Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Gian Casting Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT380TriDel

1. Appellants filed these appeals against the orders in appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. Gian Castings Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots. On 10.5.95, the Officers of the Revenue Department visited the factory and on physical verification of the stock of Ingots a shortage of 31.190 MTs of Ingots were found. During the search six Dharmkanda slips and one hand written slip were recovered from the Gate of the Factory.During the investigation, the appellants produced the record and out of 108 entries regarding weighment of Dharmkanda, the appellants were able to reconcile all the entries accept three. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the Steel ingots found short and also confirmed the demand in respect of 126.900 MTs of Ingots which were as per Revenue were removed without payment of duty. Penalty of Rs.25,000/- were imposed on M/s. Gian Castings Ltd. and penalty of Rs.15,000/- were impo...

Cce Chandigarh Vs. M/S, Jct Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 11.1.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had allowed the modvat credit on the goods in dispute by holding the same to be 'capital goods', to the respondents.2. It has been submitted by both the sides that the question as to whether the disputed goods fall within the ambit of 'capital goods' or not deserves to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority in the light of the latest Larger Bench decision in CCE Indore Vs. Surya Roshini, 20001(42) RLT 817(LB). We have also gone through the impugned order and the record and in our view the submission of both the sides deserves to be accepted. The decision of the larger Bench in the above cited case was not available to the Commissioner (Appeals) when he passed the impugned order. The question, whether the disputed goods satisfy the definition of 'capital goods' required to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority in the light of above said...

Commissioner of Central Excises, Vs. M/S. Karan Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts of the case are that officers of the Central Excise (Preventive) visited the factory premises of the respondents and found that they had collected an amount from their customers by raising separate debit notes on account of designing and cost of printing cylinders. They did not pay central excise duty on the amount collected. Therefore, a demand of Rs. 63,410/- was confirmed against them by the Deputy Commissioner who also imposed a penalty of amount equal to duty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty on the ground that the period of demand viz. 93-94 to 96-97 was prior to the introduction of Section 11AC in the Statute Book. Hence this appeal by the Revenue., 2. On hearing Shri Jagdish Singh, learned DR and Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate and perusing the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore vs. Elgi Equipments Ltd. reported in 2001 (42) RLT 974 SC in which ...

Pesticides India Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the claim of the appellants for refund of Rs. 34800/- paid as interest on warehoused goods in term of Section 61 of the Customs Act 1962 on the ground that the amendment to the section providing for payment of interest after 30 days from the date of warehousing and amendments came into operation in terms of notification 80/91-CUS dated 23.12.91 from that date itself, and not from 24.12.91 which is the date when the public notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The contention of the importers is that goods were already warehoused prior to the commencement of the amended provisions and therefore, they could remain warehoused for 90 days without attracting liability to interest. On the other hand it is the contention of the Revenue that the importer was liable to pay interest in respect of goods covered under bond dated 23.12.91 till the goods remained warehoused.3. On careful consideration of the rival submission, and noting that the d...

Cce Chandigarh Vs. Mewa Singh, Sdr

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 5.10.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he had allowed the modvat credit on the goods in dispute by holding the same to be capital goods to the respondents.2. It has been submitted by both the sides 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).3. We have also gone through the record and the impugned order and in our view the submission of both the sides deserve to be accepted. The decision of the Larger Bench in the above referred case was not available to the Commissioner (Appeals) at that time.4. Therefore, impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the law laid down in the above referred cas...

M/S. J.K. Industries Vs. C.C.E., Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.9,87,044.72.2. In this case the applicants received certain inputs at their unit at Kankroli and thereafter, transferred the inputs to their another unit situated at Banmore under the cover of subsidiary gate passs. Three show cause notices were issued on the ground that subsidiary gate peasses are not valid duty-paying documents. The Assistant Commissioner dropped the demand in all the cases and the revenue filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). In one case, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 15.11.94 dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, was allowed on the ground that subsidiary gate passes are not valid duty-paying documents for availing the credit.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the subsidiary gate passes were issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent after due verification and as in one case the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed ...

M/S. Jagannath (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Amit Awasthi, Advocate appearing for the appellants M/s.Jagannath Steel Ltd. prays for remand in terms of the airections given by the Tribunal in group of appeals in the case of Rajiv Allys & Ors. Vs. CCT Meerut-Final Order No.A/190-202/2001-NB(V) dated 28.2.2001. Shri Mewa Singh, the learned SDR has no objection as the matter has been discussed in detail by the Tribunal in the aforesaid order dated 28.2.1001. In similar terms this appeal is also remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise who will pass a speaking appealable order as per law after hearing both the sides. thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand.2. The cross objections filed by the Revenue are also disposed of in the above terms....

M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT453TriDel

1. Issue raised in this appeal is classification of Vanadium Sludge.Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of aluminium, wants to classify it under Chapter Heading 26.20, while Department ordered classification under Chapter sub-heading 2841.90. When this appeal came up before a Bench of two Members, that Bench took note of confecting decisions rendered by coordinate Bench of two Members, that Bench took note of conflicting decisions rendered by coordinate Benches of this Tribunal in final order No. 1972/1996 passed by the South Regional Bench at Maras in appeal No. S/2475/93-C and the decision of the East Regional Bench in Indian aluminium Company Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 1998, (24) RLT 763. The East Regional Bench, after noting the final order passed by the South Regional Bench differed from the law stated therein and classified the goods under Chapter Heading 28.21 (SIC) to this conclusion, the East Regional Bench in the reported decision on Rule 3(b) of the General R...

C.C.E., New Delhi Vs. M/S. Plastice Met Chem.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents filed a refund claim of Rs. 26,780/- but the same is rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, MOD-IV, Delhi vide his order dated 14.8.98. He has, however, ordered the amount of refund to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. the observations of the Assistant Commissioner extracted from his order are reproduced below:- "I have carefully gone through the submission made by the party as well as verification report of the concerned range officer. I find that the buyer M/s. Universal Cable Ltd. Satna (M.P.) has raised debit note for Rs. 20600.00 to the manufacturer i.e. M/s. Plastic Met-Chem Shahadra Delhi pertaining to invoice No. 15 dated 29.3.97 and 01 dated 26.4.97 as regard the remaining balance of Rs. 6180.00, as there is no documentary evidence produced by the party at the time of personal hearing. The scrutiny of the Refund Claim revels that the Refund is hit by the limitation laid down in Section 11B (2) (d) & (e). In view of above, I or...

C.C.E., Raipur Vs. M/S. Royal Forging (P) Ltd.

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.2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of inputs under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules was allowed on the ground that there is minor discrepancy in the declaration.4. The contention of the revenue is that the respondents filed a declaration declaring the inputs as alloy steel round falling under chapter heading 7214.90 and availed the credit in respect of M.S.Rounds falling under heading 7214.90 and M.S. rounds and alloy steel rounds are different in nature. therefore, the respondents are not entitled for the benefit of credit.5. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, held that there is minor variation in declaration. But the chapter headings in respect of both the items, declarated in the declaration and the inputs on which the credit has been taken, are the same. Further, Rule 57...