Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Precast Concrete Factory Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order in appeal dated 15.12.98 vide which the Commissioner(Appeals) had upheld the order in original dated 22.12.97 denying the benefit of exemption Notification No.74/93.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PCC poles, pipes, hollow blocks and cement tiles classifiable under sub-heading 6807.00 of thed CETA. The proceedings were initiated against them of the strength of three show cause notices two dated 16.10.97 and the third dated 30.3.97 vide which they were called upon to pay the duty amount for the period indicated therein, on the ground that they were not entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No.74/93 being not fully government owned unit.They contested the correctness of the notices by alleging that the appellants factory is owned by M/s. J&K Minerals Ltd. which is a totally Government company, but the Assistant Commissioner did not agree with their contention and confirmed t...

Commisioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Mansurpur Sugar Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue seeks reference of the following question of law purported to have arisen out of the Tribunal's Final Order No.A/15/98-NB dated 26.12.97: "Whether modvat credit under Rule 57-Q can be allowed on spare parts of crane, electrical control panel and soft start control panel within the definition of the capital goods as provided under explanation (1) (a) to (1) (c) to Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 prior to 16.3.95".2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein who are engaged in the manufacture of sugar filed modvat declaration under Ruie 57T of the Central Excise Rules, for availing of duty paid on certain capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q. Credit on the following items was disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 25.5.95 on the ground that they were not covered by the definition of capital goods spare parts of crane, electrical control panel and soft start control panel and speed reducer for cane unloader. The Commissioner (Appea...

Jindal Polyester, Gulaothi Vs. Cce, Meerut-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants had taken Modvat credit on Furnace oil (inputs)during the period August 1997 to January 1998 at the (SIC) of 152 ad valorem which amounted to Rs.7,02,169.33. Both the (SIC) in their respective orders held that the credit taken in excess of 10% ad valorem during the above period was not admissible to the assessees inasmuch as the Modvat credit on Furnace Oil was restricted to 10% under Notification No.14/97-CE (NT) dated 03.05.97. Hence the present appeal.3. Ld. Advocate Shri Nand Kishore for the appellants fairly concedes that the decision of the lower authorities has been upheld by decisions of the Tribunal and, therefor,e the present appellants do not have a sustainable case. He has cited the following decisions of the Tribuna, which were rendered in the present appellants, own cases.4. On perusal of the above decisions, I find that the question whether Notification 14/97-CE(NT) ibid restricting Modvat credit on FurnAce Oil to 10% ad valorem, issued under Rule 57A ...

Shri Brijmohan Bhatia Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC665

1. In this Misc. application Shri Brijmohan Bhatia, Proprietor of M/s.B.I.C. International, Delhi has requested the Tribunal to direct the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay to release the goods lying in the Customs as per the Tribunal's Final Order No. 839/2000-A dated 10.10.2000. Shri R.K. Handoo, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants had imported CFL Energy Saver Lamps from G & V.International, Hongkong and filed the Bill of Entry No. 4136 dated 10.2.99 for clearance of goods; that the Customs authorities loaded the value to Rs.13,28,040/- as against the declared value of Rs.4,34,643/-: that the Tribunal under the Final Order No. 839/2000-A held that the Adjudicating authority has not substantiated the case that the value shown in the invoice, namely the transaction value cannot be accepted as the correct value. The learned Advocate further submitted that the Tribunal had set aside the impugned Order and had remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority containing th...

M/S. Indo Tex Prints (Overseas) Vs. Cce, New Delhi and Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In all these appeals, the appellants are aggrieved by orders of the jurisdictional Commissioners of Central Excise determining annual capacity of production (ACP).2. The appellants are independents textile processors working under the compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder. When the jurisdictional Commissioners determined their ACP, they included the lengths of galleries (attached to Hot Air Stenters) also for determination of Annual Capacity of Production under the provisions of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The grievance of the appellants in these appeals is against such inclusion of gallery length in the parameters of Hot Air Stenter for the purpose of determination of ACP.4. Ld. Advocate Shri Y.K.Kumar representing the appellant in appeal No.E/1351/2000-NB(SM) and ld. Chartered Accountant Shri Pradeep Jain, representing the appellants in the remaining appea...

M/S. Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This Stay application seeks stay of duty demand of Rs.1,57,889.65 imposed on M/s. Chemopulp Tissues Ltd. under Order-in-Original No.4/COMMR/M-I/2000 dated 21.10.2000 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Merrut-I. The dispute related to valuation of the goods cleared during the period 1.12.80 to 28.5.81. The appellants have interalia stressed that show cause notice was issued on 26.7.82 much after the normal period of 6 months. Even though no fraud, suppression of facts etc. was involved in the case. They have specifically submitted that the issue remains settled in their favour vide the Order of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Surat Vs. Vapi Paper Mills Ltd. reported in 1998 (104) ELT 786. As against this the learned DR had contended that the Provisions relating to time bar in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act has no application to the present case inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed under the Provisions of Sub-Section (2) (b) of Section 4 of the Finance Act 1982...

Cce Pune Vs. M/S. Telco

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT1170TriDel

1. Both sides submit that the main issue involved in these appeals is eligibility of certain machinery items such as Roller assembly, Gauges, Push Troylleys, Conveyers etc. manufactured in the factory to exemption under notification No. 217/86 C.E., This issue remains covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise Indore Vs M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. reported in 2001 (42) RLT 817. Since the cases involve several items, both the sides agree that the appeals may be disposed of by way of remand, with the direction that the cases be re-considered and disposed of in the light of the decision in M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. and other decisions relevant to the issue. We accept the suggestion, set aside the impugned order and remand the case for fresh decision to jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh decision in the light of Larger Bench order cited supra. Commissioner shall pass fresh orders after extending to the appellants reasonable opportunity...

M/S. Suncity Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applications are for stay of penalty imposed. The Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw the stay applications inasmuch as the party has already deposited the penalty amount. The Learned DR has no objection. Stay application is dismissed as withdrawn....

M/S. Mahalaxmi Steel Rolling Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal.3. Ld. Advocate Shri K.K.Anand has, at the outset, brought to my notice the decision of the Tribunal's SRB, Bangalore in the case of Wipro Ltd & Ors Vs CCE, Bangalore-I & Ors. [2001 (43) RLT 317], wherein a batch of appeals involving issues relating to Modvat credits were dismissed as not maintainable. He has also submitted that this Bench doubted the correctness of that decision and referred the question of maintainability of a similar appeal to Larger Bench as per order dated 29.03.2001. According to ld. Counsel, since the issue is before Larger Bench, the applicants in the instant case are entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, according to the consistent practice of this tribunal. On the other hand, ld. JDR Shri A.K.Jain submits that the present application should wait for a decision of the Larger Bench on the referred issue.4. ...

M/S. Amritsar Crown Caps (P) Ltd., Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT437TriDel

1. The appellants are manufacturers of Mazza which became liable to Central Excise duty w.e.f. 14.5.97 under the Finance Act. However, they started payment of duty only from 6.6.97. Thus, no payment of duty was made in respect of clearances from 14.5.97 to 5.6.97. The amount of duty not paid worked out to Rs.3,97,880/- and on 3.11.97 the appellants debited this duty amount in their PLA. All the same a show cause notice dated 13.11.97 was issued to the party. In the adjudication proceedings a penalty equivalent to the duty not paid was imposed under Section 11AC. Interest demand @ 18% was also made under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant challenges the penalty as well as claim for interest.2. Even though the case is posted today only for consideration of stay application of the penalty, the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appeal itself may be disposed of as imposition of penalty and demand for interest are contrary to the legal p...