Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Galaxy Indo Fab. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both the sides submit that the only issue for consideration in this appeal filed by M/s. Galaxy Indo Fab Ltd. is the inclusion of gallery while determining the compounded lev on the stenters and that the issue is already covered by the Larger Bench's decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (42) RLT 429 (CEGAT-LB).2. After hearing both sides and going through the facts on records, we find that the matter is already covered by the aforesaid decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. Following the same, we set aside the impugned order in so far as the inclusion of gallery is concerned and allow the appeal. Ordered accordingly....

M/S. Kaybee Electricals Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application, the appellants have prayed for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of penalty of Rs.70,000/- imposed by the lower authorities under the provisions of Rules9(2), 173, 173-Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules.3. Ld. Advocate, Sh. R.K. Goel for the applicants submits that the entire amount of duty demanded in the show-cause notice had duly been paid well before the issue of the notice and that the huge penalty of Rs.70,000/- has been imposed on the applicants though there was no allegation in the show-cause notice that the party had indulged in clandestine removal of goods etc. He further submits that there is no categorical finding that the applicants had contravened the provisions of the aforesaid rules warranting imposition of penalty as above. Ld.Counsel, therefore, prays for complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, pending the appeal.4. Ld. SDR, Sh. M.D. Singh submits that the shortage of final products found by the visiting officers in the applicant...

Jyoti Gupta Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application, the applicant has prayed for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount of Rs. 30,000/- and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal.3. The applicant was conducting a transporting agency at the material time. he had taxis belonging to other persons, at his disposal for offer to passengers on hire. One such passenger hired a taxi from the applicant and, on the way, loaded Chinese silk yarn for transportation.at the sale tax check-post, the passenger alongwith the goods and vehicle were apprehended by the DRI personnel. Subsequently, the DRI officers apprehended the driver and took his statement also. Statement of the present applicant was also taken. Ld. Consultant, Sh. B.M. Das submits that there was nothing in his statement to indicate any incriminating conduct on his part. He submits that a huge penalty of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed by the adjudicating authority and the same was upheld by the lower appellate authority without stating any valid reason. ...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. Modi Sales

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The adjudicating authority had disallowed modvat credit or Rs. 28,911/- taken by the respondents on the strength of gate pass issued before 1.4.94 and endorsed after that date, on the ground that the said document was not a valid duty-paying document for the purpose of availment of modvat credit. The credit had been taken before 30.6.94.In the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of adjudication, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit, holding that a gate pass issued before 1.4.94 but endorsed after that date was a valid document under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules for the purpose of availment of modvat credit in terms of Notification No. 16/94-CE(NT) dated 30.3.94. The lower appellate authority passed its order by following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CCE Bombay [1996 (13) RLT 350 (CEGAT-WRB)]. The present appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the lower appellate authority.3. Ld. JDR, Sh. A.K. Jain,...

M/S Gopi Krishna Processors (P) Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate submits that in the present stay application, the applicants have prayed for staying the operation of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate-II Chandigarh. He also submits that the matter relates to the inclusion of galleries in calculating the duty liability. He also mentions that this matter is already covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal as reported in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (42) RLT 429 (CEGAT-Larger Bench).2. In reply, Shri Mewa Singh, SDR submits that against the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision, the Department has gone in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.3. After hearing both the sides, we do not find any ground for staying the operations of the impugned order....

M/S. Jauss Polymers Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application is for staying the recovery of duty and penalty demanded from the appellant with regard to certain quantities of pet jars manufactured by them. Learned Consultant representing the appellant submits that the appellant has accumulated loss of over Rs.13 Crores and is presently before the BIFR. He submits that it would cause them undue hardship if pre-deposit of duty and penalty are insisted upon. We have heard the Departmental Representative. Learned Departmental Representative submits that the demand is justified on the facts of the case.2. Appellants have accumulated huge loss and at present is before the BIFR. It would cause them undue hardship if pre-deposit of the duty and penalty as demanded in the order are insisted upon as a condition for hearing their appeal. In similar cases stay of recovery has been allowed. We, therefore, consider this to be a fit case for granting stay of recovery of the full amount involved. Accordingly, stay application is allowed and ...

M/S. Virdi Brothers Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC673

1. Appellants M/s.Virdi Brothers work as Refrigeration Engineers & Contractors. They instal cold storages as required by indenting owners.To instal cold storages they purchase compressors, electric motors, fittings, panels, pipes and tubes from open market. These components are, according to them, permanently fixed to the cold storage plant. No excise duty was being paid by them in relation to their activity of installing cold storage. Presumably on intelligence, show cause notice dated 6.12.99 was issued demanding Rs.63,65,580/- by way of duty.Appellant was also asked to show cause why penalty under the various other provisions of the Act and the Rules should also not be imposed.Various owners of the cold storages constructed by the present appellant were also issued with similar show cause notices.2. Appellant disputed the claim put forth by the Commissioner in the show cause notice on the basis that various components used in the construction of cold storage were purchased from...

M/S Hilton Rubber Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application, filed by the appellants, they have claimed that certain mistakes apparent on the face of record occurred in final Order No. A/659/99-NB(SM) dated 16.7.99, which was passed by this Tribunal against the appellants ex-parte.2. Ld. Advocate, Sh. J.A Agrawal seeks leave of the Bench for withdrawing this application without prejudice to the applicant's right to seek any other legal remedy against the above final order. This request is granted. The present application is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn....

M/S. Oswal Sugars Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC670

1. These appeals are at the instance of M/s. Oswal Sugars Ltd. The orders challenged in these appeals were passed demanding differential duty on molasses sold by the appellants to distilleries during the year 98-96 and 96-97. Appellants' contention in both the appeals is that the value of molasses fixed by the authorities below are not based on any material and that duty on the actual value realised on the sale of molasses were duly remitted to the Government. Therefore, it is their case that the claim of differential duty is unsustainable.2. When the stay petitions moved by the appellants came up for hearing we heard Counsel representing the appellants and the Departmental Representative at length. We are disposing of the appeals without passing any separate order on the stay petitions.3. The facts of these appeals are similar to various appeals disposed of by us earlier. During the financial year 95-96, Chief Minister of the State convened a conference of sugar mill owners and owner...

M/S. H.S. Sons Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT0TriDel

1. These applications are for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts and for stay of recovery thereof, pending final disposal of the appeals.2. In order to entertain these applications, the maintainability of the appeals must be settled first. In the case of Wipro Ltd. and Others [2001 (43) RLT 317], the Southern Regional Bench at Bangalore has held that, on account of repeal of Modvat Rules including Rule 57I by Notification No. 11/2000-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2000 without any saving clause in the new rules viz. CENVAT Rules, 2000, all departmental proceedings for recovery of any credit on inputs under the said Rule 57I lapse and, further, that even appeals before the Tribunal involving such modvat issues shall also lapse. This Bench has taken a view that the correctness of the decision of SRB, Bangalore is not free from doubt and has, therefore, referred the question to a Larger Bench as per order dated 29.3.2001 passed in Appeal No. E/2032/97-NB(S). Since the very question of m...