposed penalty of Rs.1,000/- on the assessees. The appeal filed against the Assistant Commissioner's order was rejected by the ...