Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Malik and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount to Rs.29,660.40 and penalty of the same amount. In this case the duty is being demanded on the shortage of inputs.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the duty is being demanded for shortage of H.R. Plate, whereas which was consumed in the manufacture of final product before the visit of the Excise officer. He submits in fact the dispute is in respect of the quantity of 12.840 KGs. C.R. Coils which were received by the appellant, was issued for manufacture of final product but due to mistake, it was not shown in their record. He submits that these coils used in the manufacture of final product. He, therefore, submits that the application be allowed. Learned Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that Shri Sanjay Kumar authorised signatory of the appellants submitted that the inputs 12.840 Kgs were not issued of manufacture of final product th...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. J.K. Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. According to the Revenue, there is an error in the Tribunal's Final Order above mentioned in remanding the case to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue contends that the case was to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals), since the assessee's (Appeals) was not received by them was accepted by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel also states that the matter was to be remanded to lower appellate authority.2. On hearing both sides and perusing the order,we agree with the Revenue that an obvious mistake has occurred in our order and accordingly we rectify the same by directing that the case be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh determination of admissibility of credit to the assessees. He shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in person....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Raymond Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants availed modvat credit of Rs. 7003/- on 30.8.94 on the strength of invoice No. 180 dated 26.8.94 issued to M/s Chemo Pulp Tissues Ltd., Ghaziabad. The also availed modvat credit of Rs. 8397/- and Rs. 17,183/- on the basis of invoice No. 1302 dt 5.7.94 and No.1304 dated 9.7.94 respectively issued by the dealers M/s A.R. Sale Agency. The appellants were issued show cause notice dated 27.2.95 calling upon them to show cause why the modvat credit in respect of the three notices should not be denied to them.2. On considering the reply of the appellants, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Chandigarh vide his Order dated 28.6.96 confirmed the demand of Rs. 32,583/- under Rule 57 I of Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. The party filed an appeal but the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his Order dated 13.6.2000 dismissed the appeal of the party holding the findings arrived at by the Original Authority.4. The present appeal is against the above order of Co...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Classic Electronics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents inspite of notice.2. Revenue filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final order passed by the Tribunal.3. The brief facts of the case are that respondents availed the benefit of MODVAT credit on the strength of Gate passes issued prior to 1.4.94 and endorsed thereafter and the credit was taken before 3.6.94. The Tribunal in view of the decision in the case of Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay-I, reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 620 (Tribunal) held that the endorsed Gate passes are valid duty paying documents.2. Heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the appeal papers.3. The contention of the Revenue is that now the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (Tribunal) held that the endorsed invoices are not valid duty paying documents. Therefore, the final or...

M/S. J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC99

1. Alongwith the appeal, appellant moved application No.E/S/456/2000-A praying for waiver of pre-deposit. When petition camp up for hearing we heard the Consultant representing the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative at light. We are disposing of the appeal itself.2. In the course, we are adopting in the appeal, we do not think it necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail. Suffice it to say that jurisdictional authority while finalising the provisional assessment, directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.83,232/- by way of duty. That amount was deposited. Subsequently, on the ground that there was short levy of duty show cause notice dated 16.3.99 was issued. After hearing the objection of the parities, Jurisdictional Officer demanded a further sum of Rs.23,08,618/-. It was in relation to the clearance of goods effected during the period from March 1997 to April, 1997. That order demanding additional duty was challenged in appeal. Appellate Authority directed ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. 1-4. M/S. Steel Stips Alloys Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this Reference for referring the following question of law: "1. Machine, Machinery, Plant, Apparatus, Tolls or Appliances etc. used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, are ineligible for MODVAT credit under the exclusion clause of Explanation to Rule 57A. Foundary Flux, IRL Mix, Refractories, Ramming Mass, Castable Powder and Mortar etc. are used as part of the furnace. Therefore, will not the Foundary flux IRL, Refractories, Ramming Mass, Castable Powder and Mortar be covered in the excluded category of items under Explanation to Rule 57A? 2. The terms Machine, machinery plant etc. have been used in the exclusion clause (1) to rule 57A in a general sense. If their constituents are taken as inclusive inputs when the plant or machine are not, will not the exclusion become superfluous and meaningless?" 3. The Couns...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Bansali Engg. Polymers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Vide Final Order No.A/823-28/99-NB dated 7.9.99, the Tribunal held that although none of the demand show cause notices issued to them specifically raised any demand on ABS waste, assessments during the entire period of demand were provisional under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules and hence the Assistant Commissioner was empowered to determine the final liability of the assessees on finalisation and that the assessments have been finalised vide the adjudication order which was the subject matter of the appeals. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the authorities below were empowered to demand on ABS waste and since there was no dispute about the amount of duty confirmed, the impugned order was upheld and the appeals of the assesses rejected. The assessees filed an application for rectification of mistakes which was disposed of vide Miscellaneous Order No.M/139/2000-NB date d 14.7.2000, wherein the Bench accepted the contention of the assessees that there was an error in treating ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Shree Ganesh Rolling

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT309TriDel

1. The Revenue filed this Reference application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court.: Whether the Electric Control Penal is a capital and was not a capital goods as per the definition of the goods under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules." 2. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice.4. The Tribunal in the final order held that the Electric Control Panels are part of magnetic lifts which cannot be operated without these electric panels and those control panels are part of the lifts.The Revenue is not disputing the fact that magnetic lifts are not entitled for the benefit of capital goods. In this situation Clause (b) of the Rule 57Q comes into operation which into operation which indicates parts of the machine and machinery mentioned in Clause (a) of the Rule. In view of the definition of the capital goods which also includes parts, the question of law has framed, does not arise form the final order. In ...

M/S. T. Raj Steels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT511TriDel

1. This Reference application is filed by M/s. Raj Steels. When the case was called Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of M/s. Raj Steels.3. In the final order the Tribunal followed its earlier order in Ankur Steels & Ors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad, reported in 1999 (31) RLT 322 (CEGAT) whereby the 11 appeals filed by different manufacturers were dismissed against the same impugned order which is impugned by the present appellants. It is brought to the notice by the learned JDR that in the earlier appeals, the manufacture filed ROM application, and thereafter, Reference application and the were projected by the Tribunal. In the present case, the appellants made a request to refer the following question of law to the Hon'ble high Court: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellants of the case, the Appellants Tribunal is right in holding that used and rejected re-rollable material of Iron & Steel i.e. old rails, wheel...

M/S. Lml Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT306TriDel

1. Revenue filed this reference application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court: "Whether MODVAT credit on Tool-Kits under Rule 57-A can be allowed when Tool-Kits are not covered by the term accessory".3. In this case in the final order the Tribunal after considering the amendment under Rule 57A of Central Excise rules- Whether the accessories were specifically included in the definition of inputs allowed the benefit of credit in respect of Tool-Kits supplied by the manufacturer along with the Scooters. The Tribunal while allowing the benefit of inputs in respect of accessories relied upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Suessen Textile Bearings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T.377 (Tribunal) where the Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Rule 57-A of Central Excise Rules will applicable to accessories like Tool-Kits supplied with the Motor. The contention of the Revenue is that acc...