Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. South Eastern Coalfields Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above appeal was filed inn May 2000 and till date there is no clearance from the Committee on Disputes. Hence we see no reason to keep the appeal pending any longer and accordingly dismiss the same with liberty to the appellants to apply for restoration if COD clearance is granted....

M/S. Econoprint Stencils P.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC854

1. Arguing on the above application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.23,461/- confirmed as a result of inclusion of cost of wooden boxes/corrugated boxes in the assessable value of duplicating g stencil papers manufactured and cleared by the applicants between October 93 and September 94, learned Counsel, Shri Ramesh Nair submits that the goods are normally cleared from the factory gate in cellophane flooders and were used only in stray cases f or safe transporting and, therefore, wooden boxes/corrugated boxes are secondary packing, the cost of which is not includible in the assessable value as per various decisions of the Apex Court and the Tribunal. He, therefore, prays that predeposit may be waived and its recovery stayed pending the appeal.2. The prayer is opposed by the learned DR,Shri S.K.Das. who contends that in the face of the categoric factual finding that the goods were generally cleared from the factory gate in wooden boxes/corrugated boxes, the cost of such packing ...

Cce, Jaipur Vs. Shree Raj Texchem Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondent manufacture of yarn of man made fibres filling Chapter 55. They availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 10.06.140.40 on certain capital goods under Rule 57Q. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Division initiated proceedings against them and on hearing their case passed on order dated 2.2.98 in which he disallowed the modvat credit of the aforesaid amount to them, apart from imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/- 2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur vide his order dated 29.9.99 allowed the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.9,95,610.60 in respect of the following capital goods. "(i) Resign Bonded Fibre Glass insulation, (ii) Electric motor, (iii) Tensor socket, (iv) Plug Fuse, (v) Contractor, (vi) Switches, (vii)Time Diodes, (viii) Light Lamp, (ix)Condnser Assembly, (x) PVC Cables, (xi)MOCB 33 KV, (xi)MOCB 33 KV, (xii) Fuse insulator & switch and (xiii) High production cot grinding machine".3. The Revenue are i...

C.C.E., Indore. Vs. M/S. NavIn Chemical Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT234TriDel

1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT Credit, as capital goods on the following items, is allowed: 3. The contention of the revenue is that Centrifugal pumps are used in transfer of organic liquid, Globe valves are used for regulating the flow of liquids, Dimmer stat Auto Transformers are used in controlling the voltage of Lab. Analytical instrument and the Weishaput Burner Medel MS 72 Oil Hoses Heating for pumps are used for furnace oil firing in thermic, which is required for distillation. (sic) 4. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of organic chemicals.In the show cause notice, use of these items is mentioned which shows that these are used in processing the final product. The definition of the capital goods under Sec. 57 Q of Central Excise Rules provides that capital goods include machine, machinery, plant and equipment, apparatus, tool or appliances used for producing or process...

Shri S.P. Mittal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Although there is a request dated 17.4.2001 for adjournment from the appellants' Counsel, on perusal of the record, we find that the show cause notice was issued only to M/s. Goldseal Telecommunication Ltd. (of which the present appellant was a Driector) and the impugned order confirms a duty demand the imposed penalty only upon the company and there is no liability cast upon the appellant.Hence, he has no locus-standi to file the appeal which is misconceived and is dismissed as such....

Shri K.C. Agarwal Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Under Stay order dated 11.11.99 Shri K.C. Agarwal, appellant among others was directed to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within eight weeks from the date of receipt of that order. In the impugned order a penalty of Rs.l 2 lakhs had been imposed on Shri K.C. Agarwal. The matter was posted for noting the compliance and further orders on 18.1.2001. It has been made clear in para 7 of that order that if the amount so specified, was not deposited within stipulated period then the appeal would be dismissed without any further reference to the appellant. An application for modification was filed with the Tribunal which was disposed of under miscellaneous order dated 19.7.2000 and the Tribunal gave further three months time from the date of receipt of the order dated 19.7.2000 to comply with the terms of the aforesaid stay order. It was mentioned that in case of default the appeal will be dismissed. The matter was posted on 2.11.2000.2. The terms of stay order dated 11.11.99 have not be...

M/S. Telemats India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For reasons recorded below, we waive the predeposit of duty of Rs.12,15,081/- and penalty of Rs.25,000/- and proceed to hear and dispose of the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of self and supporting towers, exclusively used in the installation of Multi Access Rural Radio System by the Department of Telecommunications of the Government of India. They filed classification lists/declarations under CET Sub-heading 8525.00 and paid duty at the applicable rate i.e @ 13% adv. Show cause notices issued alleging short levy on the ground that the correct classification of the goods was under CET Sub-heading 7308.20 attracting dty @ 15% adv. The demands were confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner who also imposed penalty for contravention of the rules; the assessees filed appeals before the commissioner (Appeals) along with stay applications and interim stay order dated 27.6.2000 was passed directing predeposit of the ...

Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter was called none appeared for the appellants M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. a Public Sector Undertaking. No clearance from the Committee on Disputes in terms of the Supreme Court decision in the case of ONGC reported in 1992 (61) ELT 3 (SC) has been filed. The notice of today's hearing was issued on 21.3.2000 and a copy was endorsed to the Counsel on record. No information is forthcoming about the requisite clearance. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with the liberty to the appellant for pray for restoration as and when the requisite clearance from the Committee on dispute is filed. With this liberty the appeal as well as the stay application is dismissed....

M/S. Jai Bhawani Concast (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture M.S. Ingots falling under Sub-heading 7208.90. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vide his order dated 26.5.98 disallowed the modvat credit of Rs.3,17,859/- and ordered for recovery of this amount from the appellants. He further imposed penalties of equivalent amounts on the party under each of the rule 173Q(1) and rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The party filed an appeal and as per the copy of the order dated 14.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Jaipur, available on record, Shri Manak Chand, Consultant appeared for personal hearing on behalf of the appellants before him on 6.4.2000. During the course of personal hearing, he agreed to make a pre-deposit of Rs.1,58,930/- within a period of six weeks. However, this was not complied with.Consequently, the Commissioner(Appeals) passed in Interim Stay Order dated 10.8.2000 directing the party to deposit the impugned amount within a period of three weeks from that dat...

M/S. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ghaziabad

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), whereby a penalty of Rs. one lakh was imposed under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar, molasses and Ethyl Alcohol. They availed the facility of MODVAT Credit of Rs. 1,28,000.00 on the strength of invoices, which were issued six months prior to raking of the credit.The revenue objected the credit and the appellants reversed the credit.A show cause notice was issued to the appellants. The adjudication authority disallowed the credit under Rule 571 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000.00 under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants filed an appeal and Commissioner (Appeals), vide impugned order, up-held the order passed by the adjudicating authority and, however, reduced the penalty to Rs. one lakh.4. The contention of the appellants is that there is no malafide intention of t...