Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. S. Kumar Detergent (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.15,000/- penalty imposed under Rules 173 Q of Central Excise Rules.The applicants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of BHillai Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Raipur, reported in 200 (125) E.L.T. 781 (Tribunal) where the Tribunal held that in the absence of any mens rea unaccounted goods found in bonded store rooms, the assessee is not liable the penal action under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. They are only liable under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules. In view of he above decision of the Tribunal, prima facie, it is not a fit case for total waiver of penalty. The applicant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2000/- within a period of 4 weeks. On deposit of Rs.2000/-, the remaining amount of penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. To come up for reporting compliance on 21.5.2001....

M/S. Chambal Fertilizers and Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT396TriDel

1. Vide the impugned order against the adjudicatio order passed by the Assistant Commissioner who rejected the importers' claim of assessment of disputed goods i.e. Demag Crane under Customs Tariff Heading 98.01 under Project Import and confirmed a duty demand of approximately Rs.1.63 crores by holding that the goods fall for classification under Heading 8426.41 of the Schedule to the CTA, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has set aside the order of the adjudicating authority and remanded the same for fresh decision to reexamine the issue in the context of CBEC Circular dated 15.1.65. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of remand as in their view, the lower appellate authority ought to have applied Board's Circular and allowed the appeal of the importers instead of remanding the case.2. None appears for the appellants when the case is called; hence we heard the learned DR and perused the records.3. We find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the claim of the importe...

M/S. Mewar Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT237TriDel

1. The appellants filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated water. The excise officers visited the factory of the appellants and 2,92,270 crown corks of various brand names were found short. It was also found that the appellants availed the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of caustic soda found short. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the ground that the crown corks, found short, were used in the manufacture of aerated water, which was cleared without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority also ordered recovery of MODVAT Credit on caustic soda, which was found short.Personal penalties were also imposed on the appellants as well as on the employees of the companies.3. Ld. counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the demand on the basis of shortage of crown...

C.C.E., Delhi Vs. M/S. Bhiwani Textiles Mills.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT104TriDel

1. The respondents manufacture 'Synthetic staple fibre yarn, Acrylic Yarn, Artificial Staple fibre yarn containing synthetic staple fibre and man made fabrics falling under Chapter 55 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff act, 1985. they took modvat credit amounting to Rs. 47,672/- on the items 'speedcon invertor for ring frame and commander - 150 Humidifier" as "capital goods" under Rule 57Q of the Cental Excise Rules, 1944. The first item is an apparatus fixed with the ring frame machine meant for manufacture of yarn and the second item helps in maintaining certain level of humidity to get the yarn of a particular quality. The Asst. Commissioner of Cental Excise, Rohtak vide his Order dt. 12.9.97 denied the modvat credit on these items to the party on the ground that though the humidities helps in maintaining certain level of humidity to get the yarn of a particular quality but that itself does not mean that it would be considered equipment for production, processing or bring...

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. Bajaj Tempo Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents manufacture Light Commercial Motor Vehicles (LCV) and Parts thereof falling under Chapter Heading 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed modvat credit facility as provided under Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They also availed the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,17,160.28 on the input items - "Tool kit & spot welding electrodes" under the provisions of Rule 57-A. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Divn-II, Indore vide his Order dt. 11.2.92 denied them the credit on these items and ordered for the recovery of the above stated amount. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal vide his Order dt.31.10.2000 allowed the appeal of the party by setting aside the order passed by the lower authority.2. The Revenue are in appeal against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the appellants. The respondents are not represented, but they have sent a letter dt. 16...

M/S. Shree Polytex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants availed modvat credit of Rs. 74,250/- on 11.11.94 on the strength of the GP.1 dt 5.3.94 issued by M/s. Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation Ltd. They were issued a show cause notice dt.15.2.95 calling upon them to show cause as to why the modvat credit of the aforestated amount taken on the GP.1 dt. 5.3.94 endorsed thrice should not be disallowed and the recovery made under the provisions of Rule 57-I read with Section 11A, and why penalty should not be imposed on them. On considering the reply of the party, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise vide his Order dt. 21.8.96 dropped the demand raised against the appellant. The Department however, took up this matter in appeal. The Commissioner, (Appeals), Jaipur vide his Order dt.22.12.2000 relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E vs. Shree Gopal Krishna Poly Industries reported in 1986 (84) ELT 235 (T) observed that the Gate Passes endorsed thrice cannot be treated as authorised document for the pu...

C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Fertichem (India),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Division vide his Order dt. 18.12.2000 held that the respondents by utilising the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,56,255.00 which was actually available only from 16.11.2000, had violated the provisions of Clause (e) (i) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 173G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Accordingly, he directed that the facility to pay the duty in instalments under this Sub-rule stood forfeited to the respondents for a period of two months starting from the date of receipt of the order.2. The respondents filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his Order dt. 11.1.2001 observed that the CENVAT credit earned by the party during the period 1.11.2000 to 15.11.2000 was available to them for payment of Central Excise duty with effect from 16.11.2000. But, they had utilised this for paying duty on 4.11.2000 for the forthnight of 16.10.2000 to 31.10.2000. Thus, they utilised the CENVAT credit for which they have paid in...

M/S. V.P. Industries 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.20,000/- 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 suibmits that the applicants in view of this finding are at 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 (sic) the goods in the statutory record. Prima facie, in view of the above decision of the Tribunal it is not a ...

Chief General Manager, Telecom Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above appeals were filed in January 2000 and February 2000 respectively. Till date there is no clearance from the Committee on Disputes. Hence, we see no reason to keep the appeals pending any longer and accordingly dismiss the same with liberty to the appellants to apply for restoration, if COD clearance is granted....

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. Vs. Bharat Malik and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)356; 91(2001)DLT321; 2001(2)RAJ236

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor. J.1. Plaintiff-Playboy Enterprises Inc. is a publisher of widely known magazine PLAYBOY which is pre-eminently sex oriented and male entertainment magazine though it is also interspersed with information on current affairs, issues of international interest, interviews of celebrities, articles on health, games & sports, comedy, cooking recipes etc. The popularity of the magazine is so wide spread that the plaintiff is known mainly through this magazine, though it has vast business empire which has diversified into manufacture, licensing, franchise and sale of a variety of products ranging from cosmetics, toilet preparations, watches, travel and office desk clocks, stationery goods and coordinated desk accessories, candy and confectioneries, costume jewellery, keyrings, coordinated bath robes and towels, decorative cushions, luggage, small leather goods, shoes, sunglasses and ophthalmic frames, pipes and cigarette lighters, sportswear, beach bags and towels, household l...