Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S Kamineni Hospitals Ltd. and Vs. Cc, Hyderabad Ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC399

1. These are applications filed by the appellants for leave to produce additional documentary evidence. Application No. 270 is for production of a certificate issued on 6.3.2000 by Indian Medical Association, Hyderabad City. Application No. 273 is ditto, a copy of the above application No. 270 having been separately numbered as 273 by the Registry unnecessarily. Application No. 403 is in respect of the following documents :- (3) The certificate issued by the Customs department dt. 1.3.1996 cancelling the three PD bonds.3. Sh. A.K. Jain, counsel for the applicants, submitted that the IMA certificate dated 6.3.2000 was not available at the adjudicatory stage of the case and that the document was necessary to show that the adjudicating authority's understanding of the expression "outdoor patient" was not correct. If the expression was understood in the way it was used in medical parlance as certified by IMA, the appellants would be found to have fulfilled the conditions of Notification N...

M/S. Narendra Products Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT50TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Narendra Products, the issue involved is whether penalty is imposable on them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules as the amount of duty had been deposited by them even before issue of the show cause notice.2. The Appellants have submitted written submissions under letter dated 28.5.2001. They have submitted that the duty of Excise amounting to Rs.96,000/- involved in respect of 50 bags of 'Sarvapriya Shankar Brand Gutkha' cleared from the factory during the period from 19.1.194 to 14.5.94 without payment of duty had been deposited by them even before the issue of show cause notice; that in such a situation penalty is not imposable in view of the following decisions:-Siemens Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad (iii) Tata Engg. & Locomotive Co. Ltd. - vs. CCE, Patna, 1994 (72) ELT 882 (Trib.) (iv) Sunsilk Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. - Vs. CCE, Vadodara, 1999 (105) ELT 56 (Trib.) (v) Bhavani Mills Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1994 (94) STC 1...

M/S Northern Minerals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC384

1. These appeals are against the order dated 15.05.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise classifying the product "Dhanzyme" M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. under Chapter Sub-heading (CSH) No.3808.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, demanding Central Excise duty of Rs.37,58,560.00 on the clearances of the product for the period 1995-96 to September 1988 by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso the Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, demanding interest on the duty amount under Section 11AB of the Act, imposing penalty (equal to duty) on the Company under Section 11AC of the Act and also imposing personal penalties of Rs.1 lakh each on Shri R.G.Agarwal (Managing Director of the Company) and Shri Arun Kumar Dhanuka (Managing Director of the Company) under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. Appeal No.2055 is by the Company and appeal Nos.2055 and 2057 are by Shri A.K.Dhanuka and Shri R.G. Dhanuka and Shri R.G.Agarwal respectively.2. We have ca...

Rine Machine Tools Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and has arisen in an appeal involving modvat credit issues. For the purpose of consideration of the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty, this application must wait for the decision of the Larger Bench on the issue of maintainability of appeals of the above kind, referred this Bench from the case of Kissan Sehkari Chinni Mills Ltd. However, the prayer for stay of recovery will be considered at this stage in the interest of justice. Accordingly, there will be an Interim stay of recovery of the duty amount till final disposal of the application. The application is posted to 7.8.2001.2. Since there is no representation for the applicants today, notice must issue....

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. Gatiman Auto Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in the manufacture of parts of two wheeler and 4 wheeler motor vehicles and availing modvat creditin terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules 1944. Show cause notice No. 708 dated 19.1.95 was issued to them proposing denial of credit of Rs.1,43,855/- and recovery of the same, on ground that it was taken on invoices which did not confirm to the prescribed proforma and have been issued by registered dealers.2. Another show cause notice No.1042 dated 19/30 January 1995 was issued seeking to deny credit of Rs.1,05,571/- and recovery of the same for the reason that it was taken on invoices which did not contain the requisite information such as manufacture's invoice No. and date, quantity,value etc., although the invoices were issued by registered dealers. The dealer in question is M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner adjudicated both the notices by common order dis-allowing total credit of Rs.2,53,52...

M/S. Falcon Air Cargo and Travels (P) Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT300TriDel

1. This application was filed by the Custom House Agents viz. M/s Falcon Air Cargo & Travels (P) Ltd. claiming that certain questions of law arose out of Final Order No. A/500-502/99-NB(DB) dated 28.05.1999 passed by this Bench in the captioned appeals (including the CHA's appeal) and prying that such questions be referred to the jurisdictional High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The questions as formulated by the applicants are as under:- "1. Whether penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, can be imposed on the applicant in the absence of any penalty proceedings against the exporter M/s Ski Air Exports (P) Ltd. to whom no show cause notice was issued even though in the main body of the show cause notice, M/s Ski Air Exports (P) Ltd have been required to show cause to the Commissioner of Customs (ICDs), ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, as to why the impugned goods should not be imposed on them for attempting to export goods illegally under Section 114 of the C...

M/S. Krishna and Co. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC292

1. In this application, the applicants pray for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs.2,77,389/- and the penalty amount of Rs.20,000/- and for stay of recovery of the said amounts.3. The aforesaid amount of duty was directed to be paid as per the impugned order which was passed in adjudication of a show-cause notice which proposed to recover the duty on goods alleged to have been removed clandestinely from the applicants' factory during the period 25.5.92 to 12.6.92. The applicants have now approached the Tribunal in the second round of litigation in respect of the said show-cause notice. In the first round, they had obtained an order of remand from the Tribunal. By the said remand order, the Tribunal had directed the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the show-causes notice afresh after a second verification of the records and consideration of the party's defence in the light of the documentary evidence on record. The main grievance of the applicants in the present round o...

M/S. Grasim Industries Vs. Cce Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 31.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had disallowed the modvat credit on the goods in dispute by holding the same not to be "capital goods" to the appellants.2. It has been submitted by both the sides that the question whether the disputed goods in question satisfied the definition of 'capital goods' or not for the purposes of modvat credit, requires re-examination in the light of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in CCE Indore Vs. Surya Roshini, 2001(42) RLT 817(LB).3. We have also gone through the record and the impugned order and in our view the submission of both the sides deserves to be accepted. The decision of the Larger Bench in the above referred case was not available to the Commissioner at that time.4. Therefore, impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Commissioner for fresh decision in the light of the law laid down in the above referred case...

Mr. Syed Zakishrati, Md and M/S. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC708

1. These are the appeals filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Original No.11/Commr/MF/2000 dated 4.2.2000 passed by Shri Kailash Sethi, Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Kanpur confirming (1) the demand of Rs.33 lakhs against M/s. Zarafshan Chemical Ltd. under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short "Rules") read with proviso to Section 11 A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "Act"): (2) imposing mandatory penalty of Rs.33 lakhs on the assessee under Section 11 (AC) of the Act since the duty had been evaded by suppression of facts. The assessee has also been directed to pay interest in terms of Section 11 AB of Act; (3) imposing penalty of Rs.1 lakh on the assessee under Rule 173Q of the Rules. (4) imposing a penalty of Rs.2 lakhs on Mr. Syed Zaki Ishrati, MD under Rule 209 (A) of the Rules; (5) imposing a penalty of Rs.1 lakh on Mr.Sharad Upadhyay, Accountant, under Rule 209 A of the Rules; and (6) imposing a penalty of Rs.1 lakh on Mr. Faiyaz A...

M/S. Treasure Tech Electronics Vs. C.C.E, Delhi - I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture PCBs falling under Sub-heading 8534.00.They were converted into 100% EOU vide Department of Electronics, EHTP Secretariat letter dt. 16.12.97. They were accordingly permitted to manufacture the goods under bond and were also permitted to make advance DTA sales upto Rs. 50 lakhs from August, 1998. For the period from August, 1998 and part of November, 1999, they cleared goods to the DTA and paid duty as per Notfn. No.2/95-CE dt. 4.1.95. The Classification List filed by them however did not indicate that they would be availing exemption under this notification for the DTA clearances. On assessment of the Rt 12 returns filed by them for this period, it was pointed out to them that their clearances in the DTA had substantially exceeded the permissible limit of Rs. 50 lakhs accorded to them. Consequently, they got their EHTP unit debonded under EOU to zero duty EPCG Scheme by the Director, Software Technology Park of India vide his letter dt. 26.11.99 and thei...