Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Techno Plast Industries Vs. C.C.E., Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount of Rs. 52,500/-.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the Commissioner (Appeals), while deciding their stay application, directed the applicants to deposit whole of the penalty amount without affording an opportunity of personal hearing and, thereafter, without issuing any notice to the appellants, the appeal was dismissed. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice. On merits, he submits that the demand of Rs. 52,5000/- under Rule 57 I was dropped by the adjudicating authority. However, a penalty of the same amount was imposed under Rule 173Q of the Rules. He submits as the demand is dropped, the order of imposing penalty is not sustainable.3. Heard ld. D.R., who reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.4. In this case, the appellants filed an appeal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit...

M/S. Punjab Alkalies and Chemicals Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case came up for hearing none appeared for the appellants.From the records placed before us we find that the case came up on 11.12.2000, the matter was adjourned to 25.1.2001 at the request of the appellant. On 25.1.2001, the matter came up again when it was adjourned to 27.2.2001 at the request of the Counsel. Again on 27.2.2001, no one turned up. The case was adjourned to 12.4.2001. We note that notice for today's appearance was issued on 7.3.2001 to the appellant who has not turned up inspite of the issue of the notice. The case is therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution....

M/S Diamond Cement Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All the present appeals are posted for mention as the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Indore vs Surya Roshni Ltd., 2001 (42) RLT 817 (CEGAT-LB), on the capital goods was awaited. That decision has been announced and reported. Both the sides agreed that all the appeals be heard today on merits. Therefore, we proceed to deal with the appeals on merits.2. The issue involved in the present appeal relates to the availability of modvat credit on the disputed goods as detailed out in the order-in-original and the show cause notice. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Cement/Clinker falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 2502.29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) and were availing the facility of Modvat under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. It has been fairly conceded by both the sides that the issue as to whether the goods in dispute satisfy the definition of 'Capital Goods' under Rule 57-Q read with Explanation-I of the Rules ...

M/S. Mahalaxmi Industries Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of notice. On the earlier date also, the appellants were un-represented in spite of notice. As none appeared on behalf of the appellants nor there is any request for adjournment, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Om Glass Works, M/S. Advance

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC89

1. The above appeals involve the common issue of classification of head light covers, made of glass, and used in automobiles, manufactured by the respondents herein. According to the Revenue, such covers fall for classification under ECT Sub-heading 7011.90 as "optical elements of glass, not optically worked", while the assessees contend that the goods are classifiable under CET Sub-heading 90.01 " other optical elements of any material", as according to them, the optical elements have been optically worked. The process of manufacture in Om Glass Works was noted by t he Assistant Commissioner after visiting the factory on 18.6.96 as under: (a) In relation to the manufacture of head light covers they are using specially designed dies on which chrome plating and polish is done to manufacture good quality head light covers with an accurate focus. (c) The piece of head light cover is then taken out from the die and immediately transferred to anealing layer for anealing. (d) After this pro...

M/S Rajendra Bros. and Sh. Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. By order dated 28.9.2000 in CWP 5737 of 2000, Division Bench of the Delhi High Court reduced the pre-deposit to Rs. 20 lakhs. As per that order deposit was to be made by the end of November, 2000. Apex Court while dismissing the SLP challenging the order passed by the High Court on 12.1.2001 extended the time deposit upto 31st March, 2001. Before 31st March 2001 appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs as seen from TR-6 challan dated 28.3.2001. Thus, the pre-deposit having been made in compliance with the orders referred to above, We restore the appeal and post it for final hearing on 17th May, 2001....

M/S. Gangeshwar Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants.On the last date of hearing, the clerk of the counsel, appeared and the case was adjourned on his request. Today none appeared on behalf of the appellants nor any request is made for adjournment. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. Birla Jute Industries Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Ld. Counsel, appearing for the appellants, submits that earlier the notice of hearing of the appeal as well as the miscellaneous application was not received by the counsel. He submits that counsel, Shri Bhattacharya filed an Affidavit to this effect. He submits that the appellants had already reversed the MODVAT Credit of Rs. 2,64,726.00 before filing the appeal. He, therefore, submits that the appeal be restored.3. Heard Id. D.R., who pointed out that the appellants had only reversed the credit. However, there is no evidence on record in respect of deposit of Rs.5,000.00 towards penalty. At this stage, Id. counsel submits he undertakes to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000.00 before the next date of hearing.4. In view of the fact that no notice was received by the appellants for hearing of the appeal, the Final Order No. A/349/98-NB(S) dated 21.04.98, dismissing their appeal, is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. However, it is made clear that the appeal will be h...

Cce, Meerut Vs. M/S Jindal Polytester and Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The present appeal is posted for mention as the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Indore vs Surya Roshni Ltd., 2001 (42) RLT 817 (CEGAT-LB), on the capital goods was awaited. That decision has been announced and reported. Both the sides agree that the appeal itself be heard today on merits. Therefore, we proceed to deal with appeal on merits.2. The issue involved in the present appeal relates to the availability of modvat credit on the disputed goods as detailed in the order-in-original and the show cause notice. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Synthetic Filament Yarn and on checking their record it revealed that they availed modvat credit on the disputed goods by projecting them as capital goods under Rule 57-Q of the Rules, but it was found that these goods did not satisfy the definition of 'Capital Goods' under Rule 57-Q read with Explanation I appended to it. The Additional Commissioner, therefore, vide his order-in-original disallowed the modv...

M/S R.K. Marbles Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s R.K.Marbles Ltd.,the mater relates to the availment of modvat credit under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the capital goods used in mines for escavating marble blocks. The mines were at a distance of 100 km. from the factory of the appellants. Following the Tribunal's decisions, as referred to in para 3 of the order-in-appeal including the Larger Bench decision in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement vs CCE , 2000 (119) ELT 552 (TLB), the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) confirmed the view taken by the adjudicating authority and rejected the appeal of M/s R.K. Marbles Ltd. 2. Shri K.K.Anand, advocate, fairly agreed that the matter was covered against the appellants by the Larger Bench decision, aforesaid, and another decision of the South Zonal Bench, Chennai in the case of Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabed vs India Cements Ltd. , 2000(118) ELT 700 (T).3. Shri Rajeev Tandon, SDR, submits that the appellate authority h...