Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

Cce Jaipur Vs. M/S. Shripati Iron and Steel

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order in appeal dated 21.8.2000 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide which he reversed the order in original dated 10.6.99 of the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the demand of Rs.13,99,134.94 and imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- on the respondents by denying the benefit of exemption Notification No.202/88-CE dated 20.5.88.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may briefly be stated as under: 3. The respondents were engaged in the re-rolling of iron and steel.They filed classification lists effective from 20.5.88, 1.3.89 and 20.3.90 wherein they claimed that bars and rods, angles, shapes and section manufactured by them were fully exempt from duty under Notification No.202/88-CE dated 20.5.88, for having been manufactured out of the specified raw materials viz. iron ingots, semi-finished products of iron viz. billets blooms, slabs and re-rolling materials i.e. old angles, shapes, sections, channels e...

Shri Ramanand Soni Vs. Commissioner of Customs Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Arguing the case for staying the operation of the order Shri D.K.Rana, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the applicant was named by Shri Satya Narain Soni as the person from whom he had purchased five gold biscuits. He submits that the Additional Commissioner of Customs while adjudicating the case dropped the charges levelled in the SCN and exonerated all the noticees. The Department reviewed this order and filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is not legal, proper and correct and the same is set aside and the case is remandedback as the goods are liable for confiscation and penalty is imposable. He submits that the matter came up in the case of M/s. S.N.Soni and the Tribunal by its Final Order No.A/216/01/NB in para 5 held "5. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the present appeal by way of remand, directing the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a ...

M/S. Rishab Steels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these three appeals, the issue relates to madvatability of LDO and furnace oil used as inputs by the appellants in manufacture of final products (ingots). The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the modvat credit by three orders in original, all dated 29.3.96. His orders were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) through common impugned order-in-appeal dated 13.12.96.2. Ld. Counsel of the appellants has submitted that the issue regarding the availability of modvat credit on furnace oil and nows stands settled in favour of the appellants in their own earlier case which was decided by the Larger Bench along with a case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. vs. CCE Belgaum [2000 (66) ELT 312 (Tribunal)]. In that case the Tribunal had by majority, taken the view that diseal oil, mobile oil, furnace oil used for captive consumption were entitled for modvat credit even prior to 16.3.95 under Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules. The Ld. SDR has also not disputed this fact.3. Consequently, the im...

M/S. Haryana Textile Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Arguing the stay petition of the applicant Shri S.C.Kamra, Ld.Counsel submits that in the instant case during the period in question the applicants were facing financial hardship and were not in a position to deposit the amount of duty before clearance of the goods.He submits that the amount of duty was deposited immediately after the funds were available. He submits that the appellant's company is a sick unit and is in the process of rehabilitation. He submits that any deposit of penalty at this stage will create undue hardship for the applicant and prays that pre-deposit of penalty may be waived.2. Shri S.Kumar, ld. DR submits that duty was required to be paid at the time of clearance of the goods that in the instant case the admitted position is that at the time of clearance of the goods, duty was not deposited. Thus, the violation of the Central Excise Rules is obvious. He submits that penalty was imposable and therefore, the applicants should be directed to deposit the entire ...

M/S. M.U. Enterprises Vs. Cc, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Stay application No. C/Stay/776/2001-A arises out of order in original No. 3/CCP/LKO/2001 dated 12.2.2001 under which a duty demand of Rs.9,88,374/- has been confirmed on 63480 pairs of shoes cleared at NIL rate of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 alongwith interest @ 24% per annum under Section 28AB, and penalty of Rs.2.5 lakh has been imposed. Stay application No.C/Stay/777/2001-A aries out of order in original No.2/CCP/LKO/2000 under which demand of additional custom duty of Rs.52,792/- and special additional duty of Rs.15310/- (total Rs.68102/-) has been confirmed on 3390 pairs of shoe already cleared at NIL rate of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act alongiwth interest @ 24% per annum Section 28 AB, and penalty of Rs.1 lakh has been imposed.2. In both cases the demands arise as a result of denial of benefit of exemption from payment of additional custom duty @ 16% advalorem which benefit is available to footwear whose retail sale price does not exceed Rs. 12...

Cce, Raipur Vs. M/S. Maihar Cement

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner(Appeals). Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) had allowed Modvat credit on a number of items. Theses items by them were covered by one or more decisions of this Tribunal. However, subsequently a Larger Bench of this Tribunal had examined certain items whether they will be entitled to Modvat credit or not and passed orders. However, this decision of the Larger Bench of three Members was again looked into by a still Larger Bench of five members. Since the matter has now been finally decided, Ld. DR submits that the case may be sent back to the Asstt. Commissioner to examine the issue in view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Surya Roshini reported in 2001(128)ELT.293.2. Shri Sanjay Grover, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that since the order is now in favour of the assessee, there is no necessity of remanding the case to the asstt. Commissioner for re-examination.3. I have heard the rival sub...

M/S. Burn Standar Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. It is a Public-sector Undertaking and requires clearance from the Committee on Disputes. Since the applicant has not filed a copy of the clearance from the Committee on Disputes, the appeal is dismissed. The applicant, however, shall have the liberty for applying of restoration of the appeal as and when the same is received....

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter was called none appeared for the appellants.However, Shri S.Kumar, Ld. DR is present for the Revenue. He submits that there was a change in the Counsel of the appellant and since the Counsel who was present on 31.3.2000 did not communicate the decision correctly, therefore, the applicant had no notice about the case being listed for hearing on 27.6.2000. He submits that the applicant has, therefore, prayed that in the above circumstances, the appeal maybe restored. Ld. DR has nothing to add.2. I have heard the submissions of the Ld. DR. I have also perused the application for restoration of appeal. I note that there was sufficient reason for absence of the applicant. In the circumstances, the appeal is restored to its original number. It should come up for hearing on 15.5.2001....

M/S. Melton India Ltd. and Other Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT643TriDel

1. In these three appeals the issue as to whether Boron Nitrate suspension and ceramic evaporation boat used in the manufacture of metallised polyster film could be treated as inputs eligible for modvat credit undr rule 57 A of the Rules was referred to the Larger Bench and the Larger Bench had ruled that out of these two, only Boron Nitrate supension used in the manufacture of Mettalised Polyster plastic film was eligible input and not ceramic evaporation boats. Therefore the appellants are entitled to the modvat credit only on Boron Nitrate suspension under rule 57A of the Rules.2. Ld. Counsel of the appellants has however contended that even if Ceramic Evaporation boats had not been held to be eligible inputs by the Larger Bench, still the appellants are entitled to the modvat credit as the same fall within the definitionof the 'capital goods' and that this alternative plea is a available to them under the law and was even taken up before the adjudicating authority. He has also in ...

M/S. Muir Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above appeal was file din 1992 by the Public Sector Undertaking.Till date there is no clearance from the Committee on Disputes. Hence, we dismiss the appeal with liberty to the appellants to apply for restoration in the event that COD clearance is granted....