Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Ganganagar Sahkari Spg. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the impugned order the Ld. Commissioner held that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Bojaraj Textile Mills Ltd.reported in 1990(45)ELT.559 after examining the matter held that the test result of the sample will apply till drawal of the next sample. It was further held "It must be remembered that the Department cannot be expected to take sample every day and for every bale. A sample is taken periodically at regular intervals and the test result of such a sample is taken to govern production of yarn till the next drawal of the sample. Therefore, the contention that the sample was taken on 30.12.75 and assessment may be made only in respect of the stock available on that date, when the sample was taken, and, on the basis of Chemical Examiner's report for that sample, goods manufactured in future could not be levied the same rates, cannot be accepted as a ground for interference in the order of the Single Judge".Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the ...

C.C.E., Chandigarh-1 Vs. Indian Harness Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is a Revenue's appeal against the order dated 17.10.2000 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh in which he has allowed the modvat credit of Rs. 9,160/- availed by the party on the gate pass issued before 31.3.94 and endorsed after this date. In holding so, the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the decision of CEGAT in Moosa Haji Patrawala - 1996 (84) ELT - 620.2. I have heard Shri Swatantar Kumar, JDR for the appellants. The only ground taken by the Revenue in their appeal is that the decision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is already in reference before the Hon'ble High Court. The fact that the matter is under consideration by the High Court in a Reference Application in itself cannot be a ground to not to follow the ratio of a well settled decision. Besides, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in C.C.E., Ahmedabad Vs. Gujarat Medicraft Private Ltd. - 2001 (42) RLT - 475(Gujarat) have also refused to issue any direction to the Tribunal to refer the question of la...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Pratap Steel Rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has prayed that the following questions of law arising out of the Final Order No./A/946-948/98-NB (SM) dated 3.8.1998 be referred to the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court:- "Whether Ramming Mass, Refractory motors and Fire Clay Refractories declared as inputs under Rule 57-A covered int eh excluded category of items in terms of explanation to Rule 57A could be legally eligible for the benefit of modvat. The terms machine, machinery, plant, etc. have been use in exclusion clause (i) in a general sense. If their constituents are taken as inputs where the plant and machine is not, then the exclusion clause will be superfluous and meaningless".2. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the inputs were ramming mass and Fire Clay Refractories. The Commissioner of Cental Excise (Appeals) following the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. A.B. Tools Ltd.- 1994 (1) RLT 474 (Tribunal) had allowed the modvat credit with regard to ramming mass. As regards the Fire Clay Refrac...

M/S. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This stay application arises our of appeal No.E/254/2001-NB against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13.11.2000 dismissing their appeal under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for non-compliance with the stay order dated 25.9.2000 directing them to make pre-deposit of es. 59,15,002.78 and penalty of Rs.1 lakh.2. In the present stay application the appellants have sought complete waiver of the duty and penalty amounts. The learned counsel has contended that the appellants have a very strong arguable case as the restriction regarding to the modvat credit vide Notification No.14/97-CE dated 3.5.97 did not apply to residual fuel oil falling under Chapter Heading 27 of the CETA beig not specially mentioned therein. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have allowed the waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts and heard the appeal of the appellants on merits. The counsel has also pleaded the financial hardship of appellants in making the pre-deposit...

Cce, Raipur Vs. Ms Modi Cement Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT747TriDel

1. According to the revenue following two issues came up for decision before Tribunal ; a) that, Furnace Oil and Light Diesel Oil cannot be considered to be covered within the meaning and ambit of 'Inputs' specified under Rule 57-A because they were used for generation of electricity and were not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product viz. Cement. b) that, M/s Modi Cement Limited, Modigram, had taken input modvat credit under Rule 57-A without filing valid Declaration under Rule 57-G on or after 1-3-94 when Fuels were specified as an input under Notification No. 4/94-CE(NT) dated 1-3-94.2. Ld.SDR submits that Tribunal has decided only the first issue relating to admissibility of modvat credit under Rule 57A on Furnace Oil and Light Diesel Oil during the period 1.3.94 to 15.3.95, holding that the two items are inputs and allowing the appeal of M/s Modi Cement Ltd on this ground, but the Tribunal has neither discussed nor given any finding on the 2nd issue which resu...

M/S. Arti Strips (P) Ltd., M/S. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these four appeals, the common issue for our consideration is, whether the furnaces of the appellants were pusher type of batch type.The matter had come up earlier before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise to re-examine the issue with the help of technical experts and in the light of the technical literature on the subject. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, had taken up the matter for re-examination and after the help of the technical experts passed a detailed speaking appealable order. He has duly taken note of the submissions by the re-rolling mills and had come to a decision that the furnaces were pusher type furnaces.2. Shri K.K. Anand, advocate, submits that the furnaces of the appellants were batch type and they could not be considered as pusher type furnaces. They had placed their evidence before the adjudicating authority. He submits that the view taken by the adjudicating authority was...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. Narendra Kumar Garg

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. While disposing of the five appeals filed by (i) M/s. Sabarmati Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd., (ii) Shri Narendra Kumar Garg, (iii) Shri Vijay Kumar Garg, (iv) Shri Rakesh Kumar and (v) Shri Arvind Kumar Agarwal, the Tribunal has dismissed these five appeals as withdrawn.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, Advocate had submitted that the matter has already been settled under the Kar Vivad Smadhan Scheme.3. Without going into that question, on the request of the appellants, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. I do not consider that there is any mistake in the operative part of the order.4. In the present ROM application, Revenue has contended that the one of the parties, Shri Narendra Kumar Garg had not been issued the certificate of full and final settlement of tax arrears under Section 90 (2) read with Section 91 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 in respect of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. These were the appeals by the appellants and their prayer for withdrawal had been accepted. It could not be ...

M/S. Devidayal Aluminium Indus. Vs. Cce, Meerut-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called. None appeared for the applicants. A request has been made by the Consultant that he has been advised rest by the Physician.2. Shri. A.K. Jain, SDR submits that in the present application for the rectification of mistake, the applicants have prayed for the all recall of the order, which is not permissible under the law. The order has been passed after taking note of all the relevant facts and there is no mistake apparent on record. He prays for the dismissal of Rectification of Mistake Application.3. I have gone through the facts on record. In this appeal filed by M/s. Devidayal Aluminium Indus. (P) Ltd., It had been alleged that they had wrongly taken and utilised modvat credit of Rs.19,691/-during July, 1997 to November, 1997 in respect of the goods used in the fabrication of skid rails, skid tubes and stands. These skid rails, skid tubes and stands were fabricated for holding the material and pushing the same through the furnace for slab heating and anneali...

Syncom Formulation (i) Ltd. Vs. C. C. E., Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.Their factory premises were visited by the Preventive officers of the Central Excise on 11.9.96 and on scrutiny of the record, they found that in respect of the medicines manufactured during the period from 6/95 to 8/95, a total quantity of medicaments valued at Rs. 14,32,633/- involving central excise duty of Rs. 2,14,895.46 was cleared without payment of duty. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against them and they were issued a show cause notice dated 9.10.98 calling upon them to show cause why the aforesaid amount of duty should not be recovered from then and a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and further a penalty under rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 should not be imposed on them. The party pleaded before the adjudicating authority that the goods in question were rejected by their Quality Control De...

M/S. S.N.A.G. Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This stay application arises out of appeal No.E/442/2001-NB filed by the appellants against the impugned order of the Commissioner dated 19.10.2000 vide which he dismissed their appeal under Section 35-F of the Central Excises Act for having failed to comply with the terms of the stay order dated 19.6.2000 requiring them to make pre-deposit of Rs.4 lakhs within a period of 15 days from the date of order.2. The appellants have sought in the present stay application waiver of the entire pre-deposit amount for the purposes of hearing of their appeal on merits. The learned counsel has contended that the deemed modvat credit of the disputed amounts was rightly taken by the appellants in terms of Notification No.58/97-Ce(NT) dated 30.8.97 on the basis of the invoices during the period 3.1.98 to 26.2.98 in question on the inputs as duty in respect thereof stood already discharged by the manufacturers under Section 3A of the Central Excises Act. The appellants had prima facie case but the ...