Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Karma Bottling Co. Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This ROM Petition is filed in respect of the Final order No.A/1351/00/NB(SM) dt. 25.7.2000. In this decision the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the original authority to consider the case afresh in view oft he ratio of the Tribunal decisions cited in the above order. The party in their present petition have contended that their plea of time bar of demand is rejected in the order of the Tribunal relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. Jaipur vs. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. reported in 2000 (118) ELT 311 (S.C.), in which it is held that prior to 6.10.1998, the demand under Rule 57-1 could not be time barred, as no limitation period of demand was provided under this Rule. The petitioners are not present, but they have sent a communication dt. 9.1.2001, in which it is submitted that they do not wish to appear in person and would request to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, I have heard Shri S.C.Pushkarna, JDR for the Revenue. In the ROM Petition...

M/S N.T.V. Multiwal Paper Bag Co. Vs. Cce, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When this appeal was called for hearing on 9.2.2001 none appeared on behalf of the appellant. So, fresh notice was directed to be issued for hearing on today, 20.03.2001. Registered notice, acknowledgement due, was accordingly sent to the party on 01.03.2001. That notice has been returned by the Postal authorities with an endorsement "addressee left".2. Heard the Learned DR and perused the records. We are disposing of the appeal.3. The issue raised in the appal relates to the classification of Bitumenised Kraft paper, whether to be classified under TI 17(2) of the schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The said issue has been decided by the Apex Court in favour of the Revenue in the case of Union of India Vs. Babubhai Neelchand Mehta reported in 1991 (51) ELT 182(SC). The Apex Court in that decision reversed the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 1988 (33) ELT 292 (Bom). In view of the decision of the Apex Court, we find no merit in this appeal. It is according...

M/S Shree Rajasthan Syntex Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case as called, there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant. So there is no question of early hearing. Accordingly, stay petition is dismissed....

M/S Mitaso Appliances Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application prays for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs.1,21,910.52 and for stay of recovery thereof. Both the lower authorities had disallowed modvat credit of the aforesaid amount to the applicants on the ground that the credit taken on the strength of endorsed invoices was not admissible under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. Hence the appeal and the present application of the assessees.2. Examined the records and heard both sides. Ld. Advocate Sh. R.C.Gupta for the applicants submits that, under Notification No.16/94-CE(NT) dated 30.3.94, certificates issued by input-manufacturers are valid documents under Rule 57G for the purpose of availment of modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. He submits that, on all the delivery challan-cum-invoices of the Steel Authority of India (SAIL), on the strength of which the modvat credit was taken, the stamped certificate of SAIL regarding payment of duty on the goods covered by the documents was avai...

M/S. Simplex Expeller Works, M/S. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT678TriDel

1. This order will dispose of six appeals preferred by the appellants against two impugned orders in appeal dated 28.1.2000/7/2/2000 and 22.2.20001 28.2.2000. Appeals Nos.E/1617/2000-B, E/1431/2000-B and E/1423/2000-B had been filed by the appellant against the impugned orders dated 28.2.2000/7.2.2000 vide which the Commissioner(Appeals) had firmed the order in original dated 31.8.98/9.9.98 of the Deputy Commissioner who confirmed the duty demand of Rs.2,26,053/- for the period February-March 1997, Rs.1,18,876/- for the period 4/97 to 9/97 and Rs.2,00,125/- for the period 10/97 t 3/98 against M/s.Simplex Expeller Works (appellant No.1) and also ordered cancellation of the registration certificates of the appellants and further imposed personal penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- each on them under Rule 173-Q of the Rules while appels Nos.E/1750/2000-B, E/1894/2000-B and E/1893/2000-B had been filed by the appellants against the impugned orders in appeal dtd.17.2/21,2.2000 22.2.2000/28.2.2000 vid...

M/S Unjha Ayurvedic Pharmacy Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Learned Consultant representing the appellant submitted that he is not pressing the stay petition because no duty liability has been cast on the appellant by the impugned order. In view of this submission the stay petition is dismissed as not pressed....

M/S Udal Organics (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT147TriDel

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants, who were engaged in the manufacture and exports of Zinc Oxide, filed Shipping Bill No. 1490 dated 26.11.98 for export of 205500 Kgs. of Zinc Oxide (in 600 bags) under claim for duty drawback, that they claimed a total amount of Rs.2,46,000/- as drawback @Rs.12 per Kg., that, on 100% weighment, only 9082 Kgs. (in 400 bags) of Zinc Oxide were found to have been produced for exportation as against the declared quantity of 20500 Kgs., that the said quantity of 9082 Kgs. of the goods was seized by the Customs officers who believed that the goods were attempted to be improperly exported and hence liable to confiscation, that the appellants waived show-cause notice and presented themselves for personal hearing on 30.11.98, that upon such hearing, the Dy.Commissioner of Customs passed order dated 7.12.98 confiscating the confiscating the aforesaid 9082 Kgs. of Zinc Oxide under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act with option for redemption ...

Cce, Jaipur-11 Vs. M/S. Hem Couriers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STT54

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order in appeal dated 22.11.99 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order in original of the Assistant Commissioner by reducing the penalty to Rs.7000/- from Rs/50,000/- as imposed by the Assistant Commissioner through order in original, under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for late submission of the quarterly returns pertaining to the service tax on the respondents.2. The respondents were imposed penalty of Rs. 50000/- under Section 77 of the Fiance Act for the late filing of the quarterly returns for the quarter ending June, 1997 September 1997 and December 1997 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day by the Assistant Commissioner through order in original dated 27.11.98. They, however, challenged that order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) who through the impugned order reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 7000/- only on the ground that the penalty imposed on the respondents by...

M/S. Mauria Udyog Ltd., Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the appeal came up for orders today, appellant who was personally representing his case submitted that he is prepared to deposit the entire duty demanded and the penalty imposed by the impugned order as condition precedent for entertaining the appeal. On this submissions he wants this Tribunal to hear the appeal on merit.2. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner imposing a lesser amount by way of penalty, an appeal was preferred by the Revenue against the order impugned in this appeal. That appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by this Tribunal. Consequently, the order impugned got merged in the order of this Tribunal. In such a situation, learned DR submitted that appeal filed by the party against the impugned order can not now be entertained because the order under challenge has been confirmed by this Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue. We find much force in this submission made by the learned DR.3. In the circumstances stated above, we are of t...

M/S Eon Polymers Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All the appeals are directed against order in original No. 16/2000 dated 11.5.2000 of the Commissioner of Customs of Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur. Accordingly they are disposed of by this common order.2. Appellant M/s EON Polymers Ltd., Bhiwani is a 100% EOU set up for the manufacture of PET bottles. For the manufacture of such bottles in the EOU they had imported, under the EOU scheme, machinery without payment of duty. Some indigenously manufactured, machinery were also received duty (Central Excise) free for the same purpose. In the same premises the appellant also set up another unit for manufacture and supply of PET bottles to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). After investigation, the Revenue Authorities alleged that the appellant had clandestinely manufactured and cleared into the domestic area without payment of duty, PET bottles from the EOU. It was also alleged that such clearances were falsely shown as the manufacture in the appellant's unit for DTA production. The im...