Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

M/S. Associate Engineers Vs. Cce, Vadodara-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called. The appellants have prayed for adjournment on the ground that they have some urgent personal work.2. Shri Ashok Kumar, JDR submits that the facts in the present case are the same as were before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Danke Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-III - Appeal No.E/4501/89-B, which has been disposed of today under separate order.3. After going through the facts, we agree with the submissions made by the ld. JDR.4. We have already in similar facts and circumstances rejected the appeal of the assessee vide Order No. 124/2001/B dated 2.02.2001.Paras-3, - 4, 5,6 and 7 of that order are extracted below:- "3. The facts are not in dispute. The appellants were availing of the benefit of Notification No.175/86 CE under the new Central Excise Tariff. Their value of clearances had already exceeded Rs.40,00,000/- when this Notification was suspended and a new Notification No.213/86 CE was issued. As the exemption under the new Notificati...

M/S. Triveni Structural Vs. C.C.E. Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant in their stay petition as well as in the appal have contended that they are a Govt. of India undertaking.They have therefore, to produce clearances from the Committee of Secretaries of the Govt. of India to prosecute their appeal. The matter is being adjourned time and again on last 4 occasions at the request of the appellants.2. When the matter is called the appellants are not represented. There is no request from them either asking for adjournment or giving reasons for their absence.Their appeal is therefore, dismissed subject to restoration on their filing clearance from Committee of Secretaries for prosecuting this appeal....

M/S Suman Steels Vs. C.C.E. Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT662TriDel

1. These matters were adjourned to this date on 4.1.2001 in the presence of representative of the appellants. Today when the matter is called, there is no one present for the appellants. There is no request either for an adjournment or giving reasons for their absence. It therefore appears that appellants are not interested in prosecuting their appeals. The appeals are therefore dismissed for non prosecution....

M/S. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Cce, Pune

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT298TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., the matter relates to the refund claim of Rs.9,765.50 filed by the appellants on the ground that the Notification No.239/86 CE dated 3.4.86 was covered by the provisions of Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. The matter relates to the exemption of parts of motor vehicles when such parts were used as original equipment parts in the manufacture of tractors. The adjudicating authority had taken a view that this Notification No.239/86 CE dated 3.4.86 was not covered by the provisions of Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. This order was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.2. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits. In the written submissions, they have submitted that the goods i.e. Valve Blocks were earlier classifiable under Item No.68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and were eligible for exemption when used in the manufacture of other e...

M/S. Electro PorcelaIn Vs. Cce, Ahmedabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On this appeal filed by M/s. Electro Porcelain Industries, the matter relates to the eligibility of small scale exemption when the electric insulators of porcelain were cleared by the appellants under the brand name 'Anchor', which did not belong to them. The amount of duty involved is Rs.2,753.90.2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the appellants.Earlier, the matter was fixed for hearing on 9.1.2001 when the notice was issued on 30.11.2000. The appellants were directed to produce certified copy of the order-in-original and order-in-appeal. There is no response so far.3. Shri M.P. Singh, JDR submits that the matter is already covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Namtech Systems Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi -2000 (115) ELT 238 (Tribunal).4. We have gone through the facts on record. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Electric Insulators of Porcelain with brand name. These insulators were used as such. They ...

M/S Tanwar Rajput and Co. and M/S 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 23.7.99 dis-allowed the modvat credit of Rs.3,305/- to M/s Tanwar Rajput and Company. He further imposed on them a penalty of equivlant amount under Rule 571(4) and a penalty of Rs. 23,000/- under Rule 1730 l (bb) of the Cental Excise Rules, 1944 on the party.2. The above action was taken against the party on the ground that they had taken credit of Rs. 3,305/- fraudulently in respect of Invoices No.7786 dated 14.9.98 and 20.3.99. The Additional Commissioner has also imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on Shri Ramanand Agarwal, Partner of the party under Rule 209(A).3. M/s Tanwar Rajput & company filed an appeal before commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order dated 7.8.2000, reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000/- on the party but otherwise rejected their appeal. In his Order the Commissioner(Appeals) has observed that since Shri Ramanand Agarwal, Partner had not filed a separ...

M/S. Tej Alloys Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals were dismissed vide Final Order No.A/974-976-99-NB (SM) dated 22.9.99. The Appeals were dismissed on the ground that there was no proof of pre-deposit of duty and penalty imposed on the appellants and there was also no prayer for the stay of the said amounts.2. The appellants have filed the present ROA petition. This petition came up for hearing before the bench on 21.12.2000. The bench in its order of this date observed that appellants were not represented but they had claimed that the stated amounts were already lying in deposit with the Central Excise authorities. The matter was accordingly adjourned to this date with the direction to the appellants to pursue their application for restoration and Ld.JDR was also given an opportunity to ascertain and report whether the appellant's deposits were lying with the authorities.3. Today when the matter is called, the appellants are not represented despite the notice dated 11.1.2001 sent to them by the Registry. There is no...

M/S. Venus Industries Corp. Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT921TriDel

1.The issue in this appeal is the availment of modvat credit on the basis of the invoice issued by M/s India Oil Corporation, Mathura Refinery, Mathura from their duty paid tanks/stocks. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ludhiana vide his Order dated 6.12.95 has dis-allowed modvat credit of Rs. 98441.92 to the appellants on the ground that these invoices do not contain the requisite information and particulars such as master invoice S1.No., date, quantity on the basis of which they have issued these invoices, nor the invoices are in the prescribed proforms as required under notification No. 15/94-CE(NT) dated 30.3.94 and 32-33/94-CE(NT) dated 4.7.94. He had accordingly held these invoices are not valid documents under Rule 57G and Rule 57GG.2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) Chandigarh.dismissed their appeal vide his order dated 13.6.2000 upholding the order passed by the original authority.3. The present appeal is against the above order of Commissi...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. Banwari Lal Truck Owner and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Brief facts of this case are that during the course of transit checks at Agra on 31.5.95, the Central Excise officers of Agra Division intercepted 6 truck bearing Registration No. UP 80G-9891 loaded with 91129 pieces hardware items of Brass and Aluminium falling under heading No. 8302.00 and 8310.00 valued at Rs.14,34,600/-. These goods were not accompanied by any invoice, bill challans etc. or supported by any documentary evidence of payment of central excise duty there on.Therefore, these goods were seized. Similarly the truck was also seized and the proceedings were drawn in respect of these goods and the vehicle. These proceedings culminated in the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur passing an order dated 21.11.97 in which he ordered for the confiscation of the seized goods but gave an option to M/s Khandelwal Industries Enterprises, Agra-owners of the goods to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. He further ordered for this confiscation of the seize...

M/S. Sethia Engg. Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants availed modvat credit of Rs. 7003/- on 30.8.94 on the strength of invoice No. 180 dated 26.8.94 issued to M/s Chemo Pulp Tissues Ltd., Ghaziabad. The also availed modvat credit of Rs. 8397/- and Rs. 17,183/- on the basis of invoice No. 1302 dt 5.7.94 and No.1304 dated 9.7.94 respectively issued by the dealers M/s A.R. Sale Agency. The appellants were issued show cause notice dated 27.2.95 calling upon them to show cause why the modvat credit in respect of the three notices should not be denied to them.2. On considering the reply of the appellants, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Chandigarh vide his Order dated 28.6.96 confirmed the demand of Rs. 32,583/- under Rule 57 I of Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. The party filed an appeal but the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his Order dated 13.6.2000 dismissed the appeal of the party holding the findings arrived at by the Original Authority.4. The present appeal is against the above order of Co...