Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S Rajasthan Spg. and Wvg. Mills Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC569

1. All these appeals are directed against a common adjudication order i.e. adjudication order No.38/CE/JP-II/99 dated 22.11.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II. Therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.2. Appellants M/s Rajasthan Spinning & Wvg. Mills Ltd., (RSWML) M/s Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. (BSL) & M/s Purvi Fabrics & Textures Ltd. (PFTL) are manufacturers of yarn and fabric. The other appellants are Officers of these manufacturing companies.3. Briefly stated, material facts of the case are that all the manufacturing Cos. are Public Limited Cos. belonging to he same group.In 1994-95 RSWML commissioned a textile processing house at Mordi village for the processing of fabrics. This processing house was commissioned on 29.3.95 and was subsequently leased out w.e.f. 16.6.95 to BSL under an agreement between the two Cos. Consequent upon leasing, RSWML surrendered their Central Excise Registration as a ...

M/S. Shriram Kaiyaun Machine Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Ld. Advocate Shri Gopal Prasad for the applicants reiterates the grounds of the appeal as well as well as those of the present application and submits that the lower appellate authority has allowed the Modvat credit in question by condoning the delay of sixteen days involved int he filing of declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, but that authority upheld the penalty of Rs.50,000.00 imposed by the adjudicating authority. Ld. Advocate submits that once the Modvat credit is allowed by condoning the delay of declaration under Rule 57G, there is no question of contravention of the said Rule and, therefore, there is no warrant for imposition of any penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Rules. He, therefore, pleads strong prima facie case for the applicants in the present appeal and prays for complete waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount and stay of recovery thereof. Ld. SDR Shri M.D.Singh, on the other hand, submits that there is nothing in the imp...

Deepak Castings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. As per order dated 24.01.2001, the appellants were directed to deposit the duty amount of Rs.1 lack within eight weeks and (SIC) on 03.04.2001. On 03.04.2001, the party was represented by their Counsel's clerk, one Shri Neeraj Jain, who submitted that the Counsel Shri R.Santhanam was not in a position to attend to the case on account of his pre-occupation with professional work elsewhere. Having regard to the submission of the Advocate's clerk, the matter was posted to this day.2. Today, there is neither any proof of deposit nor any representation for the party. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution....

M/S. Jasch Indus Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Learned Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the amount due by way of refund has been paid back. His grievance is that no interest has been paid. There is nothing in record to show that he claimed interest from the Departmental Authorities. Without prejudice to appellant's right to move the authorities for relief of getting interest, this application is closed....

M/S Unitop Office Automation Vs. Cc, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1368TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s Unitop Office Automation, the issue involved is whether the copier components imported by them are classifiable under Sub-heading No 9009.90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, as claimed by them or under Sub-heading 9009.21 as ordered by the Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned Order No.30/2000 dt. 24-4-2000 and whether the enahncement of value declared by them is warranted.2. Shri B.B.Gujral, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are regularly importing old and used re-conditioned components of photocopier machine against special licences for marketing them since these are available at cheap prices at abroad; that in the present matter also, they imported a consignment of components of photocopier machine from England; that they filed a Bill of Entry on 15-4-99 for clearance of 123 items of components in different quantities declaring them as old and used reconditioned copier components classifable under sub-heading 9000.90 o...

S/Sh. L.M. Soni, Shyam Sunder and Vs. Cc, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

TOTAL-MELTER-1-ASSAYER-999.0" totally weighing 1747.500 gms. and valued at Rs.8,38,800/-, were Fatehpuria at Ajmeri Gate, Beawar on 3.3.97 by Preventive Officers of Customs, Jodhpur. The gold biscuits were found wrapped in a newspaper and kept in an almirah. Sh. Shyam Sunder Fatehpuria could not produce any document evidencing licit import or purchase of the gold biscuits. Therefore, the officers, believing that the gold biscuits were liable to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, seized the goods under Panchnama. Statements of Shyam Sunder Fatehpuria were recorded by the officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 3.3.97 and 4.3.97. In his statement dated 4.3.97, Shyam Sunder Claimed that he had purchased the gold biscuits from 7 persons of Beawar and he named those persons also. Statements of 6 out of the 7 persons were also recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. All the 6 persons denied having sold any gold biscuits to Shyam Sunder. On 11.3.97, Shri Raj...

Cce, Bhopal Vs. M/S. Tesla Transformers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC669

1. This appeal is at the instance of Revenue. They question the correctness of Order in Appeal No.769-CE/BPL/2000 dated 6.2.2000.2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:- Respondent, assessee manufactures Transformers. They entered into a contract for the sale of one of the Transformers to a third party for a consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-. A Transformer covered by the contract was dispatched under Invoice, wherein its value was noted as Rs.1,85,000/-. Duty on that amount was paid by the assessee. Since the contracting party insisted on payment of Rs.1,25,000/- and paid only that as fixed in contract concluded earlier, the duty paid on the high value shown in the invoice was in excess of the actual duty payable.The excess paid was claimed by way of refund. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner taking the view that assessable value once declared cannot be changed. This mistake committed by the adjudicating Authority was corrected by the Co...

M/S Instrumentation Ltd. Kota Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of over Rs.8 lakhs and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal.2. Carefully examined the records and heard both sides. Ld. Advocate Shri Rajesh Kumar has pleaded for allowing the application and ld. JDR Shri A.K.Jain has opposed the same.3. For giving any relief in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act in the present application, it has to be settled first as to whether the application is maintainable or not. The maintainability of this application depends on the maintainability of the appeal itself.But the maintainability of the appeal stands unsettled by a decision of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Wipro Ltd & Ors Vs CCE, Bangalore [2001 (43) RLT 317] wherein the Bench held that all appeals involving issues relating to Modvat credits sought to be recovered by the Department under the erstwhile Rules 57I and 57U of the Central Excise Rules should be considered to have lapsed on 01.04.2000 by r...

M/S. Bharat Small Arms Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh Ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1106TriDel

1. The appellants are the manufacturers of single barrel guns and double barrel guns falling under Chapter 93 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their factory premises were visited by the officers of the Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh-II on 3.7.97 and 20.3.98. on scrutiny of the records maintained by the party and the statement dt.20.3.98 recorded from Shri D.R. Bhatia, Manager of the party, it was learnt that during the period 1994-95 to 1996-1997, they had cleared 64.935 M.Ts of M.S.scrap valued at Rs.1,88,763.00 without payment of duty amounting to Rs.37.756.00. on being pointed out, the party voluntarily debited this amount in their PLA vide Entry No.130 dated 20.3.98 and Entry No.132 dt.23.3.98. They were however issued a show Cause Notice dt. 14.5.99 by the dy. commissioner of con(SIC) Excise Commissionerate, chandigarh -II, in which they were called upon to show cause why aforestated amount voluntarily debited by them should not be considered as...

M/S. Bhatat Foam Udyog Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application is at the instance of the appellant in appeal No.E-2336/93-C. Alongwith the appeal he moved an application praying for stay of recovery of the amount covered by the impugned order and for waiving pre-deposit of the duty claimed, namely, Rs.9,05,814.44. While disposing of the application for Stay by Order dated 7.10.93, appellant was directed to deposit the entire duty amount within 3 months there from. In compliance with the order, differential duty demanded by the impugned order was paid by making required entries in the PLA on 31.12.93 and 31.1.94. The adjustment made by the assessee in the PLA was treated as sufficient compliance with the pre-deposit.2. This Tribunal by Final Order No.101/99-C dated 15.2.99 set aside the orders passed by the authorities under the Excise Act and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Thereafter, assessee prayed for return of the deposits made pursuant to the order of Stay passed by the CEGAT. The amount has not been return...