Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Shri Ram Kumar, Agarwal Vs. Cce Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant seeks condonation of delay of one day in preferring the above appeal. He states that the order dt 23.10.2000 was received by him on 14.12.2000. The appeal was to be filed on or before 13.3.2000. It has been filed on next date i.e.14.3.2001. Ld. D.R.fairly leaves the matter for decision by the Bench.2. Since the delay is only of one day and since the applicant has explained the delay in his application, IL condone the delay in filing the appeal COD application is hereby allowed. Stay application is fixed for hearing on 15.5.2000....

Cce, Raipur Vs. M/S Prakash Indus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Although this matter is listed today for mention, with the consent of both the sides it is being taken up for final disposal.2. The matter relates to the modvat credit on capital goods in terms of Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944. In the impugned order, the modvat credit had been allowed in respect of the goods mentioned at serial no. a to k in para 3.1 of the statement of facts. The respondents, M/S Prakash Indus. Ltd. had also file cross-objections and the modvat denied in respect of the items mentioned in the grounds of cross-objections has been challenged.3. Both the sides agreed that this matter was pending awaiting the Larger awaiting the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal and that the said decision has since been rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vs Surya Roshni Ltd., 2001 (42) RLT 817 (CEGAT-LB), the matter could be sent back to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for decision afresh both with regard to the it...

M/S. Vardhaman Spg. and General Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC693

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 24,48,254.00 and penalty of Rs. 25 lakh.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that in the present show cause notice, the duty is demanded for the period from January, 95 to March, 99 invoking the extended period of limitation. He submits that another show cause notice dated 21.3.2000 was issued for the demand for the period of six months on the same allegation that the applicants had cleared the goods calculating the assessable value in the invoices after claiming deduction on account of sales tax in excess of the actual paid. His submission is that the adjudicating authority dropped the show cause notice dated 21.3.2000 whereas the Commissioner, in the present proceedings, confirmed the demand. He submits that when the demand for six months is dropped, the demand for the period in present proceedings, for the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. He, therefo...

Bharti Industries Vs. Cce Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue authorities have disallowed modvat credit of Rs. 77621.42/- on the ground that this amount of credit was taken on original copy of invoice and bill of entry while credit is available only on the strength of duplicate copies of invoice. Ld. counsel Shri R.C.Gupta, submits that appellants could not take credit on duplicate invoice but had submitted & the same alongwith RT 12 returns to the Range Superintendent and therefore, appellant rightly availed credit on admissible documents. He submits that duplicate invoices have not been returned and therefore the impugned order requires to be set aside and it be held that credit is available to the appellants.2. On the other hand Ld. SDR states that the matter requires verification and he has no objection if the case is remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for verification on perusal of the relevant duplicate invoice and bill of entry.3. On hearing rivals submissions I agree that since the appellants have go...

M/S. Fedders Lloyd Corporation Vs. Cce, Mumbai Ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1331TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Fedders Lloyds Corporation and two others is whether they manufacture split air conditioners classifiable under Heading No. 84.15 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s/ Fedders Llyod Corporation received condensing units, cleared from their unit at Kalkaji (New Delhi), at Mumbai; they purchased cooling units manufactured by local manufacturers and cleared the entire unit of split air-conditioners to the customs. They neither got registered as manufacturer of split air conditioners with the Central Excise Department nor paid the central excise duty. A show cause notice dated 3.4.96 was issued to them for demanding duty for the period from October, 1991 to April, 1996. The Commissioner, Central Excise, under the impugned Order No. 124/97 dated 30.12.1997, confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 56,14,293/- and imposed a penalty of equal amount on the Assessee Company. She also im...

M/S. ChemvIn Industries Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Modvat credit of Rs.3,40,704/- has been disallowed to the appellants on invoices at Sl.No. 1 to 5 and Sl.No. 8 of the annexure to the show cause notice on the ground that invoices do not contain the assessable value of the goods and time of issue of invoice and hence could not be considered as valid documents on terms of notification 33/94 CE dated 4.7.94. The credit of Rs.61,620/- has been disallowed on invoice at Sl.No. 6 and 7 of the annexure to the notice on the ground that it is not clear from this invoice as to which unit of M/s NOCIL has discharged duty and therefore these two invoices could not be considered as valid documents in terms of same notification.3. I have perused the invoices in question namely invoice No. 1 to 5 and 8 and I see substance in the contention of the appellants that column 4 & 5 in the invoice shows assessable value after giving trade discount. The duty payment is also clearly shown on this invoice. the non mention of the time of issue is not fat...

M/S Sharp Cargo Movers Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri M. Chandrasekharan, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Kamaljeet Singh, advocate, submits that in view of the subsequent developments and in view of the (SIC) of the CHA licence which is being challenged in separate appeal no. C/115/2000 NB which is also coming up for regular hearing today, this appeal has become infructous and prays for withdrawal of the same. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR, has no objection....

M/S. Triveni Engg. and Ind. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture V.P. Sugar and molasses falling under tariff Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985. During the period October,96 to November,96 they availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.1,11,902,50 on certain items under rule 57-T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The proceedings were initiated against them and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Muzaffarnagar vide his order dated 26.9.97 disallowed the credit of the aforesaid amount to the appellants apart from imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on them under rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The party filed an appeal but the Commissioner (appeals), Ghaziabad vide his order dated 18.5.1999 dismissed the appeal of the party upholding the order of the Original Authority in respect of the item welding electrodes, Butyl Diaphram and rubber star washer. The credit on other items is allowed to the party.3. The present appeal is against the above order of the Commissioner (appeals). ...

M/S. Filament India Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture P.P. Yarn falling under Sub-heading 5402/5403 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.2,46,839/- on certain Capital goods under rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules,1944 during the period from 21.11.94 to 27.1.95. The proceedings were initiated against them and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur- Rural vide his order dated 30.3.97 disallowed the modvat credit of the aforesaid amount to the party under Rule 57U.2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (appeals), New Delhi vide his order dated 22.1.1998 remanded the matter to the Original Authority in respect of the items OTC, Condenser and Chiller. He allowed credit of duty paid on Pressure Controller, Oil, Switch & Contractor but disallowed the appeal in respect of the balance of six items.3.The present appeal is against the above order of the Commissioner(appeals). I have heard Shri M.P. Devnath, Advocate fo...

Cce Bhopal Vs. Ms Diamond Cement

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the above case the Revenue is aggrived by the order of Commissioner(Appeals)who is held that modvat credit is available on wires and cables used for supply of electricity to the machines which in turn are used to produce or process goods and on dust filter has dust collector bags used as pollution control equipments and refectory items.2. On hearing both sides and noting decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Vs CCE 1999(108) ELT 47 which has held that modvat credit is admissible to wires and cables, and decision of the Tribunal in the case of UP tuise Fiber glass Vs CCE Meerut 1998(27) RLT 802, extending modvat credit under Rule 57Q to refractory bricks used in furnace and decision in the case of CCE Jaipur Vs Shree Cement 2000(36) RLT 95 wherein dust collector bags have been held to be capital goods eligible to credit under Rule 57 Q of the Central Excise Rules, I see no warrant to interfere with impugned orders which are correct in law. Accordingly the impugne...