Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

C.C.E., Rajpur Vs. M/S. Nova Iron and Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue field this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, in spite of notice. There-fore, the appeal is being taken-up in the absence of respondents.3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a declaration for availing the MODVAT Credit on capital goods and the adjudicating authority accepted the declaration in respect of some goods and rejected the declaration in respect of other goods. Respondents filed the appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, whereby the declaration in respect of capital goods was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, held that the adjudicating authority passed the impugned order without issuing a show cause notice to the respondents, hence the impugned is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice.5. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order held that the adjudicating ...

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. Sintex Plast Containers (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC341

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) gave a finding that no suppression can be alleged against the respondents. Therefore, the demand is time-barred.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of plastic tanks and were availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification. On 5.3.97, a snow cause notice was issued demanding duty for the period from 94-95 on intermediate product i.e.plastic powder/moulding power on the ground that the respondents had not declared this product in their classification list and the extended period of limitation under Sec. 11A of the Act was invoked.3. Dy. Commissioner confirmed the demand and in appeal filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide impugned order, held that the demand is time-barred as the respondents, from time to time, fixed the declarations explaining their manufacturing process to the revenue.5. The contention of the revenue...

M/S. Goel Bearing Co. and ors. Vs. C.C.E. New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants, M/s. Goel Bearing Co. has complied with the stay order, whereas M/s. Bhagwati Bearing Co. have deposited a sum of Rs. 75,000/- out of Rs. 1,25,000/- as per the directions of the Tribunal. She prays for more time on behalf of M/s. Bhagwati Bearing Co. to make deposit of the remaiing amount. In the interest of justice, appellants M/s.Bhagwati Bearing Co. are directed to deposit the remaining amount within a period of eight weeks. To come up for reporting compliance on 8th May, 2001. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. Charkha Detergents and Soap Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT333TriDel

1. The appellants are manufacturers of detergent soap - in powder and cake form. They sell the goods under the brand name "Faristha". The issue in this appeal is whether the use of brand name made them ineligible for the exemption under Notification No.1/93 for the period 1.4.95 to 8.6.95 as held in the orders of the lower authorities. The facts of the case are that the name "Faristha" is a registered Trade mark and belonged to M/s.Charkha Soap Mills. The original registration was in 1987. On 16.8.93 the appellant was assigned the brand name for the Territory of Delhi etc. under an agreement between M/s.Charkha Soap Mills and the appellant. This agreement assigned the Trade mark without transferring the goodwill. A further agreement was signed on 29th May, 1995 between the parties transferring in the goodwill also to the appellant. The Trade mark and merchandise mark authorities issued their Certificate of Registration of the assignment vide their letter dated 14.6.1995.2. The content...

Sh. Sukhram, Sh. Sohan Lal, Sh. Vs. C.C., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. one lakh each imposed under sec. 11 of the Customs Act.2. Brief facts on the case are that 8.740 kg of silver valued at Rs. 64,676/- and four gold biscuits of foreign origin valued at Rs. 2,05,000/- were recovered for Sukhram, appellant.3. The case of the revenue is that Sh. Manoj Kumar gave this gold and silver to Shri Sukhram for delivering the same to his brother Sh. Sohan Lal. A show cause notice was issued and gold and silver was confiscated and penalty of Rs. one lakh was imposed on each appellant.4. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that there is no evidence on record to show that silver, in question, is of foreign origin as there is no such marking on the silver. In respect of gold, his submission is that the gold was duly purchased by the appellant from M/s/ Lalji Bhai Kanji Bhai, Ahmedabad, who admitted that the gold, in question was sold to the appellants and als...

M/S. Balar Fabrics (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants.The case was adjouned for today in the presence of ld. C.A. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. (Dictated in Court)....

C.C., Kanpur Vs. Sh. Daulat Ram and Shri Shankar Lal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT741TriDel

1. Revenue filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (Appeals).2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, in spite of notice. Therefore, the appeals are being taken up in the absence of the respondents.3. Brief facts of the case are that 20 blankets and stereo cassette recorder of foreign origin were intercepted at parcel office railway station, Agra. Both the respondents claimed the goods on the ground that the goods were validly imported into India by one Abdul Razak on transfer of residence. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the grounds that as per the conditions of transfer of residence, the goods imported under transfer of residence cannot be sold. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on both the respondents. The respondence filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), vide impugned order, held that the condition for non-transfer of the goods importe...

C.C.E., Indore Vs. Cement Corporation of India

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Ld. S.D.R., appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that the Committee on Disputes declined the permission to the revenue to pursue these appeals before the Tribunal. In view of this situation, the appeals are dismissed. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. Triveni Rubbers Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC180

1. In these two appeals-one filed by M/s. Triveni Rubbers and the and the other filed by the Revenue - arising out of a common Order No.21 Collr/MP/95 dated 28.4.95 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, the issue involved is whether the Assessee was manufacturing Rubber Beltings with less than 25% Rubber Compound, whether benefit of notification No.175/86 was available to the Assessee who was not maintaining statutory records of production and clearance and was indulged in large scale clandestine clearance and whether the Adjudicating Authority while confirming the duty had correctly determined the aggregate value.2.1 Briefly stated the facts are that the Central Excise Officers searched the factory premises of Triveni Rubbers and M/s. Winner Rubbers P. Ltd., on 23.1.91 on the basis of intelligence that these two units were manufacturing Rubber Beltings of vulcanised rubber having rubber compound more than 25%, falling under Sub-heading 4010.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise...

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. Shree Ram Switchgears Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT116TriDel

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, in spite of notice.2. Revenue filed this appeal against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of MODVAT Credit on the strength of photo copy of invoice.3. Ld. S.D.R., appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that as per the provisions of Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, the manufacturer can take the credit on the strength of duplicate copy of invoice. He submits that in the present case, respondents have not produced original/duplicate copy of invoice, but they have produced only photo copy of invoice, which is not a valid duty-paying document. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Indore vs M/s.Vishwa Organics (P) Ltd. (Final Order No. A/1813/00-NB (S) dated 22.09.2000), wherein it was held that the credit cannot be availed on the strength of extra or photo copy of the invoice.5. The ...