Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Ammonia Supply Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC61

1. A nice question regarding the scope and ambit of Note 10 to Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff arises for consideration in this appeal. For a proper understanding of this question a short resume of facts is necessary.2. The appellants before us are engaged in the activity of distributing Anhydrous Ammonia and Ammonia in aqueous solution known as liquid Ammonia. They receive Ammonia in compressed form in tankers from the manufacturer of Ammonia on payment of Central Excise duty under Chapter sub-heading 2814.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The said Ammonia is off-loaded from the tankers into cylinders of lesser capacity. The cylinders filled with the Ammonia are sold to various purchasers for meeting their requirements. The cylinders in which the Ammonia is sold are returnable by the customers for refillng. On the allegation that they were purchasing Ammonia in bulk and repacking the same in retail/marketable packs for sale to consumers which amounted to manufacture, show Caus...

M/S. Dredging Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. C.C. Bombay

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT647TriDel

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay denying the benefit of exemption under Noftn. No.262/58-Cus. dated 11.10.1958 on the spares imported along with the vessal.2. Shri D.V. Subbarao, ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri Ashok Kumar, DR for the revenue represented. The notification in question reads as - "Ocean going vessals other than vessals imported to be broken up are exempt from the payment of customs duty leviable thereon ....." Applying the reading of the same indicates that the exemption is limited only to "ocean going vessals". There is no mention in the notification regarding 'spares'. Therefore, we are of the view that spares imported by the appellants are not covered by the notification.Ld. Counsel for the appellants (SIC) upon the definition of 'spares' in Section 2 (38) and upon Section 87 of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides that any imported 'stores' may be consumed on board - a foreign going vessal without pay...

M/S. Kriti Indus. (i) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC294

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the applicants, in spite of notice.2. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of redemption fine.4. This application is filed under Sec. 35 F of the Act. Section 35 F of the Act provides that the Tribunal can waive the pre-deposit of duty or penalty for hearing of the appeal. As per provisions of Sec. 35 F of the Act, there is no power with the Tribunal to waive the redemption fine for hearing of the appeal. The application is dismissed....

Siddharth Petro Products Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the captioned appeal.3. Since the issue involved in the appeal relates to availment of Modvat credit, the very maintainability of the appeal is at stake before the Larger Bench of this Tribunal, which is seized of such question of maintainability, referred to it by this Bench from the case of Kissan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltds., In view of this position, the present application, so far as the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of duty is concerned, must wait fro the decision of the Larger Bench on the referred issue. However, as regards the prayer for stay of recovery, there will be an interim stay of recovery of the amount of duty involved in the appeal till final disposal of this application, in the interest of justice. The application is adjourned to 03.09.2001 for consideration of the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit....

M/S. Varun Fabrics Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Varun Fabrics Ltd., the matter relates to the inclusion or exclusion of galleries while computing the annual capacity of the independent processor in terms of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998.2. Both the sides agree that the matter is covered in favour of the appellants by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - 2001 (127) ELT 679 (Tribunal - Larger Bench). In that decision, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal had held that the galleries being merely empty spaces in which fumes coming out of chambers were collected and expelled through chimneys for prevention of pollution of surrounding area, were not to be treated as an equipment aiding the process of heat setting or drying of fabrics as contemplated in Explanation I to Rule 3 of the Hot Air Stentor Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determinatio...

C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S. A.G. Foods Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT666TriDel

1. The revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the classification of the goods, in question, is held to be under chapter heading 0404 of Central Excise Tariff attracting nil rate of duty. The confiscation of the goods is not justified.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a 100 per cent EOU engaged in the manufacture of whole egg powder. On 16.6.98, the officers of the revenue visited the factory and found that whole egg powder was classifiable under heading 2108 of Central Excise Tariff and liable to pay central excise duty and the goods now in dispute were taken into possession on the ground that these are not accounted for in their record with intention to clear the same without payment of duty.A show cause notice was issued to the respondent for re-classifying their whole egg powder. The adjudicating authority decided against the respondents. Whereas, o...

Jai Bhawani Con Cast Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance to the provisions of Sec. 35 F of the Act.3. The appellants filed appeal against the adjudication order before the Commissioner (Appeals) alongwith an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,58,930/- for hearing of the appeal. The appellants failed to comply with the stay order. Hence the impugned order was passed.4. Tribunal, vide stay order No. S/249/2001-NB(S) dated 19.4.2001, directed the appellants to deposit the whole of the duty. The appellants complied with the stay order and deposited the duty vide T.R. 6 Challan dated 21.05.2001. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the appellants had deposited the whole of the duty, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits....

M/S. Brawn Medicaments (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of duty amounting to Rs. 6,94,445/- and penalty of the same amount under Rule 57 I(4) of rules and of Rs. 3 lakh under Rule 173 Q of the rules.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal on the ground that duty and penalties are not deposited by the applicants and no application of waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties is file alongwith appeal.Ld. counsel submits that the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties was filed by the applicants, which was duly received in the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) on 5.5.1999. He produced a photo copy of the application, which is at page 17 of the appeal paper book. He, therefore,submits that as the applicants filed the application for waiver of duty and penalties before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals), the present matter requires re-considerat...

M/S. Amrit Papers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT222TriDel

1. Both the parties have been heard and the records perused carefully.This is an appeal against the Order-in-original No.36/CE/CHD/II/99 dated 23.9.99 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate II, Chandigarh praying inter alia that the impugned order demanding duty and imposing penalty be set aside. The appellants have filed the appeal contending that they are entitled to exemption under Notification No. 60/88-CE dated 1.3.88 in respect of newsprint cleared by them. the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of newsprint falling under subheading 4801.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 (for short "Tariff Act"). One scrutiny of the monthly return filed by the appellant in form RT 12 for the month of May and June, 1995 it was revealed that the appellant had clear Newsprint weighing 1805.289 MT valued at Rs.5,97,60,645/- (Rupees Five crores nintyseven lakhs, sixty thousands and six hundred forty five only) without payment of duty under the sa...

C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Smithkline Beechem Consumer

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, in spite of notice. Therefore, the appeal being taken up in the absence of the respondents.3. In this case, the issue is in respect of admissibility of MODVAT Credit on HSD Oil. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, vacated the order-in-original on the ground that the respondents had debited the entire amount in dispute.4. The contention of the revenue is that vide impugned order, the appeal filed by the respondents, was allowed. The respondents are not entitled for the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of HSD Oil.Therefore, the appeal cannot be allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals).Clause (1) of Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 provides that no credit of any duty paid on high speed diesel oil at any time during the period commencing on and from the 16th day of March, 1995 and ending with the day, the Finance Act, 2000 received the assent of the President, shall be deemed to be admissible.5. In...