Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Shive Textiles Printing Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For reasons recorded below, we stay the operation of the impugned order by which the Commissioner of Central Excise has determined the annual capacity of production in terms of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 by including the length of galleries in the length of stenter and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides, since the issue stands settled by the decision of larger bench in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Limited Vs.CCE reported in 2001 (127) ELT 679. The larger bench has held that the length of galleries are not to be included in the length of stenter of chamber for the purpose of computing the annual capacity of production in terms of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. Therefore, while following the ratio of the larger bench decision and holding that the length of gallery is required to be excluded, we set aside the impugned or...

M/S. Unicure Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the present application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM), the applicants, M/s. Unicure Pharmaceuricals Pvt. Ltd. have prayed that the orders passed in their Appeals No.E/893/92-C be rectified as under:- (1) This humble Petition contain a prayer for rectification of mistake in final order No.664/99-C dt.2-8-99 (Zerox copy closed) and Mics. Order No.29/2000/C dt. 10-3-2000 according to which Applicant's Appeal No.E/893/92-C and ROM has been dismissed. (2) The Appellant respectfully invite attention to the following remarks made in the Misc. Order No.29/2000/C dt. 10-3-2000 (A)We find that the question of loan licencee was not raised in the proceeding before the Tribunal." It may be seen that last para (D) is a Group taken up for the point of recovery from LOAN LICENCEE (if at all to be made) and not from the Appellant. It may be seen that at para 4, the appellant has taken up the point of recovery from Loan Licencee forcefully, so much so that the appellant had pointed out the H...

M/S Wavetronics Vs. Cce New Delhi I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s Wavetronics, the issue, involved is whether the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE dt. 1-3-86, as amended was available to their product sold under brand name "National RXC4OF".2. Shri Rjaesh jain, Id Advocate, submitted that the Appellant manufacture two in one bearing the brand name "National RXC4OF;" that the Assistant Commissioner denied the exemption under Notification No.175/86, holding that the brand National is of a foreign concern which is not entitled for SSI benefit and interms of Para-7 of the Notification, the goods will not be eligible for exemption under the Notification; that their appeal was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that brand name 'National' is an acknowledged and well known name and affixing the goods with such brand name, attracts the mis-chief of para 7 of the Notification. The Id. Advocate, further, submitted that the onus to prove that the ownership of the brand name belongs to oth...

M/S. Konark Printing and Packaging Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalty of Rs.25,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner(Appeal) who has upheld the duty demand on goods manufactured and cleared by the applicants on job work basis, holding them to be printed cartons/sheets falling under CET sub-heading 4819.19 and 4811.90 respectively. The contention of the assessee that the goods are classifiable under CET sub-heading 4901.90 attracting Nil rate of duty has been rejected by the authorities. The duty demand has notbeen quantified till date.2. On hearing both sides and noting that the penalty amount is very small, without going further into the merits of the matter, we direct pre-deposit of Rs.5,000/- towards the penalty within four weeks from today. On such deposit, pre-deposit of balance penalty shall be dispensed with and its recovery stayed pending the appeal. Failure to comply with this direction shall result in vacation of stay and dismissal of appeal without ...

Cce, Bhopal Vs. M/S. Super Additives Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the only ground taken is whether the penalty could be imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excises Act when no such proposal was there in the show cause notice and the ground on which it was proposed to impose penalty under Section 11AC of the Act has not been detailed. The respondents, M/s. Super Additives Pvt. Ltd. are not present.2. I have heard Shri M.D. Singh, SDR and have gone through the facts on record.As per the allegations, the assessee had cleared the different varieties of adhesives packed in 29 drums and 58 cartoons valued Rs. 1,08,372/- in respect of which the duty involved was Rs. 19,507/-. On verification, it was found that they had not deposited the central excise duty shown in the invoices. Certain other discrepancies as mentioned in the show cause notice dated 28.5.99 were also found. The matter was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner, who demanded the duty Rs. 19,507/- and had imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule ...

M/S. Mono Acrylic Manufacturing Vs. C.C. Amritsar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC619

1. On careful examination of the Stay Applications and hearing both sides, we find that this is a fit case for instantaneous disposal.Accordingly, we allow the present applications and proceed to dispose of the appeals finally.2. The appellants in appeal No.C/453/2000-A imported what they described as acrylic off-cuts/sheets etc. and claimed clearance thereof against Bill of Entry No.229 dated 8.6.96. The value of the goods was declared as US $ 6222 equivalent to Indian Rs. 2,29,262/- in the Bill of Entry. The Department subjected the goods to 100% examination, scrutinised the particulars in the Bill of Entry vis-a-vis those mentioned in the Bill of Lading, Invoice and allied documents, conducted market enquiry, recorded statements of the representative of the appellants and reached a preliminary finding that the importers mis-described the goods and mis-declared their value in the Bill of Entry. On this basis, by Show-Cause Notice, the Customs authorities proposed to confiscate the g...

M/S. Shriram Fertilisers and Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1.The authorities below have confirmed a duty demand of Rs.2,03,226.96 on a quantity of 70.387 kls. of naphtha short received by the appellants which was sent to them by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vide AR.3-A under Chapter X Procedure. The contention of the appellants is that out of the total quantityof 7986.463 K.Ls. shown in the AR.3-A they actually received only 7916.076 K.Ls. of Naphtha. For this purpose they relied upon the railway receipt showing despatch of the quantity of 7916.076 K.Ls. They submitted that they are not liable to pay duty since they have already discharged duty liability on the quantity obtained from their supplier.2. Ld. DR reiterates the contention that duty is payable, pointing out that even after remand of the earlier order of demand confirmation by the Tribunal vide the Final Order No.A/198-199/96-NB dt.19.1.96 M/s.IOC has confirmed that they despatched the entire quantity mentioned in the AR.3-A to the appellants. He, therefore, submits that duty liabili...

M/S. Vishwakarma Alloys Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This ROM petition is in respect of the Final Order No. A/1584/00/NB (SM) dated 17.8.2000 of the Tribunal. The appellants are on Induction Furnace Unit paying duty in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They claimed abatement from payment of duty under Rule 96ZO (2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for closure of their furnace during the period from 11.2.98 to 5.3.98. This abatement claim was rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide his Order dated 29.3.2000 on the ground that they failed to intimate the opening stock of finished goods at the time of re-commencement of the units as required as per clause (d) of Rule 96ZO (2).2. The above order of the Commissioner is upheld by the impugned order of the Tribunal.3. The petitioners are not represented and vide their letter dated 6.12.2000 they have requested to decide the matter on the merits of the case. I have heard Sh. S.C. Pushkarna, ld. JDR for the Revenue. It is contended by the petitioners th...

M/S. Sportking Synthetics Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalty of Rs.3 lakhs which has been imposed upon the applicants for the reason that they availed Modvat credit of Rs.34,60,907/- in respect of CVD on the strength of Bill of Entry on imported inputs namely Acrylic Fibre, contrary to the provisions in the Import Export policy that additional duty paid only in cash on inputs under the DEPB Scheme shall be adjusted as Modvat credit i.e. Modvat credit will be admissible only if additional duty of customs in paid in cash while the CVD has been debited by the applicant in the DEPB Book.2. It is the submission of the applicants which was represented by Shri Kulvinder Singh, Ld. Advocate, that penalty is not sustainable since they subsequently deposited the entire amount of CVD in cash immediately on being informed that Modvat credit would be available only if the CVD is paid in cash.3. The prayer of the application is opposed by the Ld. SDR who submits that the initial...

Raj Singh Vs. Government of Nct Delhi and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has assailed the order dated 7.11.2000 passed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, whereby on a Review DPC, respondent No. 4 ASI (Shorthand Reporter) (for short SHR) Shri Shiv Kumar Tyagi has been promoted to the post of SI (SHR) with effect from 10.1.1996 and simultaneously the applicant stands reverted from the post of SI (SHR) to ASI (SHR). The compliance report was also asked to be submitted to the Government.2. The applicant, who was a Constable in Delhi Police, was directly recruited as ASI (SHR) on 6.6.1989 and was later on confirmed on 6.6.1991. The name of the applicant was brought out in the Promotion List 'E' (Technical) for the post of SI (SHR) with effect from 10.1.1996 in terms of Rule 16(ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980. The case of respondent No. 4 was not recommended as he failed to make the grade as per the guide-lines laid down for Departmental Promotion Committees (hereinafter called DPCs)...