Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Roliflex Cable Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture PVC Wire and Cable Falling under Chapter Sub-heading 8544.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 29.7.97, the Central Excise Preventive Staff of Jammu Division visited their Unit and on scrutiny of their record, it was found that they were availing the SSI Exemption upto clerances of Rs.30 lakhs. On verification of their invoices it was found that upto that dat e they had the total value of the clerances as Rs.14, 33,065/-. Therefore, since they had not cross the ceiling of Rs. 30 lakhs for their clerances, no duty was liable to be paid by them. However, the proceedings were initiated against them which culminated in Assistant Commissioner, Jammu Division passing an order dated 31.3.98 in which he imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Rule 173 O of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the party.2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) Chandigarh upheld the order passed by the original authority dismissing their appeal.3. The present one is the second ...

M/S. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants availed the MODVAT credit on certain capital goods on the strength of the Invoices No.14 dated 25.4.94 and the Invoice No.15 dated 26.4.94 totally amounting to Rs.1,92,780/-. These items are Kiln Electro Static Precpitator (E.S.P.) Impeller Shaft Assembly Inlet Cone with Inlet cover, Impeller with vautid liner and Shaft KCF 302. The Assistant Commissioner, Udaipur, vide his order dated 1.3.95 denied them the MODVAT credit on these capital goods on the ground that in their declaration dated 29.3.94, the same has not been declared.2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi in the order dated 9.5.97 rejected the appeal of the party with the observation that where there had been no declaration, there was no justification for granting the MODVAT credit.3. The present appeal is against the above order of the lower authorities. I have heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellants and Shri M.D. Singh, SDR for the respondent. The learned Adv...

M/S. Jay YuhshIn Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application, the applicants have prayed for complete waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty of Rs.3 lakhs and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal.2. The penalty to the above extent imposed by adjudicating authorities was confirmed, in the assessee's appeals, by the lower appellate authority under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The imposition of penalty was occasioned by the applicants having taken credit of duty of Rs.3 lakhs in their PLA Account on 18.11.95, subsequently having debited the same on 24.5.96 and there-after having taken credit of the same in their RG 23A Part II Account on 27.5.96. All these threee dates relating to the cause of action for imposition of penalty are prior to the date on which the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act came into force. The lower authorities imposed/confirmed the penalty under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC, without apportioning the amounts relat...

M/S. Vindhya Telelinks Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The facts in the present appeal are that the appellants availed MODVAT credit totally amounting to Rs.1,90,844/- on the strength of what is stated to be the EDP copy of Bill of Entry No.12353 dated 30.4.96. The proceedings were initiated against them and the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-I, Rewa (M.P.) issued them a show cause notice dated 3.1.97 in which it was alleged that the availment of the MODVAT credit on such document is in contravention of the provisions of Rule 57G, in which it is mandated that no credit shall be taken unless the inputs are received in the factory under the coverage of the Triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry.2. Considering the reply of the party, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, vide his order dated 30.8.2000, observed that during the relevant time, the Triplicate copy of Bill of Entry remained with the party. Thus, the party should have availed the MODVAT credit only on the Triplicate copy of Bill of Entry which was the proper, legal ...

M/S. Garware Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT369TriDel

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay where-by he has confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector demanding duty on nylon monofilament manufactured by the appellants herein and captively consumed in the manufacture of nylon tufts. It is the contention of the assessees who are represented by their Counsel, Shri N.C. Jain that nylon monofilament which arises as an intermediate product is not marketable and hence not "goods" leviable to duty. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Revenue represented by Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned SDR that the issue regarding excisability of the goods under consideration already stands settled by Tribunal's Final Order No. 725-727/99-D dated 13.8.99, wherein it has been held that synthetic mono filament of 60 deniers or more and of which no cross sectional dimension exceeds 1 mm falls for classification under CET Sub Heading 5406.19.2. We have carefully considered the rival submissions...

M/S. Hissar Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC128

1. In this case, modvat credit of Rs.2,41,527/- has been disallowed and its recovery ordered under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, to the appellants who are manufacturers of 100% cotton yarn, on cotton waste received from 100% EOU, on the ground that the cotton waste was chargeable to nil rate of duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 during the relevant period viz. April to July 1995 and hence modvat credit was not available as per the first proviso to Notification 5/94-CE dated 1.3.94.2. We have heard Shri Gagan Kohli, learned Advocate and Shri R.C.Shukla, learned JDR.3. In terms of proviso to Notification 5/94, credit of specified duty in respect of any inputs produced or manufactured; (a) ........... (b) by 100% Export Oriented Undertaking or .......... and used in the manufacture of final products in any place in India shall be restricted to the extent of duty which is equal to the additional duty leviable on like goods under Section 3 of the Customs...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S Oswal Fats and Oils Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents had taken modvat credit on various capital goods and inputs during April-May, 1996. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner disallowed such credit to the extent of of Rs.1,47,159.28.But the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the modvat credit taken on all the goods except Data processing machines and unit. In the present appeal of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant's challenge is found to have been restricted to four capital goods, namely, non-alloy steel rounds, Copper conductor cables, ACSR conductors and pinion shaft. One of the grounds of this appeal is that the impugned goods do not qualify to be capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules inasmuch as, according to the Revenue, the goods were not used in producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products. The Revenue has drawn support ...

M/S. Central India Sulphonators Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This matter was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) vide CEGAT order dated 11.11.1997 in which the Commissioner (Appeal) was directed to decide the matter afresh on merits after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants 2. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal has passed an order dated 3.8.2000 in which, though, recognising that he was directed to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants, he has not done the same. In his order he has recorded that the hearing was granted to the appellants on 27.7.2000 but no one appeared on their behalf nor they did they (SIC) any adjournment/postponement etc.Accordingly, he has again proceded to decide the matter Ex-parte.3. I have heard Shri P.N. Kaul, Adocate for the appellants and Shri Swatantra Kumar, JDR for the respondent. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the party never received any notice of hearing stated to have been granted to them on 27.7.2000 and, therefore, the quest...

Cce, New Delhi Vs. M/S D.C.M Textiles Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application, the department prays for reference to High Court a question of law which is claimed to have arisen from Final Order No. A/801/99-NB(S) dated 12.8.99.2. Since the final order was passed after 1.7.99, this reference application is not found to be maintainable, having regard to the provisions of Section 35G and 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The present application is dismissed as not maintainable. The applicants are at liberty to pursue the appropriate legal remedy under the provisions of Section 35H ibid....

M/S. Jay Kay Synthetics Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called. None appeared for the appellants, M/s. Jay Kay Synthetics, Kashmir Road, Amritsar. Under their communication dated 8.2.2001, the appellants have prayed for decision on merits and relied upon the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (42) RLT 429 (CEGAT - Larger Bench).2. We have heard Shri M.M. Dubey, JDR, who submits that the only issue for consideration in this appeal is the inclusion or exclusion of galleries while determining the production capacity of the Hot Air Stenter under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processor Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. He fairly submits that the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision is in favour of the appellants and that the Tribunal has taken a view that for determination of the Annual Capacity under the above mentioned Rules, the galleries was not to be taken into account.3. As the matter is already covered by the aforesaid Larger Bench decisi...