Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Compack Enterprises Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC646

1. Appellant imported a used four colour offset printing machine "Polygraph Planeta P44" of the size 710 X 1020mm, along with standard accessories and equipments. In the Bill of Entry the machine was declared to be of 1991 model and the value was shown at Rs.19,12,400.Model of the machine was doubted by the Department as also its value.To save demurrage and consequent expenditure as also its value. To save demurrage and consequent expenditure, the importer waived show cause notice and cleared the goods. Thereafter, Commissioner by Order-in-Original No.SKS/CC/ICD/TKD/110/2000 dated 24.11.2000 ordered confiscation of the goods for having violated the provisions contained in Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act with right to redeem on payment of Rs.1,50,000 and to pay penalty of Rs.50,000 under section 112(a) of the Act. Value of the machine was fixed at Rs. 27,06,000 and duty on that amount imposed.2. While arguing the case before us, Learned Counsel representing the appellant fair...

Shree Cement Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT408TriDel

2. Ld. Advocate Sh. Shekhar Vyas, reiterating the prayer in these applications, pleads that complete waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts and stay of recovery thereof may be granted, pending the appeal. I have also heard ld. JDR, sh. A.K. Jain.3. As regards the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts, these applications will have to wait for the decision of Larger Bench on the issue referred from the case of K.S. Chini Mills [Appeal No. E/2032/97-NB(S)]. Regarding the prayer for stay of recovery, though the same cannot be granted under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act at this stage, I am inclined to direct, under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rule, 1982, that no departmental coercive action shall be taken to recover the aforesaid amounts or any part thereof during the pendency of these applications. These applications are posted to 26.6.2001....

M/S. Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd. Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT213TriDel

1. The appeal is directed against demand of duty of Rs. 4,98,001/-, imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- and demand of interest in respect of the duty. The duty demand is in respect of about 111 M.T. of Waste ABS Polymer.2. The appellants are manufacturers of ABS Polymers. A portion of the polymers manufactured turns out to be waste. The appellants used about 111 M.T. of such waste ABS Polymers for the manufacture of re-processed granules. The granules so manufactured are in turn cleared duty free under Notification No. 4/97. In the impugned proceedings, duty demand has been confirmed on the ground that waste ABS Polymers is liable to duty under Chapter 39. The appellants have contested their duty demand on the ground that waste ABS Polymers is not goods inasuch as it is not marketable. During the argument of the case the learned Counsel representing the appellant stressed that it was for the Revenue to establish that the waste ABS polymers was a marketable product. As against this, t...

M/S. Samcor Glass Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture 14" & 17" T.V. Glass Shells falling under Sub-heading 7008.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are manufacturing these Glass Shells from the Glass Panels, Glass Funnels and Glass Necks falling under the same Heading and captively consuming the same. The end product viz. Glass Shells are removed from the premises of the appellants without payment of duty on CT-2 certificate by following the Chapter X procedure in terms of the provisions of Notfn. No.47/94-CE (NT) dt. 22.9.94.2. The issue under consideration in this appeal is whether the internally consumed goods viz., Glass Panels, Glass funnels and Glass necks wold be entitled to the exemption under Notfn. No. 67/95-CE dt.16.3.95 as amended. This exemption notification provided exemption inter alia to the specified goods manufactured in a factory and used within the factory of production in or in relation to the manufacture of final products as specified provided ...

M/S General Engineering Works, Vs. Cce, Jaipur-1

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application prays for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs.3,66,293.00 under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.3. Ld. Advocate Shri K.K.Anand for the applicants submits that the appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The lower appellate authority, by the impugned order, rejected the assessee's appeal on the sole ground of non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty under Section 35F, without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. Counsel submits that since the impugned order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the party has a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. Ld. SDR Shri M.D.Singh reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and opposes Counsel's plea of prima facie case.4. Considered the submissions. The issue in the appeal is whether Modvat credit to the extent of Rs.3,66,293.00 taken by the appe...

C.C.E., Pune Vs. M/S. Telco

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue as well as the M/s. TELCo against the seven numbers Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune. The brief facts are that M/s. TELCO manufacture Motor Vehicles, machines, Chasis and Motor Vehicle parts.They manufactured certain parts in the workshop within their factory premises and claimed exemption under Notfn. No. 281/86 dt. 24.4.86. In respect of the same goods manufactured within the factory and consumed captively, they also claimed exemption under Notfn. No.220/86 dt.2.4.86. Similarly in respect of the items viz. Tools, Jigs, and Fixtures etc. manufactured within the factory and captively consumed, the exemption as claimed under Notfn. No. 220/86 dt. 2.4.86. The Departmental authorities in their various orders allowed the exemption to the assesses under these notifications in respect of certain goods internally produced and consumed captively but the same was denied in respect of the other goods. The asses...

M/S. Neeluka Metal Powder and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing the appeal, M/s. Neeluka Metal Powder and Chemicals Company are required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.20,96,390/- by way of duty, Rs.20,96,390/- by way of penalty under Section 11 AC and Rs.5,00,000/- by way of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri S.K. Agarwal, Counsel explained the facts of the case and submitted that while the appellants were engaged in the trading of Cut Back Bitumen, they have no manufacturing facilities and that the duty had been demanded on in-sufficient evidence. He also submitted that proper opportunity was not given to the appellants to explain their case. Financial hardship was also pleaded.3. Shri M.M. Dubey, JDR refers to the order-in-original and submits that the case was booked on the basis of surprise visit and inquiries and detailed order has been passed by the Commissioner and he has based his findings on the basis of the statements and facts on record. He pleads that there is no case for waiving the requirements of...

Simbhaoli Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)78ITD161(Delhi)

1. These are three appeals by assessee against the order under Section 263 relating to assessment years 1986-87,1987-88 and 1988-89. The returns of income for these years were filed and on a later stage they were revised and interest @ 18% on belated payment on account of excise duty was claimed as deduction in the revised returns. These returns were accepted by the Assessing Officer while passing assessments under Section 143(1)(a) on 14-12-1988.2. After examining the assessment records of the assessee, i.e., M/s.Simbhaoli Industries (P.) Ltd., the Commissioner of Income-tax (Admn.) (hereinafter referred to as "CIT") noted that Assessing Officer has not added back the excise duty collected by the assessee under Section 43B, which was not paid by the assessee before filing the returns. It was further noticed by the CIT that assessee has claimed deduction @ 1896 on account of provision of interest on belated payment of excise duty payable to the concerned department. These defects were...

M/S. Ridhi Sindhi Mills (i) Pvt. 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 duty and penalty.3. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of textile fabric and annual capacity of their stenter was determined as per Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processor Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 and while determining the capacity, the length of galaries was also taken into account. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors, Bhilwara vs C.C. reported in 2001 (42) R.L.T. 429 held that while determining the annual capacity of stenter, the length of galaries is not to be taken into account. In view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processor (supra), prima facie, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicants.Therefore, the pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. The appeal will come up in due course. (Pronounced in Court)....

M/S. Banke Bihari Processors (P) Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.3. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of textile fabric and annual capacity of their stenter was determined as per Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processor Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 and while determining the capacity, the length of galaries was also taken into account. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processor, Bhilwara vs C.C. reported in 2001 (42) R.L.T. 429 held that while determining the annual capacity of stenter, the length of galaries is not to be taken into account. In view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processor (supra), prima facie, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicants.Therefore, the pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived for hearing the appeals. The appeals will come up in due course. (Pronounced in Court)....