Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Modipon Fibre Co., Sh. S.C. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC95

1. The dispute is about valuation of yarn sold by the appellant from their Depots. A duty demand of about Rs. 47 Lakhs has been confirmed for the period 1994-97 holding that the deduction claimed by the appellant on account of Turn Over Tax was too high and that part of the goods had been sold to purchasers who were eligible for Turn Over Tax at exempted lower rates. A penalty of an equal amount also has been imposed under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act. Through this Stay Application the appellants seek waiver of pre-deposit of the duty demand and penalty. Learned Counsel representing the appellants has submitted that the duty demand is not legally correct, inasmuch as, the appellants had sought deduction only to the extent of Turn Over Tax payable on the goods sold form their Depots located at Gujarat. Since considerable time lag takes place between clearance of the goods from the Factory and their sale form the depots, appellant could not be expected to anticipate which par...

M/S. Hewlett Packard India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri R. Parthasarthy, learned Advocate seeks the permission of the Bench to withdraw the appeal. The same is granted. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....

C.C.E., New Delhi Vs. M/S. Steel Crafts

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts in this case are that the respondents are the manufacturers of excisable goods namely "M.S. Tubes & Pipes" falling under Chapter heading 7306.90. They availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 66,590.45 during the month of April, 1994 without producing the duplicate copy of the two Nos. invoices under consideration. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against them vide show cause notice dt. 29.9.94. In this notice, they were called upon to show cause why the above said amount should not be recovered from them under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11-A of Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 and further why a penalty under Rule 173Q should not be imposed on them for availing the modvat credit on inputs without producing duplicate copies of the invoices which are the valid documents for availing the credit under Rule 57-G read with Rule 52-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On considering the reply of the party, the Addl...

Ms. Kirpal Steels Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the appellant's claim for abatement of duty for the period 9.7.98 to 28.7.98 for the reasons that intimation of closure was not given either on the date prior to closure or on date of closure as required under Rule 96 Zo(2) but only on next date i.e. 10.7.98 and that the electricity meter reading was not furnished as required under same rule.2. The explanation of Ld. counsel for the appellants is that intimation of closure was given on 9.7.98 itself in the Range Office and intimation was given in the office and Assistant Commissioner on 10.7.98 and further electricity meter readding could not be given because the furnace had to be abruptly closed on 9.7.98.3. He therefore, submits that there is no violation of Rule zo(2) and that the abatement should have been allowed. Ld. D.R. reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority.4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the closure intimation and find that it has been...

M/S. U.T. Limited Vs. C.C.E. New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This matter was last called on 5.3.2001 when it stood adjournment to this date in the presence of Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.2. Today when the matter is called, the appellants are not represented.There is no communication from them either requesting for adjournment or giving reasons for their requesting for adjournment or giving reasons for their absence. It therefore appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeal....

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S National Fertilizer Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In spite of giving several opportunities to the Revenue, they have failed to produce the clearance from the Committee on Disputes.Therefore, all the three appeals are ordered to be dismissed with a liberty to the Revenue to get the appeals revived on receipt of the clearance from the Committee on Disputes. Order accordingly....

M/S. M.P. Iron and Steel Co. Vs. Cce Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Modvat Credit of Rs. 2,28,688/- has been disallowed on refractory and refractory materials (Foundry Flux and Chemical) on the ground that these are not eligible capital goods. In addition to penalty of rs.23000/- has been imposed upon the appellants.2. On hearing both sides and noting decisions in the assessee's own case reported in 1998 (29) RLT 696 wherein refractories and refractory materials have been held to be entitled to credit as capital goods under Rule 57Q subsequent to 16.3.95. I hold that the appellants made out strong prima facie case for waiver on merits. Accordingly I waive pre deposit of duty and penalty and stay recover thereof during the pendency of this appeal....

M/S Shinger Lamps Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for wavier of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 2,10,549.80 and a penalty of Rs. one lakh.2. The applicants/manufacturing florescent tube lamps and their factory was (SIC) by the excise officers on 31.08.91 and from the perusal of their private record for the period form April, 90 to August, 91, it was found that they had suppressed their production.3. Ld. Coundel, appering on behalf of the applicants, submits that the applicants are manufacturing florescent tube lamps and the florescent tubes are to be kept for testing after capping for 7 days (SIC) and only those tubes, which pass the quality test, are entered in the R.G.I record, Her submission is that this fact was duly explained by sh.Sood at eh time of visit of the excise officials. She, further, submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the applicants removed the goods, in question, without payment of duty. She submits that the factory is lying closed since 20.9.95 and ...

Swaraj Mazda Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(125)ELT959TriDel

1. In this case total amount of credit of Rs.5,12,450/- has been disallowed to the appellants who are manufacturer of motor vehicles.Out of the above amount Rs. 1,61,931/- has been disallowed on the ground that credit was taken on the strength of endorsed gate pass which are not valid for the purpose of taking credit and remaining amount of Rs. 3,55,519/- has been disallowed for the reason that invoice on the basis of which credit was taken did not contain the particulars such as rate of duty, amount of duty etc. as required under Notification No. 15/94 and 21/94.2. On hearing both sides, I agree with Ld. Counsel that credit of Rs. 1,61,931/- is admissible, in view of the order on reference application of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad Vs Gujrat Medicraft 2001(42) RLT 475 wherein the High Court has held that credit taken on gate pass issued before 1.4.94 and endorsed between 1.4.94 and 30.6.94 is admissible. Regarding remaining am...

M/S. Cmi Ltd. Vs. Cce Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The authorities below have rejected refund claim filed by the appellants as time barred on the ground that the earlier payment of duty under protest on waste & scrap of insulated wires & cables came to an end with the issue of Adjudicating authority's order dated 24.1.95 by which protest was vacated and C.L. filed by the appellant was approved holding that cut pieces of wires and cable should be considered as waste and scrap only.2. Ld. counsel Shri A. Lal submits that duty was paid under protest during the relevant period and therefore, in terms of clear language of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. the question of limitation does not arise and therefore, refund claim ought to have been sanctioned to the assessee. In this connection he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Calcutta 1985(22) ELT 522 (Tribunal), the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab High Court in the case of Oswal Oil and Ssoap Industries Vs CEGAT 1987 30 ELT 876 (P & H) and decis...