Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S Punjab Fibre Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2001
1. Heard. This stay application arises out of the appeal no.E/672/2001-NB which has been filed against the impugned order-in-original of the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 27.12.2000 vide which he had confirmed the demand of Rs 21,53,094/- along with the equal amount of penalty on them.2. The appellants through the present stay application have sought the complete waiver of the entire duty and penalty amount on the ground that the Commissioner had wrongly denied the benefit of exemption notification no. 4/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 as the goods manufactured by them were mainly yarn, monofilament, tapes or strips on which the appropriate duty of excise had already been paid by them. The learned counsel has reiterated this ground before us. He has also pleaded the financial hardship of the appellants. However, the learned counsel submitted that appellants could deposit Rs 4 lakhs for the purpose of hearing of the appeal.3. The learned SDR, on the other hand, has reiterated the correctne...
M/S. Ajanta Electric Industries Vs. C.C.E., Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2001
1. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, MOD-IV, Delhi vide his order dt. 30.9.99 sanctioned the refund of Rs. 6,748.791 and Rs. 37,454.61 to the appellants and further permitted them to take the credit of these amounts in RG. 23A Part II account.2. The party filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi requesting for the payment of interest for the delayed period in sanctioning the refund as per the provisions of Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) in her order agreed that the party was entitled to the interest on the refund amounts under the said provisions and consequently allowed the appeal of the party by way of directing the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise to consider the request of the appellants for payment of interest on merits and pass the orders accordingly.3. This is the second stage appeal filed by the party. I have heard Shri V.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants and Shri S. Kumar, JDR for the...
M/S. Whale Stationery Products Vs. C.C.E., Meerut
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2001
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of stencil paper and carbon paper. The appellants started production of their goods in October, 97 and their factory (sic) visited by the excise officials on 29.1.98 and during the visit, 542 folders of stencil paper, 100 reams of typing carbon paper and 36 reams of pencil carbon paper total valued at Rs. 71,820.00, were found in the factory unaccounted in their statutory record. The goods were taken into possession. Show cause notice was issued and the adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods and gave option to the appellants to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25,000.00 and personal penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 was also imposed. The appellants filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of confiscation and, however, reduced the redemption fine and pen...
M/S Birla Vxl Ltd. Vs. Cc, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2001
1. For hearing their appeal, M/s Birla VXL Ltd. were required to pre-deposit a duty amount of Rs. 73,95569/- and penalty amount of Rs. 7 lakh along with the interest. Shri R. Sudhinder, advocate, submits that it was not correct that the appellants have not filed any reply to the show cause notice and they had also appeared for personal hearing. In the findings, however, the learned adjudicating authority has stated in para 5 as under- "Neither anybody turned up for personal hearing on 13.10.2000 nor any defence reply has been received. I note that lost of time has elapsed since the notice was issued. I, therefore, proceed to decide the case on merit." 2. After hearing Shri Mewa Singh, SDR, we consider that this matter has to be re-examined by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs after affording an opportunity to the appellants to present their case. The reply to the show cause notice has to be taken on record and has to be discussed before coming to a considered view. We, in the...
Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S. Citizen Rollingh Mills (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2001
1. In the present impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had recorded as under:- "I have gone through the case records. I find, there is a lot of merit in the submissions made by the appellants and accordingly the impugned orders are set aside and the matter remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for re-quantification of the duty amounts in terms of Corrigendum dated 24.08.99 (Supra) and subsequent CEGAT's Final Order dated 1.6.2000 (Supra)." 2. The CEGAT's order dated 1.6.2000 was in respect of the respondents themselves, M/s. Citizen Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. The Tribunal had held the re-determination of the capacity was to be applicable for payment of duty w.e.f. 17.11.98.3. After hearing both the sides, we find that the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had followed the Tribunal's aforesaid decision and the matter had been remanded for re-quantification of the duty amount.4. We consider that the Commissioner has taken a fair view in the matter ha...
M/S. Bpl Display Devices Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2001
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of colour picture tubes. The factory of appellants was visited by Preventive officers on 11.02.99 and it was found that defective colour picture tubes, received by the appellants, had undergone complete manufacturing activity. The colour tubes, received by the appellants were popped apart and out this salvaged colour picture tubes, only some parts were recovered. The appellants, with these recovered parts and (sic) manufactured picture tubes. Therefore, the duty was demanded on the picture tubes received for repair and cleared thereafter.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the picture tubes, received in the factory and Rule 173 H provides that a manufacturer may bring into factory excisable goods which need reconditioning or repair. He submits that this re-making or re-conditioning will not amount to manufacture if the goods are subsequently cleared after rectification of entity in the same form in which ...
M/S. Arsh Casting (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2001
2. The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the adjudication order and the appeal was dismissed vide impugned order for non-compliance to the provisions of Sec. 35 F of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with the appeal on merits. Against this order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Stay Order directed the appellants to deposit a sum of 50,000.00 for hearing of the appeal. The appellants have fully complied with the stay order.3. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, had not dealt with the merits of the case. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding afresh. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand. (Dictated in Court)....
Cce Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Khanna Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2001
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 27.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide which he had allowed the modvat credit on the goods in dispute by holding the same to be" to the respondents.2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. However, the respondents vide letter dated 21.4.2001 had requested for decision of the case on merits.3. It has been submitted by the learned SDR 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).4. We have also gone through the record and the impugned order and in our view the submission of the SDR deserves XXX to be accepted. The decision of the Larger Bench in the above referred case was not available to the Commissioner (Appeals) at that time.5. Therefore, impugned order ...
M/S. Noorani Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2001
1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed before him as barred by limitation on the ground that the period of limitation is to be computed from 27.9.99 which is the date of initial order of Deputy Commissioner rejecting the assessee's plea for condonation of delay in filing the declaration under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, and not to be computed from 26.10.99 which is the date when the office of the Deputy Commissioner issued a clarification. Learned Shri Anand submits that even if the limitation period is to be calculated from 27.9.99, the delay is only to the extent of about 7 days and if the appellants had been put on notice, they would have filed an application for condonation of delay for the consideration of the Commissioner (Appeals). He, therefore, prays that the order may be set aside and the matter remanded to the lower appellate authority. The prayer is opposed by the learned DR, Shri Jagdish Singh who contends that it is...
M/S Brown Medicements (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2001
1. The applicants were directed to deposit sum of Rs. 50,000/- within 8 weeks and report compliance today. Ld. counsel Shri J.S.Agarwal, submits that during the hearing of the stay application, attention of the bench was not drawn to the facts that payments for inputs were made by the applicants through the bank. He submits that inputs have been received and therefore there is no case for demand being confirmed against the applicants. He prays that stay order may be modified so as to dispence with pre deposit. The prayer is opposed by Shri Jagdish Singh, LD.D.R. on the ground that above arguments had already been advanced at the stay hearing stage itself and no ground for modification has been made out by the applicants.2. On careful consideration of submission of both sides I agree with Ld. D.R. that no new ground has arisen subsequent to the passing of the stay order. The applicants are seeking re-hearing of the stay application in the garb of modification application. Hence the app...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »