Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Bharat Heavy Electricals Vs. C.C.E., Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants.The appellants is a Public Sector Undertaking and is governed by the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.N.G.C. reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 3.2. The requisite permission to pursue the appeal from the Committee on Dispute is not produced by the appellants, in spite of six opportunities granted. The appeal is dismissed. However, the appellants shall have liberty to apply for restoration of the appeal on getting the permission from the COD. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. J.S.T. Engineering Services Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC777

1. The appellant challenges the correctness of order-in-original No.78/Commr/2000 dated 21-11-2000. As per that order, a duty liability of Rs. 59,62,707.17 was imposed on the appellant, on the goods cleared during the period from 31-7-1986 to 31-5-1991. The goods stated to have been cleared are storage tanks constructed for Damodar Valley Corporation and CW pipes for circulating water in the plant.2. Learned counsel representing the appellant submitted that the tanks constructed were huge storage tanks, which, under no circumstance, can be called as movable items. In support of this argument, the learned counsel relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Bombay vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., AIR 1991 SC 686.As per the test laid down by the Apex Court, no one treat the huge storage tanks set up by the appellant to be goods coming within the preview of Central Excise Act, 1944.3. In relation to the pipes, it was argued that they were constructed at the site....

M/S. Shakti Tools and Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case duty demand of Rs. 2,42,972.96 arises as a result of denail of the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.93 for clearances of unbranded goods during the period 10.10.95 to 31.3.96 on the ground that since they applicant had paid full rate of duty on the goods bearing brand name manufactured by them from 1.4.95 to October, 1995 and had opted not to avail of the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 at the beginning of the financial year, they were not eligible for the benefit of SSI Notification in the same financial year.2. On hearing Shri V.R. Sethi, ld. Advocate and Shri Ashok Kumar, ld.JDR, we are of the view that issue is contentious and hence it cannot be said that the applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for total waiver on merits. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we direct the applicant to deposit Rs. One lakh towards duty within a period of six weeks from today and report compl...

C.C.E. Bhopal Vs. M/S. Abs Refractories Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the MODVAT Credit was denied to the respondents only on procedural lapse.2. The contention of the revenue is that the respondents availed the benefit of credit in respect of the duty-paid inputs, which were received prior to filing of declaration under Rule 57 G of the Rules.As the inputs were received prior to filing of the declaration, they are required to apply for condonation of delay in filing the declaration. The respondents also filed their claim under Rule 57 H of the Rules. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit on the ground that in the application for condonation of delay no valid reason was mentioned and the respondents also had withdrawn their claim under Rule 57 H of the rules. The contention of the revenue is that the Commissioner, in the impugned order, held that these are procedural lapses. The revenue...

M/S. P.P. Dutta Wg Commander Vs. Ccn, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Advocate submits that the present appeal has been filed by the Custom House Agent and that the licence has been revoked by the Commissioner of Customs (Generals). He submits that it is the question of livelihood of the Customs house agent. He has employed number of persons. While he is not pressing for the stay of the order, his only prayer is for early hearing.2. Sh. Mewa Singh, ld. SDR has no objection. The matter to come up for hearing on 15th June, 2001....

M/S. Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT650TriDel

1. The issue in dispute, in this appeal relates to the admissibility of the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 123/81-CE dated 2.6.81 to weigh bridges and M.S. Gratings used in the factory of the appellants herein who are 100% Export Oriented Unit.2. On hearing both the sides, we note that in the assessees own case [reported in 2001 (42) RLT 375, CCE, Chandigarh vs. Oswal Agro Furane Ltd.], the Tribunal has held that the same items are eligible to the benefit of the same Notification as both are used in connection with manufacture of the goods - M.S. Gratings are used for stairs connecting different floors and weigh bridges are used for weighting incoming and outgoing consignments. The Tribunal has rejected the appeal of the Revenue. Following the ratio of the above order which in turn follows the larger Bench decision in the case of Kudremukh iron Ore Ltd. vs.CCE Banglore [2000 (41) RLT 138], we extend the benefit of Notification to the items in question, set aside the...

M/S. Givo Limited and Shri M.K. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appeals C/50/2001-A and C/70/2001-A arise out of order-in-original No. 60A/Adj./S.Kak/2000 dated 29-9-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, New Delhi. As per that order, imported goods valued at Rs. 6.31 crores were confiscated under Section 111(m) and (o) of the Custom Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with option to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 2 crores. He also confirmed the demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 12.62 crores as the goods as classifiable under Chapter Heading 98.03 as baggage. Personal penalty of Rs. 2 crores was imposed on the company under Section 112(a) of the Act. Managing Director and Vice-Chairman of the company, Shri M.K. Dhir was directed to pay a further penalty of Rs. 1 crore under Section 112(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order-in-original, the company and the Managing Director have come up in appeal by preferring these two appeals.2. Along with the appeals applications paying for waiver of predeposit and stay o...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Sonia Engineering Works Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the Revenue. As per the show cause notice, more than Rs. 16 lakhs were claimed by way of duty from the respondent/assessee. That demand was reduced by the Commissioner while adjudicating on the show cause notice and confirmed the demand of Rs. 13,50,059.00. According to the Revenue, the Commissioner was clearly in error in confirming the reduced duty amount. Commissioner, while adjudicating upon the show cause notice, was following the principles stated by this Tribunal in its larger Bench decision in Srichakra Tyres Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, 1999 (108) ELT 361. This fact is not in dispute. Since the Commissioner was following the principles stated by the larger Bench of this Tribunal, we do not find any ground to interfere with his order. It, therefore, follows that the appeal is devoid in substance. It is accordingly dismissed....

M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both the appeals are filed against the common order-in-appeal. In the impugned order, the refund claim, filed by the appellants, was dismissed as time-barred.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of telephonic exchanges falling under chapter heading 85 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants cleared the final product on payment of duty.However, the appellants received some of the goods back, which were cleared on payment of duty. D-3 intimation was submitted to the Revenue and after repair and re-conditioning, the goods were again cleared on payment of duty and, thereafter, the appellants filed a refund claim under Rule 173 L of the Central Excise Rules. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for rejecting their refund claim being time-barred. The adjudicating authority rejected their refund claim and the appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed.4. The contention of the appellants is that the repair and re-conditioning of the duty-paid goods is also...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. D.K. Alloys, Ludhiana

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)LC66Tri(Delhi)

1. The respondent in this appeal, manufactures of hot Re-rolled products of non-ally steel, were working during the relevant period under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 3A ofthe Central Excise Act. Under the Scheme, they were required to discharge duty liability on their final products on the basis of the Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) of their mill as determined under the provisions of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 (in short, ACP Rules). The appellants declared the various parameters of the mill to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of Rule 3(1) of the ACP Rules on 11.09.1997. On that basis, their ACP was provisionally determined at 8204.082 MT per annum by the Commissioner. Subsequently, the officers of Central Excise visited the appellant's factory and conducted a verification of the parameters. The verification disclosed the value of one of he parameter...