Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Vijay Ispat Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order in original dated 27.1.2000 of the Commissioner. the issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to the abatement of duty for the closing period 28.5.98 to 10.3.99. The learned Commissioner had disallowed the abatement for this period to the appellants mainly on the ground that they failed to provide the meter reading and the stock position on the date of closure.2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that intimation regarding the closure of the unit was given vide letter dated 27.5.98 and on the very next dated i.e. 28.5.98 the stock position was also intimated to the competent authority by the appellants. Regarding the non-supply of the meter reading, the counsel has submitted that it was intimated to the Commissioner in both the letters dated 27.5.98 and 28.5.98 that the meter was under the seal of the UPSEB. Therefore, the Commissioner has wrongly disallow...

M/S. U.P. Twiga Fiberglass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of articles of glass fibre and are availing the benefit of MODVAT credit. The appellant were sending the inputs to the job workers under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules and on receipt of the goods from job workers, appellants were taking theMODVAT credit in respect of the inputs excluding the waste arisen in the manufacture as provided under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules. The waste generated in the manufacture of the goods at the hands of the job workers was allowed to be accumulated at the hands of the job workers. Two show cause notices were issued to the appellant for demand of duty in respect of the waste for the period October, 1996 to February, 1997 and March, 1997 to August, 1997.3. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. Appellant filed an appeal and the same was rejected.4. Learned Counse...

M/S. Rathi Udyog Ltd. Vs. Cce Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been directed against the order in original dated 15.3.99 passed by the Commissioner allowing the revision in the parameters of the appellants rolling mill w.e.f. 31.7.98 and not from 29.6.98 the date of their intimation.2. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the revised parameter of the rolling mill was to take effect from the date of intimation i.e. 29.6.98 when the appellants sent their letter to the Commissioner for revision int eh parameter and not from any subsequent date. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the Tribunal's judgement in Awadh Alloys (P) ltd. Vs. CCE Meerut, 1999(112) ELT 719 (Tribunal) and Shri Balaji Re-rollers Vs. CC&CE, BBSR-11.2001(42) RLT 310.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has contended that one month advance notice under the relevant rules was required to be given by the appellants before effecting the change in the parameters. He has referred to Notification No.32/97 dated 1.8.97.4. We ...

M/S. Chopra Appliances Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC418

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s Chopra Appliances, is whether they were affixing the excisable goods, manufactured by them, with the brand name of another person, making them ineligible for the benefit of exemption from payment of duty under Notification No.1/93-C.E., dt. 28-2-1993.2. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellate manufacture LPG stoves under their own brand names 'Snap' and 'Trendy'; that along side these brand names, they were also mentioning 'A SKN Product'; that since their goods were bearing their own brand names, they were availing the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.; that however the Dy. commissioner, Central Excise, under Adjudication Order No. 83/97 dt. 26-11-1997 confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,37,819/- under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for the period from 1994-95 to 1996-97, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs and confiscated the goods worth Rs. 4,51,200/- seized from their premises with a...

C.C.E., Raipur Vs. M/S. Birla Jute and Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT280TriDel

1. These two appeals are filed by the Revenue as well as assessee M/s.Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. M/s. Birla Jute and Industries Limited manufacture Cement Clinker and Cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed modvat credit during the month of November, 94 on certain items under Rules 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as Capital goods. However, proceedings were initiated against them which culminated in Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur passing an order dated 22/23.4.96 in which he denied the modvat credit of Rs. 6,96,499.22 to the party under rule 57-U apart from imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,67,159-84 on them.2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal vide his order dated 17.2.2001 allowed the modvat credit on some items involving an amount of Rs. 1,15,693.77 but rejected their appeal relating to other items involving the credit of Rs. 4,17,717.45. The lower appellate authority also...

C.C.E., Jaipur Vs. M/S. Udaipur Petro Synthetics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents.The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT Credit on capital goods was allowed. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, held as under: " I have gone through the case record. I find, vide the impugned order, modvat credit has been denied on 2 items, namely, (a) Motor Controls Centre Type Process and (b) Motor Control Central Type T.F.O. under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the grounds that these electrical goods do not produce electricity but control and facilitate power supply. There is a plethora of decisions allowing modvat credit on such electrical items. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside." 3. The contention of the revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals), while allowing the benefit of credit as capital goods, has not given any finding in respect of the eligibility of the goods in dispute as ca...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Continental Device India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Del)66; [2002]255ITR406(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN747(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C. J.1. Heard.2. Accepting a prayer for reference made by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law and facts in allowing the deduction under Section 80J in respect of plant No. 3 when admittedly there was no profit from the said plant?'3.The dispute relates to the assessment year 1982-83. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :The assessed, a company, had several plants. The dispute at hand relates to plant No. 3. In the return of income, the assessed claimed a sum of Rs. 2,28,590 as deduction under Section 80J of the Act. It was claimed that production had commenced in the previous year. The Income-tax Officer (in short 'the ITO'), noticed that there was no profit in the prof...

C.C.E., Bhopal Vs. M/S S.K. Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This matter relates to the availment of the modvat credit on the strength of the Gate Passes issued on or before 31.3.94 and endorsed after this date. The Revenue in their appeal have contended that vide Notfn. No. 16/94-CE (NT) dt. 30.3.94, credit was permissible on the strength of G.Ps issued on or before 31.3.94 and those endorsed prior to this date and not after this date. Therefore, the modvat credit on such endorsed Gate Passed after 31.3.94/1.4.94 is not admissible. I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, SDR for the Revenue. The respondents are not represented. It is observed that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of C.C.E., Ahmedabad-I vs. Gujarat Medicraft (P) Ltd. reported in 2001 (42) RLT 475 (Guj.) have held that the modvat credit on such Gate Passes endorsed between 1.4.94 to 30.6.94 is admissible. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court have further rejected the request of the Department for referring this question of law to them with the observation that "we do not find it nec...

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. C.C.E., Vadodara

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Gujarat Refinery, Vadodara (appellants herein) manufacture petroleum products falling under Chapter 25, 27 and 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were issued two show cause notices dated 21.1.97 and 2.7.1997 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-IV, Vadodara, demanding differential duty of Rs.2,27,242/- for the period from 23.7.96 to 3.9.1996 and Rs.2,82,796/- for the period from December, 1996 to May, 1997 respectively on the clearances of their products namely Super Kerosene (S.K.) (Industrial use) on the grounds as extracted below from each of these notices:- "It further appears that the assessee have classified their products namely superior-kerosene (S.K.) (Industrial Ose) under Chapter Sub Heading No.2710.90 of the Schedule to the C. MX. Tariff Act, 1985 prior to 22.7.96 and they were paying duty of excise @ 10% adv. on this product; that in the Budget for 1996-97 presented on 22.7.96 the ta...

C.C.E., Jaipur Vs. M/S Mangalam Cement Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents manufacture "Cement & Clinker" classifiable under Chapter 25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.During the month of December, 1994 to February, 1995, the respondents inter alia availed modvat credit amounting to Rs. 17,847/- on the items "Refractory Bricks and Three Phase - 4 wire KWH Electric Meter" as capital goods under Rule 57-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Asst.Commissioner of Central Excise, Kota, vide his Order dt. 22.12.95 denied them the modvat credit on these items and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on them.2. On appeal filed by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur vide his Order dt. 11.9.2000 allowed them the modvat credit on the above items but he made no observation with regard to the penalty imposed on them by the lower appellate authority.3. The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents have filed a cross objection with regard to the amount...