Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

M/S. Geep Industrial Syndicate Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT210TriDel

1. Appellants vide letter dated 22.8.2000 made a request to decide the appeal on merit. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the appellants.2. The appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable product and availing the benefit of MODVAT credit. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for disallowing the credit of Rs.6,394/- on the ground that the dealer who issued the invoices, have not revalidated their registration certificate, hence violate the Trade Notice No.10/95 dated 21.2.95 issued by the Bombay Collectorate. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants field appeal and the same was rejected.4. Heard learned SDR and perused the appeal papers. In this case a show cause notice was issued on the ground that dealer, who issued the invoices have violated the provisions of Trade Notice No.10/...

M/S. Honda Siel Power Products Vs. Cce Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The facts in this appeal are that the appellants M/s Shri Ram Honda Power Equipments Ltd., Rudrapur manufacture Gen.Sets,I.C. Engines, Pump Sets and parts thereof. They were sending the components of these machines for further processing to their job workers under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They sent 180 Nos Cylinder Barrels for further processing to the job workers under this Rule vide their challan No.679 dt 13.9.96. while sending out these goods, they debited an amount of Rs. 38549.00 in their RG 23A part-II account as provided under this rule. These goods were received back from job worder on 18.11.96 which is six days beyond the period of 60 days as prescribed under the rule for the return of the goods. The proceedings were drawn against the appellants and the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Division Rampur in his order dt 24.10.97 held that the basic requirement of this rule is that if the goods are sent outside for jobwork and the same could not be...

Shri VipIn Kalra Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Today the matter is posted for reporting compliance of the stay order No. S/783-787/2000-NB(SM) in which the Appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and the compliance was to be reported on 22.1.2001.2. Shri Naveen Malhotra, learned Advocate submitted that in their application filed on 12.1.2001 they have requested for modification of the Stay Order as the stay order was issued without hearing the Applicant; that as per the direction they had filed the written submissions; that the applicant is not in a position to deposit Rs. 1 lakh as he was only a trainee under Shri Sandeep Bhasker and was doing only part time job for learning the job of import and export. Finally, he submitted that considering the financial hardship the time limit for depositing the amount of Rs. 1 lakh be extended by two months. Shri K.Panchatcharam, learned JDR leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench.3. I have considered the submissions. It is observed from the Stay Order that Shri Vipi...

M/S. Ashok Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants inspite of notice. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up for hearing in the absence of the applicants. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.3. The contention of the applicants in the appeal memorandum is that the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the applicants to deposit the sum due without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants and, thereafter, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance to the Stay order.They relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Neo Seek Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, reported in 200 (119) E.L.T. (M.P.).4. Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the adjudication order alongwith the application for waiver of pre-deposit.The Commissioner (Appeals) without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants decided the application fo...

M/S. Shipra Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Cce Jaipur-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are manufacturers of Steel Rolling Products falling under heading No. 7217.90. These products are covered by the compounded levy Scheme by virtue of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with effect from 1st August 1997. Prior to this date, they were availing modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the input items declared by them. On 1.8.97, they had certain inputs lying in stock with them and also contained in the finished and the semi-finished goods in their possession. The modvat credit amounting to Rs. 285692/- was assessed to have been availed by appellants in respect of such input items which were neither used nor were likely to be used in on in relation to the production of final products with effect from this date. Therefore, they were issued a show cause notice dt 29.1.98 calling upon them to show cause why the aforesaid amount should not be recovered from them as they had failed to pay the amount under Rule 57F (1) read with ...

M/S. Ram Darshan Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants inspite of notice. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up for hearing in the absence of the applicants. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.3. The contention of the applicants in the appeal memorandum is that Commissioner (Appeals) directed the applicants to deposit the sum due without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants and, thereafter, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance to the Stay order. They relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Neo Seek Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, reported in 2000(119) E.L.T. 52 (M.P.).4. Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the adjudication order alongwith the application for waiver of pre-deposit.The Commissioner (Appeals) without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants decided the application fo...

M/S Executive Engineer Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellants filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order No.A/1396/99-NB (SM) dated 9.12.99.2. Shri S.C. Shukla appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the MODVAT credit was denied to the applicants only on technical grounds. He submits that inputs received by the applicants which was duty paid and are used in the manufacture of final product and Revenue was not disputing this aspect. His submission is that as the deficiencies in the invoices are procedural in nature, the substantive benefit should not be denied. No other point was raised during the arguments.4. The contention of the applicants is that benefit of MODVAT credit was denied only on technical grounds as the deficiencies in the invoices are mere procedural in nature. The Tribunal in the final order No.A/1396/99-NB (SM) dated 9.12.99 already considered this point and after considering these arguments which are being raised now taken a view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S....

M/S. Audicom Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The impugned order is an order of remand and the Id. Counsel for the appellants submits that the adjudication proceeding initiated pursuant to the impugned order is at the hearing stage and the adjudicating authority has fixed hearing on 9.2.2001. The issue of classification is to be decided after going into the relevant facts. That aspect of the dispute cannot be gone into in this appeal as the original authority is yet to pass an order on the issue. The Id. Counsel, however, stresses that the demand having been raised beyond six months, the same is time barred. In support of this, he submits that the appellants had filed a declaration before the Central Excise Authorities. He submits that this position remains noted in the order in adjudication. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the extended period is applicable to the present case without taking into account the declaration of the appellant. The appellants, however, have not filed copies of the...

M/S. Delhi Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Today the matter is posed for reporting compliance of the Stay Order No. S/830/2001-NB(SM) dated 30.11.2000 in which the Appellants were directed to deposit the disputed amount on or before 31.12.2000 and compliance was to be reported on 4.1.2001. On 4th January, 2001 no one appeared on behalf of the Appellants and the Bench adjourned the matter for today. No one has appeared on behalf of the Appellants even today nor there is any request for adjournment nor there is any intimation about depositing the disputed amount. As the Appellants have not deposited the amount the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act....

Ms Indra Processors Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are the processors of specified textile fabrics which are chargeable to duty in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has amended. They are operating hot air stenters installed in their factory for the processing of such fabrics.2. The Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh-II vide his order dated 27.4.2000 has fixed their annual capacity of production at Rs.474.48 lacs for the period from 1.4.99 to 29.2.2000 under Rule 3(4) of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The present appeal is against this order of the Commissioner. Shri K.K.Anand, Adv. for the appellants submits that the Commissioner has fixed the annual capacity of production for the stated period by including the length of galleries attached to their stenter. He submits that the Larger Bench of CEGAT in the case of Sangam Processors Vs 429(CEGAT) (LB) has held that the length of the galleries is not to be taken into account while comput...