Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Chopra Enterprises Vs. Cc, Amritsar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC605

1. The appellant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 34,136/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The contention of the applicant is that they have made import of synthetic rags which are freely importable under the Policy. The contention of the applicants is that the examination report by the Custom authorities shows these are rags and without any evidence, it was held that the goods are old & used garments covered under heading 6309 of the Customs tariff. The contention of the applicants is also that without any evidence the value of the goods, in question was enhanced. The value of the goods was enhanced on the basis of market price which shows that the price of goods are ranging from Rs. 16/- per kg. to Rs.20/- per kg.and the Customs authorities without any reason taken Rs. 20/- per kg.as market price and enhanced the value of goods in question. His submission is that in case the value is taken to Rs. 16/- per kg. the difference in the declared v...

M/S. Centruy Pulp and Papers Vs. Cce Ghaziabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order in appeal dated 22.3.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had modified the order in original dated 23.4.99 of the Assistant Commissioner and allowed modvat credit not on all goods but on some of the goods in dispute to the appellants.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper. They availed the modvat credit on certain items, as detailed in the show cause notice as well as in the order in original by projecting the same as capital goods. But the Assistant Commissioner disallowed the same vide order in original dated 23.4.99 on the grounds that (i) the goods were brought into the factory prior to 23.7.96, (ii) installation certificate as required under Notification No.1/96 dated 1.1.96 was issued much later than of taking credit and (iii) items did not satisfy the condition of capital goods. The Commissioner, however, through the impugned order allowed the modvat credit on...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Arihant Spinning Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT1181TriDel

1. Commissioner (Appeals) has extended capital goods credit under Rule 57Q to the following items: 2. According to the Revenue, these items are electric installations which are not machines and transmit electricity to the machines and cannot be considered as capital goods. They can be considered as parts and components of plant and machinery only if fitted into it and having specific functional utility with reference to machines and plant. ince in the instant case electrical goods are independent of plant and machinery, they are not components or accessories or parts of the machine or machinery and therefore do not qualify to be considered as capital goods under Rule 57Q.3. On hearing Shri A.K. Jain, SDR, Shri Sidhartha Sen, Advocate and perusing the records, I note that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. 1999 (108) ELT 47 has extended the benefit to similar electrical items supplying electricity to machines which, in turn, are used for manufacture of t...

Cce, Bombay-1 Vs. M/S. Unicon Connectors (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT604TriDel

1. The issue referred to this Larger Bench for consideration is whether 'insulated wire/cable fitted with connectors' is classifiable under Heading 85.44 or 85.22/85.29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri Ashok Kumar, learned D.R. submitted that the impugned product is essentially used for transmission of energy and information; that it has a general use and application similar to insulated wires and cables and as such the impugned product cannot be treated and classified as parts of the machinery or equipment with which or in which they are used; that Heading 85.44 of the Tariff covers insulated wire/cable whether or not fitted with connectors and accordingly the product is classifiable under the said heading. He also referred to the Explanatory Note of H.S.N. under Heading 85.44 which states that "wire, cable, etc., remain classified in this heading if cut to length or fitted with connectors (e.g., plugs, sockets, lugs, jecks, sleeves or terminals) at one or bot...

Max G.B. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Commissioner (Appeals) has denied Modvat credit on 'wires and cables' and 'electric control panel' on the ground that the items are not capital goods as they do not perform the requisite function of capital goods, namely, processing or producing any goods or bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product.2. On hearing Shri V. Swaminathan, Learned Advocate and Shri Swatanter Kr., Learned JDR and noting the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. 1999 (108) ELT 47 which has been re-affirmed in Surya Roshini Ltd. 2001 (128) ELT 293, I hold that Modvat credit is admissible to these items as they are covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed....

Shri Arun Bansal Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the application for restoration of appeal the appellant Shri Arun Bansal has submitted that a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) as directed by the Tribunal in their stay order dated 6.11.2000 had been deposited on 19.1.2001 the date for which the compliance was to be reported. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR agrees that the terms of the Tribunal's stay order have been complied with within the time stipulated.2. In view of the above, the Tribunal's Final order No.A/73/2001-NB (DB) dated 19.1.2001 dismissing the appeal of the appellant for non-compliance is withdrawn and the appeal is restored to its original number....

Cce, Delhi Vs. M/S. Hilton Roulands Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue is aggrieved by two separate orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has extended Modvat credit on lubricating oil (flex oil) & Bitumin C & AP-3 which are also in the nature of lubricants (greases) and PVC Cables.2. On hearing the Learned DR and perusing the written submission filed by the respondent and noting the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Modi Rubber Ltd. 2000 (119) ELT 197 which held that lubricatingoil is inputs entitled to credit under Rule 57A, and the Larger Bench decision in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. 1999 (108) 47 which has extended capital goods credit on Wires and Cables, I see no infirmity in the impugned orders and accordingly uphold the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeals of the Revenue....

M/S. Morinda Co-op. Sugar Mills Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC423

1. Applicant filed this application for waiver for pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs. 66,17/- and penalty of the same amount. Learned Counsel submits that in the adjudication order a demand of Rs. 19,34,974/- was confirmed. The adjudicating authority also directed to adjust the amount already paid by the applicant during the period of April 1996 to November, 1998. Learned Counsel submits that appellants has already made a deposit of Rs. 22,46,359/-. Applicant also submits that the demand is being made on the basis of value of the comparable goods. As the applicant sold the same molasses to Bhopal Distillery at the higher rate and the Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., also cleared the molasses @ Rs. 310/- PMT. Applicants relied on the final order No. 27 to 32/2001-A dated 22.2.2001 to say that when the assessee paid duty on the molasses on the basis of the sale price of the goods, the demand cannot be made on the basis of the comparable goods as no extra consideration was received.3. In this case ...

M/S. Vishva Vishal Engg. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The notice for today's hearing was issued on 9.3.2001 to the address for service shown in the appeal memo. However, none appeared before me when the case is called nor is there any request for adjuournment. It appears that the assessees are not interested in pursuing the appeals.Hence they are dismissed for non-prosecution under CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982....

M/S. Indore Sandal Oil Mills Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For reasons recorded below, I dispensed with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and proceeded to hear and dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.2. The adjudicating authority confirmed duty demand of Rs.1,43,280 on sandal oil and also imposed a penalty of Rs.30,000. Along with the appeal, the assessee filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals) who, by interim stay order dated 25.4.2000, directed pre-deposit of the entire duty demand but waived the pre-deposit of penalty. On receipt of the stay order, applicants applied for modification by application dated 6.6.2000. Notice was issued by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing of the appeal on 14.7.2000, the appellants did not appear before the lower appellate authority who proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the merits of the issue.3. Learned Counsel Shri K.K. Anand submits that notice of hearing on 14.7.2000 was received only after that date, that is the r...