Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Shiiv Shankar Patel Markfed Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing the present appeal M/s. Shive Shankar Patel is required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh imposed by way of penalty under Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Shri A. Sinha, Advocate submits that the duty has been demanded not from Shri Shiv Shankar Patel but from M/s. Wintech Taparia Ltd. He submits that Shri Shiv Shankar Patel was the owner of the cold storage and was in no way concerned with the manufacturing activities which as alleged were undertaken by M/s. Wintech Taparia. Ltd. His submission is that Shri Shiv Shankar Patel is a man of small means and it would cause undue hardship if he is required to deposit full penalty amount. He prays for leniency.2. Shri Rajeev Tandon, SDR submits that the facts have been detailed in the adjudication order and role of the present appellant had also been discussed in the said order. He prays for dismissal of the stay application.3. As presently we are concerned with the disposal of the stay application filed by Shri ...

M/S Gears India Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants, inter alia received a consignment of inputs against invoice No.313 dated 8.1.99 issued by M/s D & D Organic (P) Ltd., Faridabad. They availed the modvat credit amounting to Rs.29,338/- on the strength of this invoice. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-III, Ghaziabad vide his order dated 30.9.99 denied them the credit of the aforesaid amount on the ground that this invoice was bearing the address of the Head Office of the Company at Mukandnagar, Ghaziabad whereas their unit is located at D-107, B.S.Road, Industrial Area, Ghaziabad. The Assistant Commissioner in his order observed that the invoice was not endorsed in favour of the assessee even at the stage of adjudication. Accordingly, he disallowed them the aforesaid amount of modvat credit apart from imposing a penalty of Rs.20,000/- on them.2. The party filed an appeal but the same stood rejected vide order dated 11.5.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad. The present appeal...

M/S. Amco Tal and M/S. M.D. Merchant Vs. Cce, Rajkot

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal against demand of duty amounting to Rs. 27,58,169.64, imposition of a fine of Rs. one lakh and imposition of penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- on the firm and Rs. 5 lakhs on the proprietor.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant in the name of M/s.Amco Talc was a proprietary concern and was engaged in the manufacture of Telcum Powder. the appellant entered into agreement with M/s. Muller & Phipps India Ltd. whereby the said company had agreed to purchase the products manufactured by the appellant's firm under the terms and conditions of the agreement. An enquiry was instituted against the appellant about clearances made from time to time. A SCN was issued to the appellant asking them to explain as to why duty should not be demanded and why penalty should not be imposed. For demand of duty for longer period proviso to section 11A(1) of Cental Excise Act was invoked. The Commissioner after taking into consideration the reply of the appellant and the submissions...

M/S. Bansal Traders Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts in this case are that the appellants are a manufacturer of Super Enameled Copper Wires falling under Chapter Heading 8544.90. On 4.8.97, their factory premises were visited by the officers of Central Excise and from verification of the stocks they found some spools of finished goods weighing 615.530 Kg. bearing the trade name "VPI" belonging to M/s V.P. Industries. These goods were seized and the proceedings were initiated against the party which culminated in the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, MOD-IV, Delhi passing an order dated 6.9.98 in which he ordered for the confiscation of the seized goods and gave an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs.25,000/-. He further imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the party and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on Sh. Vijay Bansal, Proprieter of the firm. The Assistant Commissioner in this order observed that the party had been manufacturing the Super Enameled Copper Wires since long. They were required to tell...

Cce Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Vardhman Special Steel

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order in appeal dated 19.4.99 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide which he had partly modified the order in original of the Assistant Commissioner by allowing modvat credit on same of goods in question and disallowing on other goods, as detailed in the order itself, to the respondents.2. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985.The availed modvat credit on certain goods by projecting the same as 'capital goods' as detailed in the impugned order, but the Assistant Commissioner after issuing them show cause notice and on getting their reply disallowed the modvat credit by holding that the goods in question did not fall within the definition of 'capital goods' ;under Rule 57-Q of the Rules. That order in origial dated 15.1.98 of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged by the respondents before the Commissioner (Appeals) who ...

M/S. A.B.J. Micro Foams Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 4,94,382.00 and penalty of Rs. 1,25,000.00.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the applicants were manufacturing Hot Rolled Products of Non-alloys steel and were paying duty as per Annual Capacity Production fixed by the revenue. He submits that w.e.f. 31.12.97, the applicants surrendered their central excise registration and their electric supply was disconnected. This intimation was duly sent to the revenue. His submission is that after 31.12.97, no duty can be demand as there was no production in the factory. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Malviya Steel vs C.C.E. reported in 2001 (43) R.L.T. 448.3. Ld. D.R., Appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that the duty was demand for the period from 1.9.97 to 31.3.98. His submission is, therefore, that the same period is prior to 31.3.97. At this stage ld.Counsel submits that upto 31.12.97, the duty or Rs. 4...

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M / S. Flex Chemicals (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT508TriDel

1. The revenue field this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the benefit of Modvat Credit on the parts of plant was allowed as capital goods.2. Respondents also filed Cross Objection, in which they challenged the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the benefit of MODVAT Credit on the item Molecular Sieve, which is a chemical, is denied.4. The contention of the revenue in respect of parts of plant is that these were included in the definition of capital goods under Notification 14/96 dated 23.7.96 whereby the steel pipes were included in the definition of capital goods. At the relevant time, the definition of capital goods, as per Rule 57 Q of Central Excise Rules, was machine, machinery, plant, equipment and apparatus tools or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods and the components, spare parts and accessories of these machines also are capital goods as per definition. The revenue is not disputing that the st...

M/S Gujrat Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs. M/S. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appels have been filed by the appellants against the impugned order in appeal dated 4.5.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had partly modified the order in original of the Assistant Commissioner by allowing modvat credit only on same of goods in question and not all the goods as detailed in the other itself, to the respondents.2. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Chapter 25 (Sub-heading 2502.29) of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. The availed modvat credit on certain goods by projecting the same as 'capital goods' as detailed in the impugned order, but the Assistant Commissioner after issuing them show cause notice and on getting their reply disallowed the modvat credit by holding that the goods in question did not fall within the definition of 'capital goods' under Rule 57-Q of the Rules. That order in original dated 15.1.98 of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals)...

M/S. Datt Mulatimetals Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 2,61,828.00 2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 1,60,667.00 was deposited by the applicants under protest through their P.L.A. He submits that the request for abatement of duty was declined only on technical ground.His submission is that as per the conditions laid down in Rule 96 ZO(2) the applicants intimated the closure as well as re-start of their unit to the revenue. He, therefore, submits that the pre-deposit of remaining amount of duty be waived.4. In this case the total duty amount comes to Rs. 2,61,828.00 and out of this amount, the applicants have already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,60,667.00 under protest. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the pre-deposit of remaining amount of duty is waived for hearing of the appeal. The appeal will come up in due course. (Dictated in Court)....

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. Vardhman Polytex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents are the manufacturers of cotton yarn falling under Sub-Heading 5203.00. They inter alia availed the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.36,298.95 on spares of humidifier and PVC mist eliminators as parts of humidifier plants. They availed the modvat credit on these items as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar Division vide his order dated 23.1.98 denied the modvat credit of the above amount and confirmed the demand of the same on them.2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his order dated 27.8.99 allowed the appeal of the party be setting aside the order passed by the original authority.3. The Revenue are in appeal against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Sh. A.K. Jain, NDR for the appellants and Sh. Vishal Bansal, C.A. for the respondents. It ils contended in the Revenue appeal that the credit is availed on the humidifier and PVC mist ...