Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Cce, Chandigarh - I Vs. M/S. A.C.C. 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 (423) RLT 817 (CEGAT-LB), on the capital goods was awaited. That decision has been announced and reported. Therefore, we proceed to deal with the matter 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. 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 requires re-determination at the end of the adjudicating authority, as agreed by both the sides in the light of the decision o...

M/S. JatIn Tracks (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are the manufacturers of Railway Track Material Falling under Tariff Heading No.7302.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed modvat credit of Rs. 2,23,692/- @ 12% under Notfn.No.58/97-CE dt. 30.8.97 in respect of the goods received by them from the manufacturers of the inputs working under the Compound Levy Scheme in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Asst.Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I vide his Order dt. 11.8.99 denied them the modvat credit of the aforestated amount on the ground that the manufacturers of inputs operating under the compounded levy scheme had the option to pay duty for the past clearances with interest and since in respect of the impugned inputs on which the appellants have obtained the deemed credit @12% under the aforestated notification; that they have not produced a certificate from the concerned R.O. of Originating Range certifying the payment of duty, hence the modvat credit on such goods is not ...

M/S. Sun Rise Processors Vs. Cce, Chandigarh-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s Sun Rise Processors had filed the present appeal being aggrieve with the order-in-original dated 20.4.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise-II, Chandigarh. As stated by the appellant themselves in Form EA-3 against column no. 3, the order was received by them on 28.4.2000.The appeal was received in the Registry on 7.2.2001 after the expiry of the statuary period of limitation. Along with the appeal, the appellants have filed the application for condonation of delay and the application for condonation of delay and the application is extracted in full- 1. We are engaged in the processing of man made fabrics with the aid of power, steam & hot air stenter.Our's is a very small factory and we were working in very tight financial conditions. The factory was finally closed on 1.3.99.Due to acute financial crisis the factory remained closed till 18.8.99 when the Registration Certificate was surrendered. The factory was worked only for 11/98 to 2/99. Even during this tim...

M/S. Sardar Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT765TriDel

1. In this COD Petition, the Petitioners have stated that the order against which the appeal is filed was served on them on 7.2.2000 and the limitation to challenge the impugned order expired on 7.5.2000, but the appeal is however, filed on 24.11.2000. Thus, there is a delay of 200 days in filing the appeal. The applicants in their petition for condonation of delay have stated that they lost the papers and could not file the appeal within the prescribed time, that they have procured the documents only in the month of August, 2000. As such, it is pleaded that the delay in filing the present appeal is neither intentional nor wilful, but, is due to these facts and the same may be condoned. These averments are supported by an affidavit file by Shri Gagandeep Singh, duly attested by the Oath Commissioner, Ludhiana on 28.11.2000 though the affidavit does not bear the place at which and date on which the deponent had deposed the contents of the affidavit.2. I have heard Shri Yogesh Putney, A...

M/S. Somex Marbles (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellants filed an appeal alongwith an application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 7,000/- before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants, directed them to deposit the penalty amount. Thereafter, the appellants made a request for modification of the stay order and without deciding the application for modification and without issuing any notice, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of Sec. 35 F of the Act. Now, the appellants have deposited a sum of Rs. 7,000/- on 26.7.2000 vide T.R.Challan, copy of which is on record. In view of the fact that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants and now the appellants have deposited the penalty amount, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeal on merits. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand. (Dictated ...

C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Sankeshwar Hosiery Indus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh, in which, relying on the decision of the CEGAT in the case of Marcandy Prasad Radhakrishna Prasad Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Cal-II reported in 1998 (102) ELT 705 (T), he had held that effects of Section 11AB for recovery of the interest and Section 11AC for mandatory imposition of penalty equivalent to 100% duty of (SIC) are not to be applied retrospectively, since, the provisions contained therein are of substantive character and not just procedural. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order has observed that these provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 came into effect with effect from 28.9.96 and prior to this date, the same would have no applicability. The Commissioner (Appeals) has further observed in his order that the Department filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the cited judgement of the CEGAT, but the Apex Court dismissed the appeal of the Department.2. I have hea...

M/S. Indian Saving Products Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC855

1. The dispute is with regard to valuation of Twin Blade Cartridges.These cartridges were used in the manufacture of disposable razors. As the twin blade cartridges were not sold as such, their assessable value was determined by the appellant based on the cost of production. An addition of 10% was also made towards margin of profit. The assessable value so determined was accepted by the Central Excise authorities and assessments were finalised and duty paid. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued holding that the profit o the appellant in the previous year was 14.8% and that profit was required to be added, instead of 10% which had already been added. In adjudication and appellate proceedings it was held that the addition required to be made towards profit was 14.19%. Consequent to this finding, duty demand of over 30,000/- imposed under Rule 1730. Claim for interest under Section 11AB has also been made.2. The submission of the appellant in the present appeal is that there was ...

M/S. Satia Paper Mills Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter was called none appeared forthe appellants. From the records placed before us we find that the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-within a period of six weeks from the date of the order i.e. 13.2.2001. On 9.4.2001 when the matter was called, the Counsel for the appellants appeared and requested for short adjournment as the deposit particulars were awaited. Therefore, the matter was adjourned for today. No one appeared. Since there is no intimation about the amount being deposited as ordered in the stay order No.S/3/2000-D dt.13.2.2001, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order....

C.C.E.,chandigarh Vs. M/S. Majestic Auto Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue filed this application for condoning the delay of nine days.3. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs Chandra Mani reported in (1998) 3, S.C.C. 132. Registry is directed to list the appeal for arguments on 03.07.2001. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT175TriDel

1. In this case, the applicants received a copy of the order appealed against on 9.10.2000 and filed the present appeal on 8.1.2001. The appeal filed by the party however, did not accompany a Demand Draft for Rs.200/- as appeal fee and therefore the applicants were notified by the Registry to remit this amount along with the condonation of delay petition. Accordingly, the party sent a Demand Draft dt. 4.1.2001 for Rs.200/- which is received in the Central Registry on 18.1.2001. Thus, there is a delay of ten days in filing the appeal. The applicants are not present but Shri Apurva Bhattacharya, Advocate for the appellants has sent a communication explaining the reasons for delay and requesting for condonation of the same.2. In view of the facts as stated above, the delay of ten days in filing the appeal is condoned....