Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Rajasthan Chemicals and Glass Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. In these cases, the benefit of MODVAT Credit was denied to the manufacturers on the ground that the dealers, who issued the invoices, were not having the invoice of manufacturer in their favour.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that M/s. Guljag Industries Ltd., Jodhpur, are distributors of various manufacturers and M/s. Guljag Industries Ltd. have their branch offices at Jaipur, Jodhpur and Kota and these branch offices were also duly registered with the revenue authorities as dealers. The present appellants received the goods from various offices of M/s. Guljag Industries Ltd., who were duly registered as dealers with the revenue authorities. He submits that the goods were consigned by the manufacturers to various branch offices though the invoices were made in the name of M/s. Guljag Industries Ltd, Jodhpur as the orders were booked from Jodhp...

M/S. Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT254TriDel

1. This appeal has been directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.4.98 vide which he had affirmed the order in original of the Assistant Commissioner disallowing the modvat credit on the goods viz. dumper, sprag clutch and nylon tyre, hanger castings, oil circuit breaker and bucket elevator and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner in respect of items flexible pin bush type coupling, grinding disc wear plate and auto sampler for fresh consideration.2. It has been fairly conceded before us by the learned counsel that the items dumper, sprag clutch, nylon tyre and hanger castings and bucket elevator are used in the mines and are not covered by the definition of 'capital goods' under Rule 57-Q. Therefore, modvat credit on these goods as even not disputed by the counsel has been rightly disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner in respect thereof. Regarding the item oil circuit breaker, the Commissi...

M/S. R.S. Industries Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Vide stay order No.S/97/2001-NB (DB) dated 19.2.2001 the appellants were required to make pre-deposit of Rs.2 lakhs towards the duty within eight weeks from the date of the order. The appellants have, however, made deposit of only Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and produced copy of the TR-6 challan. The counsel for the appellants has moved an application for extension of time on the ground of financial hardship as the unit of the appellants is lying closed and they could not manage the entire pre-deposit amount. He requests that four weeks time more be given and by that time the appellants will make the deposit of the remaining amount. The learned SDR has got no objection to the acceptance of this request of the counsel. Therefore, the prayer of the counsel for extension of time from today by four weeks for making deposit of balance amount is allowed. To come up for reporting compliance on 6.6.2001....

Cce Delhi Vs. M/S. Maharishi Ayurveda Corpn.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT638TriDel

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeal) dated 29.12.2000 vide which he had reversed the order in original of the Assistant Commissioner who classified the product Herbonic of the respondents under sub-heading 2108.99 of the CETA and confirmed the duty demand of 33,197/- on them alongwith penalty of Rs. 8000/-.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of PP Ayurvedic medicament. The Assistant Commissioner classified their product Herbonic vide order in original dated 26.11.98 under sub-heading 2108.99 of the CETA and confirmed duty demand and also imposed penalty on them as detailed above. That order had been reversed in appeal by the Commissioner(Appeals) by holding that the product was classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 20.01 of the CETA. He followed the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the respondents' own case regarding this very product.3. The issue in the present appeal filed against the impugned orde...

M/S. Jai Ambe Plastex Industries Vs. Cce Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC422

1. The present misc. application dated 30.12.2000 received in the Registry on 31.2.2001 had been moved by the appellants seeking refund of the pre-deposit amount, but the perusal of the record shows that similar application moved by the appellants was dismissed by Two Member Bench of the Tribunal vide Misc. Order No.87/99/C dated 25.10.99 on the ground that the adjudicating authority had already passed a speaking order disallowing the refund claim. That being so, the present misc.application for the same relief, is not maintainable. Moreover, the refund claim of the appellants as even not disputed before us by the counsel had already been rejected by the adjudicating authority through a speaking order. That order of the adjudicating authority, as submitted by the counsel before us, had been already appealed against, by the appellants before the Commissioner. Therefore, keeping in view all these facts and circumstances the present application of the appellants not maintainable and the ...

M/S. Asia Overseas Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.10,000.00 imposed under Sec.112 of the Customs ACt, 1962.3. In this case, the applicants made an import of dry cell batteries and as per the Customs, they had violated the provisions of Notification 1/64-CUS in respect of trade mark. The contention of the revenue is that the good are false trade mark within the meaning of Section 77 of the Trade and Merchandise Mark Act, 1958. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it is not a fit case for waiver of the penalty. The applicants are directed to deposit entire amount of penalty i.e. Rs.10,000.00 within a period of one week and report compliance on 08.05.2001. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. Northpole Rubber and Allied Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount of Rs.10,000.00 imposed on the applicants under Rule 173 Q and under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules.3. The contention of the applicants is that the unaccounted goods were lying in the factory and there was no mens rea on the applicants to removed the same without payment of duty. The contention of the applicants is that they were exporting all their product, which was in the knowledge of the revenue authority. The applicants also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. vs C.C.E. reported in 2000 (91) ECR 569 (T) to say that in absence of any mens rea unaccounted goods found in the factory, the manufacturer is only liable to fine of Rs. 2,000.00 under Rule 226 and no penalty can be imposed under Rule 173 Q of the Rules. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and as the applicants were duly registered with the revenue authorities, they ...

M/S Girdharilal Sugar and Allied Vs. C.C.E., Indore.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellants filed these appeals with application for condoning the delay on the ground that the main appeal is filed within time.4. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide impugned order, disposed of three appeals filed by appellants. The appellants filed one appeal within the period of limitation. However, now the appellants have filed two supplementary appeals. As the first appeal is filed within time, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned. Registry is directed to list the stay application on 18.5.2001. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. AustIn Circuits Ltd. Vs. C.C.E, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants.The Tribunal, vide Stay Order No. S/114/01/NB(S) dated 27.02.2001 directed the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000.00 in addition to pre-existing deposit of Rs.20,000.00. Today none appeared on behalf of the appellants nor there is any evidence produced by the appellants to show that the applicants have complied with the stay order. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of Act....

Shri Keshav Kumar, Shri Bhola Nath Vs. Cc Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1.The four stay applications arise out of the four appeals bearing Nos.E/101/2001-NB, E/102/2001-NB, E/103/2001-NB and E/104/2001-NB directed by the appellants against the common impugned order of the Commissioner dated 30.11.2000 vide which he had imposed penalty of Rs.10 lakhs on appellant No.(1), Keshav Kumar, Rs.20 lakhs on Ashok Dhanwani, appellant No.(2) and Rs.25000/- each on Prakash Chand Thakur and Bhola Nath Thakur, appellants No.(3) & (4) respectively on account of recovery of 192 chaursas weighing 154.012 Kgs. and one silver slab weighing 36.300 Kgs. of foreign origin from the refinery owned by Shri Keshav Kumar, appellant No.(1).2. Through the present stay applications total waiver of the penalty amounts by the appellants has been sought mainly on the ground of financial hardship. The counsel has, however, offered to make deposit of 20% of the penalty amounts imposed on appellants, Keshav Kumar and Ashok Dhawnani. But regarding the other appellants, he has submitted t...