Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Cce. Jaipur Vs. M/S. Feather Touch Polychem (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT376TriDel

1. The Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order observed that the goods involved in the present case are similar to those covered in the aforesaid decisions, respectfully following the same, the impugned order is set aside and the product classified under Chapter Heading 5703.20. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to determine the revised duty liability of the appellants which wouldbe payable by them.Being aggrieved by this order the Revenue has filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of textile floor coverings. A question arose as to whether these textile floor coverings were classifiable under Chapter 56 or 57. The Asstt. Commissioner held that the goods were chargeable to duty under Chapter subheading 5703.90. Against this decision of the Asstt. Commissioner, the assessee filed an appeal. The Commissioner relying on the judgment of this Tribunal inthe case of UNI Product(I)Ltd. & Ors vs CCE repo...

M/S Tpl Indus. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 26.12.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had upheld the order-in-original of the Joint Commissioner dated 21.1.2000 ordering the recovery of central excise duty of Rs 6,61,031/- under Rule 96-ZQ of the Central Excise Rules from the Appellants.2. The appellants filed a declaration dated 14.12.1998 under Rule 3 of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 and the Commissioner thereafter fixed the Annual Capacity vide his order dated 16.4.1999. The Joint Commissioner through his order dated 21.1.2000 confirmed the duty demand and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order upheld the same.3. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is patently illegal and wrong as their views were not taken into account while computing the production capacity of the stenter. In...

Cce, Mumbai Ii Vs. M/S. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filled, by revenue, is whether duty of excise is payable by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., in respect of goods received from job workers as motor vehicles under Chapters 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri M.P. Singh, learned D.R., mentioned that a Misc.Application No.E/Misc./37/2001-B has been filed by the Commissioner praying for taking on record Section 11D of the Central Excise Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2000.Shri V. Lakshmi kumaran, leaned Advocate for the Respondents has no objection. Accordingly the Misc.Application, filed by the Commissioner is allowed.3. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra manufacture motor vehicles. They were clearing cowl and chasis on payment of duty to Doby Builders who constructed the metal body on the said cowl and chasis and returned the vehicle under their gate passes to the Respondents.M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra subsequently sold these vehicle after ...

M/S Shivagrico Implements Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT716TriDel

1.These are three appeals filed by M/s Shivagrico Implements Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s SIL'), being aggrieved with the two separate orders-in-appeal, both passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. The issue for consideration in all these three appeals is, whether the benefit of modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.1997 (as amended) could be availed of in respect of the duty paid inputs captively consumed in the manufacture of dutiable specified final products, in a case where the central excise duty on the inputs had been paid under Section 3-A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. M/s SIL were availing of the benefit of modvat credit in respect of re-rolled non-alloy steel products, bars, flats, angles etc.classifiable under sub-heading no. 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, manutactured in their re-rolling mills, when u...

M/S. Devilog Systems (i) Ltd Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Notice of hearing of the above appeal was issued on 1.3.2001 to the appellants and their Consultant. However, none appears when the matter is called. We find that even in response to the Registry's letter dated 28.4.2000, requesting the appellants to communicate further developments, if any, in the case, there was no response from the appellants and the appeal was subsequently fixed for hearing. Since the appellants are not interested in pursuing the appeal which has been pending since 1987, we dismiss the same for non-prosecution under CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982....

Shri Ram Exports Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case, the Tribunal vide the Stay Order No.E/S/117/97/-NP(SM) dated 16.7.97, had directed the appellants to deposit the penalty amount of Rs.2 lakhs upto 17.9.97. The matter was listed for reporting compliance on 23.9.1997.2. On 23.9.97, on a submissions made by the Counsel for the party that they had filed a writ petition before the High Court, the matter was adjourned to 28.10.97. On 28.10.97 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the party for non-compliance in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.3. The party filed a restoration of appeal petition, which was allowed and the appeal was retored to it original number vide CEGAT Misc. Order No. M/58/98-NB(S) dated 21.4.98. Simultaneously, the matter was listed for mention on 26.5.98. Thereafter, the matter continued to be adjourned from time to time and was finally listed on 4.4.2001. On that date, the Tribunal in its order recorded that the party challenged the order dated 16.7.97 directing them to deposit the penal...

M/S. Reed Medway Packaging Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of predeposit of duty amounting to Rs. 22,400/-. In the impugned order the benefit of MODVAT credit on Electric Generating Set was denied as input used in or in relation to the manufacture of bagging machine.3. The contention of the applicant is that the Generating Set is supplied alongwith bagging machine and in case of failure of power supply, the bagging machine can be operated with the help of Generating set. The case of the applicant is arguable. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it is not a fit case for total waiver of duty. The applicants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of six weeks. On deposit of Rs. 10,000/-, the deposit of remaining amount of duty is waived for hearing of the appeal. To come up for reporting compliance on 4.6.2001....

M/S. Gujarat Narmada Valley Vs. Cce, Vadodara

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Jitender Singh, advocate, prays for withdrawal of the appeal filed by M/s Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. Shri M.D.Singh, SDR, has no objection. In view of the prayer made b y appellants, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....

M/S. C.J. and Company Vs. Commissioner, Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT123TriDel

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The brief facts of the case are that appellants filed a Shipping Bill for (sic) cut and polished stones valued at Rs.51,900/-. On examination of the goods it was found that in fact these are not stones but these are pieces of glass. The appellants waived the issuance of show cause notice and took the plea that due to typographical error they wrongly mentioned the goods as cut and polished stone in the Shipping Bills and they made a request to amend the Shipping Bills. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods under Section 113(sic) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of misdeclaration and gave a option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.50,000/- and a penalty of Rs.50,000/- was also imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act. The appellants filed appeal and the same was rejected.2. Learned Counsel submits that it is a typographical error, instead of cut...

M/S. Tirputi Manufacturing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.10,000/- penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the applicants had failed to make account for the goods manufactured by them in the statutory record. He su-bmits that the applicants in view of this finding are t the most liable under Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules. For this, he relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd.Vs. C.C.E., Raipur, reported in 2000 (91) ECR 569 (tribunal). He, therefore, submits that the pre-deposit of penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal.3. Heard learned JDR. The case of the applicant is arguable. It is to be seen from the evidence produced by the appellants that whether there was any mens red i n entering the goods in the statutory record. Prima facie, in view of the above decision of the Tribuna...