Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S Sun International Exports Vs. Cc, Nhava Sheva

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s Sun International Exports a duty of Rs. 1,39,928/- has been demanded from M/s Haresh Kumar & Co. alongwith interest payable @ 24/- per annum in terms of the provision of the Customs Act. Further, a penalty of Rs. 1,39,928/- have been imposed on the license holder the present appellant M/s Sun International Exports.2. Appearing for the appellant, Shri Abhishek Jain, learned Advocate submits that the allegation as levied in the show cause notice had been denied by the appellants and evidence has also been produced that no modvat credit had been availed of by their supporting manufacturers form whom the cosmetic and toilet preparations have been purchased for report. He refers to the certificate at page 62 of the paper book given by the Superintendent. He also refers to the copies of the relevant RT-12 returns for the year, 1993 of M/s Chemi-Kleen (India) Private Limited their supporting manufacturers with regard to the item tooth paste, tooth powder, d...

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. JaIn Ferro Alloys Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of MODVAT Credit as input on lancing pipe used for inflow of oxygen into furnace.2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, in spite of notice. Therefore, the appeal is being taken-up in the absence of respondents.4. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the lancing pipe, which is used for inflow of oxygen into furnace in entitled for the benefit of MODVAT Credit as input, is settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. vs M/s. Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd. reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 94. In view of the decision of the Tribunal, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal, filed by the revenue is dismissed. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT251TriDel

1. By this application, the applicant has prayed for restoration of the appeal stating though a copy of the order dt.19.1.98 was received in the applicant's office on 19.2.98 yet no request for restoration of the appeal could be made immediately as the sale incharge and other workers of the factory went on strike; that on 30.1.2001 a letter from the range Superintendent of Central Excise was received stating that an order dismissing the appeal of the assessee was passed on 9.1.98 and duty has not been deposited; that some other officers of the applicant's company also retired and the case was lost sight.2. Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Counsel submits that in view of the fact that the factory remained closed and concerned officials were not attending the office, therefore, there was delay in filing application for restoration of appeal. He submits that on receipt of the letter from the Range Superintendent, the applicant immediately made a request for restoration of the appeal. He, therefore p...

M/S. Bihar Tubes Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut - Ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT214TriDel

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs.3,52,445.00 under Rule 57 I of the Central Excise Rules and interest accrued of the same amount under Rule 57 I (5) read with Section 11 AA. The applicants also prayed for waiver of penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that in the impugned order, the demand is confirmed under Rule 57 I of the Central Excise Rules, which is repealed without any saving clause. He submits that the matter in the case of K.S. Chini Mills vs C.C.E., Kanpur in E/Appeal No. 2032/97-NB was referred to the Larger Bench. He also relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Wipro Ltd. & Ors. vs C.C.E., Bangalore-I & Ors. Reported in 2001 (43) RLT 317 wherein the Tribunal held that all the proceedings including appeal under the omitted Rules, are not maintainable. His submission is that out of the total demand, the ...

Cce, Jaipur-i Vs. M/S Parakaram Technofab Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the non submission of the proof of exports for clearances under bond for export. The goods involved were 100% Cotton knitted fabrics. The goods have been cleared without payment of excise duty or export under bond vide Nepal invoices. The exporter manufacturer was to furnish proof of export within a period of six months from the date of the export consignment. As the proof of export was not submitted with in the stipulated time, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise confirmed the duty as indicated at page 4 and 5 of the order in original. The penalty was also imposed as shown under column 5 of the table at page 4 and 5 of the adjudication order. When the matter was taken up in appeal the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) passed the following order:- "I have carefully gone through the case records, the submissions written as well as at the time of personal hearing, the case laws, the appeal and various other aspec...

M/S. S.G.N. Telecome Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The application filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 76,243/-.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the credit was denied on the ground that the applicants had taken the credit after six months from the date of issue of invoice. He submits that the invoice is dated 2.2.95 and the credit was taken on 16.10.95.he submits that there was some dispute between the bank and the applicants and, therefore, the bank has not released the invoice. The Bank released the invoice on 12.10.95 and thereafter, the applicants availed the credit. He also pleaded the financial hardship and relying upon the audit report, submits that the factory is closed and, therefore, the income from the sale is nil. He submits that the company had suffered losses upto Rs. 1.8 crore. He, therefore, submits that the application be allowed.3. Ld. D.R., appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the deci...

M/S. N.G. Products Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Tribunal vide its Stay Order No. S/728/00-NB(SM) dated 17.10.2000 directed the appellants to make a deposit of Rs.28,621.00 on or before 27.11.2000. The matter was simultaneously listed for reporting compliance on 29.11.2000.2. On 29.11.2000 when the matter was called, none appeared for the appellants. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for not making the pre-deposit under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The appellants have filed the present ROA petition for restoration of their appeal. Sh. K.K. Anand, Advocate for the appellants submits that the appellants made deposit of the entire amount as directed on 1.12.2000 and, therefore, there is a delay of four days in making the deposit of the impugned amount. He, therefore, requests for the condonation of this delay in making the deposit and restoring the appeal.Sh.A.K. Jain, SDR appearing for the respondents has no objection.4. I have considered the submissions made before me. Since the appellants have made the ...

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. H and R Johnson (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This matter relates to the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,28,775/- availed by the respondents on the items "alumina ceramic grinding media and grinding media" falling under Chapter heading 6801.00 and 6907.00 respectively as capital goods under the provisions of Rule 57-Q. The respondents manufacture "ceramic glazed tiles" falling under Sub-heading No. 6906.10. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ujjain Division initiated proceedings against the respondents for denying the aforestated amount of modvat credit availed by them on the above stated items. The respondents pleaded before him that these are used in the grinding balls for the purpose of "grinding of raw materials" namely "Body & Glaze Grinding" which are used in the manufacture of final products "Ceramic Glazed Tiles". They further submitted that these items are essentially used in relation to the manufacture of final products. They also stated that these items improve the grinding efficiency, says energy improv...

Bhodey S.R. Mills Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture Flat Bars of Alloys Steel falling under Sub-Heading No. 7228.20. On 6.1.98 their factory premises were visited by the Central Excise officers, Patiala. On verification of the stock, 9.581 MTs. of Flat Bars valued at Rs. 1,23,307/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 18,496/- was found in excess of the entries made in RG-I register. These goods were seized. The visiting staff also seized 0.550 Mts of unaccounted melting scrap valued at Rs. 4,400/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 660/-. On further verification, they found a shortage of 6.572 Mts of raw material involving duty of Rs. 10,903/- on which the party had already availed the input modvat credit.Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against the appellants which culminated in the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Patiala passing an order dated 18.12.98 in which he ordered for the confiscation of the excess quantity of the finished goods seized from the party. He however, gave an o...

M/S Tech Steels Vs. Cce Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC863

1. M/S Tech Steels have filed present appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 783-CE/BPL/2000 dt. 20-7-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal.2. Shri Ravi Madan Proprietor, submitted that they received two Works Order from M/s Technologist India for manufacture of M.S.Hoops out of raw material supplied by them; that the labour charges were inclusive of excise duty; that they by mistake paid excise duty on the full contract value whereas the excise duty was payable on the assessable value arrived after deduction of the duty element from the contract value; that the Assistant Commissioner rejected their claim far refund of duty paid by mistake in excess partly as time barred and partly holding that there was no calculation error, that the Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their appeal, under the impugned Order upholding the Adjudication Order. He, further, submitted that refund claim is not hit by time limit as it can be filed within three years if duty is paid by mistake a...