Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Cit Vs. Continental Device India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Del)212

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to give rebate in the tax payable to the extent of Rs. 67,785 for the amount deposited in IDBI in lieu. of surcharge in accordance with the provisions of section 2(6) and (8) of the Finance Act, 1976 although for assessment year 1978-79 tax was to be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act, 1978, which did not provide for such concession?'Dispute, as the question itself indicates, relates to the assessment year 1978-79.2. Factual position, which is almost undisputed, is essentially as follows :For the assessment year in question previous year ended on 30-6-1977. The assessed, a company, was assessed u...

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. Vikram Super Cement

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT323TriDel

1. These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against a common order dt. 23.2.99 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. The brief facts are that the respondents manufacture 'Cement' falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 2502.29 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were inter alia availing the modvat credit on 'inputs' under Rule 57-A and as 'capital goods' under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.They were denied the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 82,476/- on the following items claimed by them as capital goods under Rule 57-Q.2. Last item at Sl. 4 above is also claimed alternatively as 'input' under Rule 57-A.3. The party filed an appeal against the order of the Asst.Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dt. 23.2.99 allowed the appeal of the party setting aside the order passed by the original Authority.4. This is the Revenue appeal against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri. J. Singh, JDR for the appellants. The resp...

M/S. Flex Industries and Flex Vs. C.C.E. Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above three appeals involve the common issue of admissibility of modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules and hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. M/s Flex Industries Ltd. are manufacturers of Plastic film falling under chapter heading 3920.31. Credit has been denied by them on items such as material handling equipments, Lightning Arrester, G.I. Steel Structure, G.I. Steel Rods on the ground that these items are not covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q.3. M/s Flex Engineering Ltd are the manufacturers of various types of packaging machines etc. Modvat credit has been disallowed to them on items such as electric fans, Shapes and Sections, Copper Sheets, Industrial wet/Dry vacuum cleaner, EPS Sheets etc. on the ground that these are not covered within the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. In appeal No. E/3046 credit of Rs. 1,50,856/- has also been denied on lifting has also been den...

M/S. Bhartia Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Delhi-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-III, Faridabad vide his Order dt. 17.11.98 sanctioned the refund of Rs.15,719/- to the appellants but simultaneously ordered for its adjustment against the confirmed demand of Rs.16,500/- vide Order-in-Original No. 60/98 dt.15.10.98.2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi vide Order dt. 15.12.2000 rejected the appeal of the party confirming the order passed by Original Authority with the observation that in terms of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the deduction of the amount of the sanctioned refund is permitted from the amount of confirmed demand outstanding against the party.3. The present Stay Petition and appeal are against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate appearing for the appellants relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/s. Elixir Plastic, Kottayam vs. SCE-1978 (2) ELT - (J474) and the decision of the CEGAT in the...

M/S. Jagan Tubes Ltd. Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both the sides submit that the only issue for consideration in this appeal filed by M/s. Galaxy Indo Fab Ltd. is the inclusion of gallery while determining the compounded lev on the stenters and that the issue is already covered by the Larger Bench's decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (42) RLT 429 (CEGAT-LB).2. After hearing both sides and going through the facts on records, we find that the matter is already covered by the aforesaid decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. Following the same, we set aside the impugned order in so far as the inclusion of gallery is concerned and allow the appeal. Ordered accordingly....

M/S. Gupta Brother Steel Tube Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture Iron & Steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Cental Excise Tariff Act, 1985. they are also available modvat credit under Rule 57-A inter alia on the inputs supplied by the depots of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) under their invoices. They were issued a show cause notice dt.30.12.94. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Chandigarh called upon them to show cause why the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 8,59,160/- availed by them during the month of July, 94 to September, 94 should not be recovered from them on the ground that the invoices on the strength of which, they had availed the modvat credit during this period were not the valid documents as per the Notfn. No. 33/94-CE(NT) dt. 4.7.94.2. On considering the reply of the party, the Add. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide here Order dt/ 17.11.94 confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,58,579/- on the party under Rule 57-I and vacated demand of Rs. 4...

Chandigarh, Cce Vs. M/S. Jct Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This order will dispose of six appeals filed by the Revenue bearing Nos. E/690, 723, 722, 653, 1057 & 908/99-NB against different impunea order dated 18.12.98 (Appeal No. E/690/99-NB), dated 24.12.98 (E/723/99-NB), dated 22.12.98 (Appeal No. E/722/99-NB), dated 16.12.98 (Appeal No. E/653/99-NB), dated 4.2.99 (Appeal No. E/1057/99-NB) and dated 13.1.99 (Appeal No. E/908/99-NB) 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 deci...

M/S. Modern Syntex(India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Arguing the case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 9,63,057/- in the captioned two appeals Shri K.K. Anand, Ld. Counsel submits that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of man made yarn, single, double and multifold in their factory. He submits that during the material time, these yarns were classifiable under Tariff Item 18-III/18-H; that the Depart was of the view that from 1.3.82 even single yarn manufactured by spinning mills when used for its doubling in the same factory amounted to 'removal' in terms of Rule 9 and 49 and duty was leviable on the yarn at single ply stage whereas the contention of the applicant was that doubling or multifolding of the same yarn does not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 44. He submitted that the Department issued a Show Cause Notice for differential duty on double yarn in stock on 29.2.84, the date on which duty on such yarns was reduced, on the ground that single yarn was 'remo...

M/S. Samaiya Organics Ltd. Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Learned Departmental Representative seeks time on the ground that Shri P.K.Jain, SDR, who is to argue the matter, is away on election duty. While the prayer for adjournment is not opposed by the applicant's Counsel, he seeks protection from enforcement of the demand until the hearing and disposal of the stay application. It is made clear that there will be no action taken by the Revenue to enforce the duty demand and recovery of penalty until the stay application filed is heard and disposed....

M/S. Haryana Cable Industries and Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Vide stay order of the Tribunal dated 13.2.2001 the appellants M/s.Haryana Cable Industries and Deepak Cable Co. were directed to make pre-deposit of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs only) towards the duty and M/s. Deepak Cable Co. of Rs.44 lakhs (Rupees forty four lakhs only) within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The compliance was to be reported for today. No compliance has been made. The learned counsel states that the appellants moved an application for rectification of the stay order in which the arguments were heard but he has not received copy of sny order. But file shows order on the rectification application order had already been announced and it is for the Registry to convey the order. However, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the request of the counsel we allow the extension of time for making compliance with the stay order dated 13.2.2001 of the Tribunal by 31.5.2001. At this stage, the learned counsel states that th...