Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. I.O.C. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Vadodara

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When stay petition E/Stay/1515/99 come up for orders, we heard Learned Representative of the appellant and the Learned Departmental Representative on merits. On hearing the arguments in extenso, we feel that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly we are disposing of the appeal.2. Order-in-Original No.6/BRC?/MP/99 dated 25.8.99 is under challenge.As per that order central excise duty amounting to Rs.14,36,74,091 was imposed.An identical sum was directed to be paid by way of penalty invoking the provisions contained in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with rule 173Q(1) of the Rules. Interest at the rate of 20% per annum as contemplated by Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act has also been levied.3. Appellant, Indian Oil Corporation, a Public Section Undertaking, has already paid the entire amount of duty claimed by the impugned order.Their challenge before us is regarding propriety of imposition of penalty invoking the provisions contained in Sec...

M/S. Multi Marbles (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case, the Dy. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Division, Udaipur vide his Order dt. 15.7.99 confirmed a duty demand of Rs.1,08,684.00 on the appellants on the ground that they did not produce the proof of export in respect of eight consignments exported by them without payment of duty under Rule 13 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur dismissed their appeal with the observation that the appellant failed to furnish proof of export in reply to the Show Cause Notice or at any time thereafter despite four opportunities given to them.2. I have heard Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the appellants and Shri S. Kumar, JDR for the respondents. The ld. Advocate for the appellants very fairly submits that they have not been able to muster the proof of the export of three consignments involving the Central Excise duty of Rs.33,842.00. However, in respect of the remaining five consignments, they have already acquired the proof of their expo...

Commissioner, Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Indian Acrylic Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents manufacture Acrylic Staple Fibre falling under Sub-heading 5501.30. They are availing the facility of MODVAT credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jallandar Division Under a number of orders passed by him denied them the MODVAT credit totally amounting to Rs, 1,300,436/- availed by them on the items as capital goods under rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He also imposed a penalty amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs on them.2. The party filed appeals against the above orders and the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his common order dated 29.4.99 allowed the appeals of the party setting aside the orders passed by the original authority.3. The Revenue are in appeal against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). Heard Shri Swatantra Kumar, JDR for the Revenue and Shri K.K. Anad, Advocate for the respondents. It is contended in the Revenue appeals in respect of items subject matter o...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The controversy involved in this appeal relates to the availability of modvat credit to the appellants on capital goods i.e. (1) Chlorine cylinder and spares thereof; (2) Copper winding wire; (3) Rubber mat control room switch gear; (4) Welding Electrode; (5) Static Converter; (6) Acrilite Resin/Hylac or Resin; and (7) M. Seal. The appellants claimed modvat credit on these goods to the tune of Rs 10,95,949/-, but the Commissioner, who adjudicated the issue, disallowed the same and imposed penalty of Rs 1 lakh on the appellants by holding that these goods did not fall within the definition of 'Capital Goods' under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that all these goods satisfy the definition of the 'capital goods' and that the view taken by the Commissioner to contrary, is erroneous in law. He, in support of his contention, has placed reliance on the following cases -CCE, Raipur vs Hukumchand Jute Indus. Ltd., Amlai, 2...

M/S. Standard Niwar Mills Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT150TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Standard Niwar Mills, is whether they were eligible to pay duty of excise on the basis of Annual Capacity of Production under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, read with Rules 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules and whether demand for duty can be raised by the Commissioner without challenging the Final Order passed earlier? 2.1 Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants are engaged in the processing of cotton fabrics as Independent Textile Processors; that under their letter dated 28.12.98 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, they indicated their intention to install a Hot Air Stenter of two Chambers and as per direction of the Assistant Commissioner under letter dated 31.12.98, filed a declaration on 31.12.98 giving the details of Hot Air Stenter installed by them; that as the said declaration was not in proper form, the same was filed in proper form on 11.1.1999; that they informed the Superintende...

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S Rampur Engg.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application, the department has claimed that the following question of law has arisen from Final Order No. A/668/98-NB dated 17.6.98 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No.2. I have perused the above final order and examined the grounds of the present application. I have also heard Id JDR, Sh. A.K Jain for the applicants. There is no representation for the respondents inspite of notice.3. The above final order was an order passed by this Tribunal rejecting the appeal of the Revenue. The issue in that appeal was whether certain modvat credit taken by the respondents on the strength of invoices which lacked certain particulars was liable to be disallowed on the ground of lack of kparticulars in the invoices in terms of Notification No. 15/94-CE(NT) dated 30.3.94 and the Board's Circular No.76/76/94-CE(NT) dated 8.4.94. The issue was answered in the negative by the Bench after considering the submissions of both sides. If the Revenue is still aggrieved by such a decision, the ap...

M/S. Reco Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT694TriDel

1. The appellant is an exporter of readymade garments. They filed six shipping bills all dated 31.12.98 for export of 4339 pieces of assorted ladies readymade garments. Export value of the goods was declared at around Rs.19 lacs. The goods in question are eligible to drawback at 18%. Examination of the goods gave rise to suspicion that the goods had been over-invoiced in order to claim higher drawback. Investigations were, therefore, conducted by the customs authorities. They culminated in the impugned order, which ordered confiscation of the goods under section 113(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 15,000. It was also ordered that the goods cold be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs.70,000 and drawback on the consignment shall be paid based on the market value ascertained during the enquiry and not at the declared export value. Appellant challenges this impugned order.2. It has been submitted by the appellant that the export prices declared by them were a...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Jupiter Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The present ROM Petition is filed by the Revenue in respect of the Final Order No.A /1076/98-NB(S) dated 14.10.1998. This order is passed by the Tribunal on an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 5.3.98 of Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi. The issue related to the availment of the MODVAT credit on the Certificates/Invoices issued by M/s. Indion Oil Corporation Limited.The Tribunal, in its order, subject matter of the present Petition, has observed that the Board under various executive instructions had prescribed as modvatable documents, several documents issued by several persons. theses miscellanous instructions were ultimately collated under Notification No.16/94-CE(NT) dated 30.3.94. This notification stipulated that the documents must be dated prior to 1.4.1994. The Notification at serial No.7 empowered certificates issued by the M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Limited as valid documents for taking MODVAT credit . The Tribunal in its order has observed th...

M/S. Narendra Industries Vs. Cce, Rajkot

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT141TriDel

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 18,30,840/- on textile machinery parts vis. "Dobby Heads" manufactured and cleared by the appellants during the period from 1.4.89 to 30.9.92 and also imposed a penalty of Rs.2 lakhs in terms of Rule 173Q(1). He has also confiscated five pieces of CAM Dobby Heads seized from the appellant's premises, with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The demand arises as a result of holding that the brand name "Shah Trumpelt" which was affixed on the goods belonged to M/s.Shah Engineering Works which was a partnership firm doing trading activity and not registered SSI unit carrying out manufacture. The further ground for confirmation of duty is that the appellants were selling their goods to M/s. LMS Marketing Pvt. Ltd. which was a related person and therefore, the price at which M/s. L.M.S. Marketing Pvt.Ltd. sold the goods was adopted as the asses...

N/S. Garware Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. According to the applicants herein who are represented by their Counsel, Shri N.C. Jain, the error in the Tribunal's Final Order No.725-727/99-D dated 13.8.99 arises in not considering the plea that the goods in dispute(SIC) synthetic monofilament captively consumed in the manufacture of nylon tufts are not marketable as textile material.Learned Counsel submits that he had relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhor Industries reported in 1989 (40) ELT 320 (SC) and Moti Laminates reported in 1995 (76) ELT 241 (SC) to support his argument that the criteria of marketability is required to be satisfied before the goods can be held to be liable to duty. On the other hand, learned SDR, Shri Ashok Mehta, contends that the Tribunal had considered the aspect of classification in para 5 of the order, such as HSN Explanatory notes to Chapter 54 and the definition of textile materials in Fair Child's Dictionary of Textiles and, therefore, no error arises. He cites the Large...