Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Majestic Auto Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-III, Ghaziabad vide his order dated 28.11.97 denied the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 4,58,056/- to the appellants on various grounds whichincluded the modvat credit availed by them on the control panel and starter panel as 'Capital goods' under rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This also included the modvat credit availed on the original copy of invoice in violation of provisions of rule 57-G.2. The party filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 3.12.99 allowed the appeal of the party in respect of the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,65,768.86 but rejected the appeal in respect of the balance of the amount.3. The present appeal relates to the total amount of the modvat credit of Rs. 1,26,280/- denied to the appellants by both the lower authorise.Shri V.S. Arya, Advocate, appearing for the appellants submits that out of this amount, the appellants have availed modvat credit of Rs. 7,...

C.C.E., Jaipur Vs. M/S. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that modvat credit is admissible to the assesses who are engaged in the manufacture of various chemicals namely, Caustic Soda, Bleaching powder, Chlorine Calcium etc. and availing modvat credit on various Boards and Control Panels, shunt release, pressure gauge and transmitter.2. According to the Revenue which has filed the above appeal, these items are not capital goods and assessees are not eligible to avail modvat credit in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. On hearing Ld. D.R. and perusing the records and noting the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Jawahar Mills Vs CCE Coimbatore 1999(108) ELT 47, I hold that credit has been rightly extended to the above items which are in the nature of electric items used for electrical distribution, and measuring instruments. Hence I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal....

M/S Karan Indus. and Satish Gupta Vs. Cce New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case vide stay order No. S/620-621/2000 NB, the appellants were directed to deposit entire amount adjudged against them and report compliance on 6.11.2000. On 6.11.2000, the appellants were dismissed for non compliance of section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, vide Final Order No. A/2098 and 99 of 2000 NB. The appellants moved ROA application No. E ROA 248/2000-NB for restoration of appeals and this application was dismissed vide miscellaneous order No. N/34/2001-NB dt 29.1.2000. On the ground that the appellants have not complied with stay order nor they were willing to comply with stay order. Present application has been filed once again for the restoration of stay application and the appeals, stating certains facts such as application for adjournment of hearing of stay application were not brought of the notice of the bench, thereby resulting ex-parte stay order.2. Perused the records and heard both sides. There is no ground for restoration since restoration application...

M/S. Smith Kline Beecham Consumer Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On the ground that appellant was clearing Coal Ash (cinder) without payment of duty, show cause notice was issued calling upon the appellant to excise duty to the tune of Rs. 1,14,236.00 in relation to cinder cleared from January 1998 to May 1998. Appellant took up the contention that cinder is not a product of any manufacturing process and consequently not excisable. This contention of the appellant was rejected by the adjudicating authority/Asst. Commissioner. Accordingly, he confirmed the demand of duty made in the show cause notice.Aggrieved by the said order, appellant went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). That authority by order-in-appeal No.1566/CE/CHD/99 dated 10-11-2000 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the duty liability imposed by the adjudicating authority. Hence, this appeal.2. In the case Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. vs. Union of India 2000(39) RLT 902, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed that cinder remaining from the coal that is b...

M/S. Patiala Casting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case, the appeal of the party is dismissed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Chandigarh for non-deposit as directed by him.But on an appeal, the Tribunal asked them to make a deposit of Rs. 25,000/- which is duly complied with by them.2. Since in this case the appeal of the party is dismissed by the lower appellate authority without going into the merits of the same and since subsequently they have made a deposit of Rs. 25,000/- as directed to them by the CEGAT, the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) is set aside and the matter is remanded to him for passing an order on merits of the appeal filed by the party. The appellants shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking a final view in the matter....

M/S. Patiala Pipe (P) Ltd., Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide order dated 19.6.2000 directed the appellants to make a pre-deposit of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- within a period of 15 days out of the total amount of duty of Rs.4,22,828/- confirmed on them by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Patiala vide order dated 28.5.99.2. The party moved a request petition dated 5.7.2000 before the Commissioner (appeals) for modification of his above order of pre-deposit in which it was also prayed that a personal hearing may be granted to them. Notwithstanding the request of the party, the Commissioner(Appeals) dismissed their appeal vide his order dated 31.8.2000 under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The present appeal is against the above order of the Commissioner(Appeals). The matter is listed today for hearing the stay petition filed by the party. I have heard Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Jain, SDR for the respondents. The learned counsel fo...

M/S. Takshila Spinners Vs. Cce Chanaigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT568TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order in original dated 21.4.2000 passed by the Commissioner vide which he had confirmed the duty demand of Rs.22,44,086.79 and imposed penalty of equal amount alongwith the interest, on them.3. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of woollen worsted yarn falling under Chapter 51 (sub-heading 5103.10) of the CETA. They were clearing this yarn in cones in the guise of yarn in plain (straight) reel hanks and wrongly availing benefit of Exemption Notification No.26/94-CE dated 1.3.94 as amended by Notification No.90/94-CE dated 25.4.94. On receipt of information, their factory premises were visited by the Preventive Staff of the Central Excise in the presence of Shri Sanjiv Aggarwal, Director of the appellants company. The staff conducted physical verification of the fully finished goods lying in the stock and the same were found in order as per balance recorded in the RG.1 Register. However, list of the various buyers...

M/S. Sangam Processors Vs. Cce Jaipur- 11

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order of the commissioner dated 30.3.2000. The issue involved in the appeal is as to whether the length of galleries can be included or not while determining the production capacity Hot Air Stenter is terms of Hot Air Stenter Independent textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998.2. It has been fairly conceded by both the sides that the above said issues already stand answered by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur 2001(42) RLT 429. In that case it has been ruled by the Larger Bench that galleries cannot be taken into account while computing production capacity of (sic) as it is not an equipment aiding the process of heat setting on drying of fabrics as contemplated by Explanation 1 to Rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules.3. The impugned order of the Commissioner runs contrary to the decision of the Larger Bench as he has taken into account galleries also while determi...

M/S. M.M.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application for stay of operation of Final Order No.02-07/2001/NB(DB) dated 7.10.2000 pending disposal of reference application numbered as Custom Act Case No.3/2001 filed before the Delhi High Court.2. Shri Sanjay Grover, ld. Counsel for the applicants brings it to our notice that the reference application has been dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 25.04.2001. Hence the above application is dismissed as non-maintainable....

M/S. A.C.C. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT433TriDel

1. Modvat credit has been denied on following items, holding that they are not covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57 Q of the Central Excise Rules:- 2. Ld.Adv. Shri Sudeep Singh submits that item No. 1 & 4 are electrical items while items 2 & 3 are in the nature of material handling equipments and all items are covered by various decisions of the Tribunal including larger bench decision in the case of Jawahar Mills Vs CCE Coimbatore 1999 (108) ELT 47, He therefore submits that the (CIS) order requires to be set aside and that it he held that the appellants are entitled to capital goods, credit on all the above 4 items. Ld.DR Shri J. Singh, reitrates the findings of the authorities below.3. On careful consideration of the submission of both sides the nature and use of the items is set out below:1. Spare Kit (8481.99) These are spare parts of solenoid value used for Bag2. Pitch 4-linked steel These are used for joining plates(7345) the bucket elevators which a...