Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Raj Cement, Beawar (Raj)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Ld. SDR Shri Mewa Singh, submits that the Revenue did not want to pursue the appeal and wishes to withdraw the same. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is order to be dismissed as withdrawn....

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents are manufacturers of Sodium Hydroxiode (Caustic Soda) Hye/Flackes/solid, liquid cholorine, Hydrochloric Acid etc.falling under various headings of chapter 28. They availed modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules totally amounting to to Rs.319/- on the item "4 Wire Temperature Transmitters". The Add1.Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal vide his Order dt. 12.3.97 disallowed the modvat credit on this item to them on the ground that it is used as an instrument to convert temperature singles into mini volts and transfer it to the control panel. Its usage does not have any direct role in the manufacture from production of excisable goods though it is being used by the assessee in relation to the manufacture of their final products. He accordingly, disallowed them the modvat credit on this item.2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the party.3. The Revenue are in appeal against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have h...

M/S. Laxmi Textile Mills Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case, the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II vide hid Order dt. 1.3.99 confirmed a duty demand of Rs.33,095/- and imposed a penalty of the equivalent amount on the appellants. He further confirmed a demand on the appellants. He further confirmed a demand of Rs. 86,066/- on the appellants and also imposed a penalty of the equivalent amount on them. The appeal of the party before Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur stood rejected vide his Order dt.17.8.2000.2. In the present appeal, Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for the appellants submits that the appellants have already deposited the duty amounts of Rs.33,095/- and Rs.86,066/- and penalty amount of Rs.33,095/-. The present Stay Petition is only for the penalty of Rs.86,066/- Shri A.K.Jain, JDR for the Revenue does not dispute these facts. In view of the fact, that the appellants have already deposited a major part of duty and penalty imposed on them, I grant them waiver from deposit of penalty amount of Rs.86,066/- and s...

M/S. Bombay Dying and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC303

1. These appeals have come before us on a reference made by he West Regional Bench at Mumbai. After hearing lengthy arguments advanced by the learned Counsel representing the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative, we are convinced that the benefit claimed by the appellant of Notification 53/1988 and 14/1992 are not available to them for the simple reason that conditions required to be satisfied by the Notifications have not been satisfied by the appellants. Even no attempt was made by the appellants to establish the existence of circumstances entitling them to claim the benefit of the Notifications.So on the proved facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that appellants are not entitled to the benefit of these Notifications.In such a state of affairs, the question of law referred to by the West Regional Bench, with due respect to the Members, are not to be answered. We decline to answer those questions because of the peculiar facts and circumstances of th...

M/S. Shivalik Agro Chemicals Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT662TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s Shivalik Agro Chemicals, Mohali ('M/s Shivalik' for short), the matter relates to the modvat credit of Rs 3,68,658.03 availed of on the basis of alleged defective/non-prescribed documents. The modvat credit was required to be taken on the strength of the duplicate copy of the invoice which was meant for transporter.M/s Shivalik had taken modvat credit on the strength of original copy of the invoices. Further, requisite particulars were not entered into the invoices. In some cases the dealer had not got himself registered with the Department.2. The matter was heard on 13.3.2001 when Shri Sandeep Singh, advocate, appearing for M/s Shivalik submitted that the requisite particulars that were missing from the invoices at the time of taking the credit, were given subsequently. The dealer had also got himself registered with the Department subsequently. As regards availing of credit on original copy of the invoices, it was his submission that the appellants had...

M/S. Mahadev International (P) Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called. Shri Prem Ranjan, Advocate submits that the matter relates to the inclusion of gallery while determining the duty liability of the hot air stenter and that this matter is covered by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Sangam Processors, 2001(42) RLT 429(1). We find that in the impugned order no demand as such has been mentioned. We, therefore, consider that at this stage the stay applications are infructuous.,The appellants are at liberty to file proper stay applications as and when any demand is made against them and the project applications are dismissed as such....

C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S. J.M.P. Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this matter, the Commissioner (Appeals) Chandigarh vide his Order dt. 31.8.2000 have disposed of three appeals before him. The Revenue filed only one appeal against this order and consequently, they were directed to file two more appels. Accordingly, the Revenue have filed the present appeals along with COD Petitions. Keeping in view that the main appeal in the matter was filed in-time, the delay of 17 days in filing the supplementary appeals is condoned.2. The appeals should be listed for hearing in their own turn by the Registry....

Shri Sandeep Bhaskar Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vide his Order dt. 31.12.99 imposed a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on the appellant - Shri Sandeep Bhaskar.2. The appellant filed an appeal and a Stay Petition. The Stay Petition filed by him was disposed of vide Tribunal Stay Order No.S/783-787/2000/NB(SM) dated 9.11.2000, in which, he was directed to make a deposit of Rs.50,000/- within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of that order. In the same order, the matter was listed for reporting compliance on 22.1.2001.3. On 22.1.2001, when the matter was called, the same was adjourned to this date at the request of the appellant.4. Today when the matter is called, the appellant is not present. He has however filed a Miscellaneous Petition dt. 21.3.2001, in which, he has stated that he is out of employment since October, 1997 and has no means of income. He does not own any assets and he has no money to pre-deposit. He, therefore, requests that (SIC) period to deposit the amount may be extended ...

M/S. Patiala Co-operative Sugar Vs. Cce, Chandigarh-11

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC672

1. The matter was called. The appellants M/s.Patiala Co-operative Sugar Mills in their communication dated 15.3.2001 have submitted that the matter as already covered in their favour by the Tribunal's Final Order No.977-989/2000-A dated 21.2.2000 and that their stay application as well as appeal be disposed of on merits.2. Shri P.K. Jain, learned SDR fairly agrees that the matter s covered by the aforesaid Tribunal's decision in favour of the appellants.3. Accordingly, we grant the stay and take up the appeal itself for disposal.4. After hearing the learned JDR and going through the records, we agree that the matter is covered by the Tribunal's Final Order No.977-985/2000-A dated 21.12.2000. Para 2 of that decision is extracted below:- "There is no evidence on record to allow that the appellants had received any further consideration for the sale of molasses. No order under any statute fixing the sale price of molasses has been placed before us. In these circumstances, it has to be he...

C.C.E., Bhopal Vs. M/S. General Manager, Vehicle

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents are a Government of India Undertaking. In terms of the Apex Court direction in O.N.G.C. vs. Union of India - 1992 (61) ELT 3 (S.C), the appellants have to obtain clearance from the Committee of Secretaries for prosecuting the appeal. The matter is being adjourned time and again since over one year to enable the Department to obtain the stated clearance, but the same is not forthcoming. Shri S.C.Pushkarna, JDR reports today that no such clearance has been obtained.The appeal is therefore, dismissed subject to restoration of the same on receipt and filing of the clearance from the Committee of Secretaries in terms of the above stated direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court....