Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Escorts Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. In the impugned order, the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of safety conductor bar system was denied as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the appellants had not produced any evidence to show that the system is part of electric hoist crane.3. Ld. counsel, appearing on behalf of appellants, submits that it is an integral part of electric hoist crane. He submits that at the time of personal hearing on 7.2.2000, the Commissioner raised this issue and the appellants, vide letter dated 21.2.2000, supplied the technical material to the Commissioner is support of their arguments that system is part of the electric hoist crane. He submits that the impugned order was passed on 10.2.2000 before supply of the technical material. He, therefore, fairly submits that the matter be remanded.5. In this case, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant...

M/S. Ragicut Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Pune

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT508TriDel

1. This application is filed by the applicants for rectification of mistake apparent on recording the Final Order No. 306/00-B dated 28.2.2000.2. The contention of the applicants is that the Tribunal in the Final Order decided the issue of manufacture in respect of special brazed carbide tipped tools and the issue involved in appeal was whether grinding of unground tool tips amounts to manufacture. Their submission is that the applicants manufactured special brazed carbide tipped tools and clearing the same on payment of duty and there is no dispute in respect of brazed carbide tipped tools. The dispute is in respect of clearance of tools tips. The applicants are receiving the duty paid ungrounded tool tips and were clearing the same after grinding. The revenue is demanding duty on the clearance of these tool tips. The contention of the applicants, therefore, is that the Final Order be recalled and the matter be heard.4. In this case, vide final order, the Tribunal decided the issue i...

C.C.E., Meerut Vs. M/S. S.R.F. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents filed this rectification of mistake application for rectifying the Final Order No. A/2082/2000-NB(S) dated 30.10.2000.2 Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the revenue filed an appeal, which was disposed of by the above mentioned final order and with that appeal, the applicants also filed cross Objections and the Tribunal, while disposing of the appeal filed by the revenue, took note of the Cross-objections filed by the respondents, but no finding was given. In the Cross Objections, the respondents claimed the benefit of MODVAT Credit on Tri Ethylene Glycol (TEG), as an input, which was denied in the impugned order . He, therefore, submits that the application be allowed.3. Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that against the same impugned order, the respondents filed an appeal no.E/2780/99-NB and vide order dated 15.3.2000, the appeal, filed by the respondents, was dismissed by the Tribunal. The contention of the D.R.i...

C.C.E., Jaipur Vs. M/S. Uma Polymers (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue have framed the following question of law for reference to the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in respect of the Final Order No.A/395/98/NB/SM dt. 16.4.98 passed by the Tribunal. "Can the gate passes issued prior to 1.4.94 but endorsed after that date be treated as a valid document for taking modvat credit under entry No. 10 referring to "endorsed gate passes" in the table to the notification No. 16/94-CE(NT) issued on 30.3.94?".2. When the matter was called, Shri S. Kumar, JDR for the appellants very fairly submitted that the matter stands settled against the Revenue (SIC) by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE Ahmedabad-I vs. Gujarat Medicrafts Pvt. Ltd. 2001 (42) RLT 475 (Guj.), in which on the similar facts a request for issuing a direction to the Tribunal for referring the question proposed is rejected in the following terms: "The 1d. Counsel for the department, however, urge that this very question has been referred by the Delhi Benc...

M/S. Stuti Electronics Ltd and Vs. Cc, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing their appeals, M/s. Stuti Electronics Ltd. are required to pre-deposit the customs duty of Rs.62,08,704/- and a penalty of Rs.62,08,704/- total Rs.1,24,17,408/- and Shri Anil Saxena, Managing Director ils required to pre-deposit a penalty of Rs.10,00,000/-. The matter relates to the alleged shortages in the stock of capital goods, spares, etc, which had been imported duty free under exemption Notification No.53/97 Cus dated 3.6.97(as amended,), for manufacture and export of colour computer monitors, falling under sub-heading No.8473.20 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. Both the stay applications were heard on 9.4.2001 when Shri L.P.Dhir, Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that the adjudicating authority had not allowed the cross examination of the central excise officers,who had conducted the checks in the factory premises. The applications had made a prayer for such cross examination in their provisional reply to the show cause notice.The employees on whose ...

C.C.E., Raipur Vs. M/S. Advani Oerlikon Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT740TriDel

1. This is a Revenue appeal. The respondents manufacture "welding electrodes" falling under Ch.83 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.They availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 65,775/- on the item "Hot melt unit" as capital goods falling under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur vide his Order dt. 9.8.99 has observed that the final product manufactured by the party are 'welding electrodes'. These welding electrodes are packed in the printed cartons. The 'hot melt unit' is used for blowing and sealing the printed cartons at both the ends.Thus, it is observed that it is used for packing the cartons. As such, it is held that it is not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in substance in the manufacture of welding electrodes which are the final products. The Asst. Commissioner in his order denied them the modvat credit of the aforestated amount and further imposed a penalty of ...

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. Rams Transformers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal involves that modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 37,957/- availed by the respondent in respect of the item viz., "PVC insulated & Sheathed Aluminium Armored cables" of various thickness as capital goods under Rule 57-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is admitted that the respondents manufacture "Electrical Transformers" of high rating - 16 KVA to 5000 KVA capacity and these PVC insulated sheathed armoured cables are used to distribute electricity from transformers to the machines and for testing equipments.2. I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the appellant/Revenue. The respondents are not represented. It is observed that the issue stands fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court (sic) CCE, Coimbatore reported in 2001 (129) ELT 48 (Mad.), in which it is held that the wires & cables used for distributing of electricity are covered by the expression "Plant" mentioned under the term "capital goods" under the Explanation to Rule 57-Q of ...

M/S. Kay Foam Ltd. Vs. Cce, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the present application for rectification of mistake the applicants M/s. Kay Foam Ltd. have prayed for recall of the earlier order on the ground that certain legal issues which were not taken up in appeal by the Revenues had been taken note of by the Tribunal in their order and it was a mistake apparent on record. In Para 5 of the ROM application the application the applicants have submitted as under:-- "5. In view of the submissions made hereinabove and in view of the fact that order was reserved, it is respectfully submitted that there is a mistake apparent on record in Tribunal's order in as much as the Tribunal has taken altogether a different ground while passing the final order when the same was not taken by the Revenue in their appeal. Once the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the disputed product is not hit by Chapter Note 2 (a) (3) of Chapter 59 of the Tariff and the P.U.Foam is sandwiched between two layers of textiles and not that textile fabrics is sandwiched be...

Cce. Meerut-ii Vs. M/S. D.S.M. Sugar Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT250TriDel

1. This is an application filed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut for referring the following question to the High Court, arising out of Tribunal's Final Order No.A/420/98-NB(S) dated 21.4.98:- "Whether M.S. Rounds bars. M.S. Platers, H.R. Plates, Shapes and Sections etc. would fall under the category of items given the explanation 1(b) of Rule 570 of CER 1944 as it stood at the relevant period and would consequently become eligible for taking credit under modvat scheme on capital goods?" 2. I heard Shri J. Singh, learned D.R., and Shri Ashok Sagar, leaned Advocate for Respondents, M/s. D.S.M. Sugar Ltd. The learned D.R.submitted that the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. A/420/98-NB(S), allowed Modvat Credit in respect of M.S. Round Bar, M.S. Plates, H.R.Plates, Shapes and Sections holding them to be raw material for boiler, new turbine, molasses tank, etc.; that these materials are not used as such but are used as intermediate product for manufacturing accessories/components of c...

M/S. Manaktala Chemicals (P) Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants have filed this application stating that some mistakes have crept in, in the final order No.348/2000-NB dt.20.4.2000:- (1) That in para 12 of the aforesaid final order, the Hon'ble Tribunal while following the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Samrat International reported in 1992 (58) ELT 561, has observed that "In the case of Samrat International, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in such cases, the (sic) shall be treated as provisional till the date of finalisation of the classification list." (2) That in the present case before the Tribunal, the classification lists were finalised by the Order-in-Original No.Nil passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Nodia and communicated on 16.4.92. Thus the assessments, if at all provisional, were to be treated as provisional up to 16.4.92 and not 14.5.93 which in any case is not the date of finalisation of classifications. Thus the limitation for the purposes of issue of demand ought to have been counted wi...