Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Shri Sanjay Maheshwari Vs. Commissionr of Customs, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant was directed vide Stay Order No. S/72-74-2001 NB dt.7-2-2001 to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs within a period of 8 weeks. He had deposited only Rs. 1 lakh. The period was further, extended vide Misc Order No. 79/2001-NB dated 25-4-2001 the compliance was to be reported on 28-5-2001. Shri K. Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that an application for ROM has been moved by them and, therefore, they have not deposited remaining Rs. 2 lakhs. Shri M.M.Dubey, ld. DR, submitted that moving an application for ROM does not extend the time automatically for depositing the amount as ordered by the Tribunal.2. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We agree with the ld. DR that the applicant is duty bond to deposit the amount as ordered within the time limit specified by the Tribunal. As the applicant has already deposited Rs 1 lakh already, we reluctantly extend the period for depositing the remaining amount Rs. 2 lakhs. In case he fails to deposit Rs. 2 lakh, the appeal wil...

M/S. U.P. State Bridge Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC595

1. This is an appeal filed by an importer who imported the goods first from Iraq to Nepal and then from Nepal to India. The Customs Authorities assessed the goods when Bill of Entry was presented.Subsequently the Custom Authorities found that the assessment of the Bill of Entry was not correct. Therefore a SCN was issued to the importer asking him to explain as to why differential duty amounting to Rs.37,73,460.60 should not be demanded from them. The appellant submitted that the authorities did not determine the transaction value in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act but only allowed depreciation on the original value at the time of purchase of the goods in Iraq. The appellant submitted that in actual practice the authorities should have given depreciation after taking the value of the goods at which they were imported/purchased from Nepal.2. Shri A.P.Mathur, ld.Advocate appears for the appellant and submits that he has two grievances. He submits that the first grievance was that...

M/S. Parikh Resins and Polymers Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ghaziabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT356TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT Credit was denied to the appellants on the ground that the invoices issued by the dealers were not in conformity with the provisions of Notification 33/94-CE (NT) dated 4.7.94.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that a show cause notice was issued on 26.12.94 to the appellants on the ground that they are not entitled for the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of invoices issued by unregistered dealers. He submits that after issuance of show cause notice, the appellants produced evidence before the revenue in respect of registration of the dealer. He submits that in the adjudication order, the adjudication authority admitted the fact that the dealers were registered prior to 30.12.94, but denied the benefit of credit on different grounds, such as rate of duty not mentioned in the invoice, quantity supplied by the manufacturer was...

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S. Tiruhari (India) P. Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC943Tri(Delhi)

1. This application filed by the Revenue is for reference of the following question to High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act: "Whether the invoices issued by the registered dealer/trader in contravention of the provisions of Rule 52A(3) and 57G read with Rule 57GG are valid documents for availing modvat credit without furnishing the duplicate copy of transporter, which is the prescribed document under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944"? The appellant claims that the above question has arisen out of Final Order No.A/384-385/99-NB(S) dated 28.05.1999 passed by the Tribunal in appeal Nos.E/1439-1440/98-NB.2. I have carefully perused the final order as well as the grounds of the present applications. I have also heard ld. JDR Shri K.Panchatcharan for the applicants and ld. Advocates S/Shri G.K.Mahajan and S.C.Karma for the respondents. Ld. JDR submits that, as per the final order, the Tribunal held that Modvat credit on inputs could be validly taken on the streng...

C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Shayam IndospIn 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. Thereafter, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of respondents.3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn and were availing the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of inputs as well as in respect of capital goods. The respondents availed the benefit of MODVAT Credit under Rule 57 Q of the rules as capital goods, on glass wool, used as insulator in the roof of the building of the factory.Show cause notice was issued to the respondents for denying the benefit of MODVAT Credit. The adjudicating authority allowed the benefit of MODVAT Credit on the ground that it is essential for the manufacturer of yarn. The revenue filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the same.4. The contention of the revenue is that glass wool is used for insulation of the roof of the factory. Therefore, it is a building material and not covered under the definition of capital go...

Cce, Raipur Vs. M/S. Vindhya Kabelmates (i) Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC593

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the Revenue. When the appeal came up for final hearing, representative of the respondent prayed for adjournment. since the issue raised in the appeal is already covered by decision of this Tribunal, we heard Ld. DR in detail and perused the records.2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the interest accrued on advances taken by the manufacturer from customers has gone to increase the value of the goods cleared to them. In other words, the Department included the interest earned on the advance to the assessable value of the goods for purpose of levying duty. The adjudicating authority took the stand that the price charged was not idnfluenced by the interest on the security taken has not been proved by the manufacturer. According to him "the onus that the price charged and therefore, the assessabe value were same whether advance was obtained or not rested with the notice and they had failed to adduce any evidence in this re...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Smithline Beecham Consumer

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC602

2. The assessee was aggrieved by the Order of provisional assessment passed by the adjudicating authority. The Order of the adjudicating authority dated 7.1.99 was taken up in appeal before the lower appellate authority. The main grievance voiced before the lower appellate authority was that the assessing authority altered the basis of assessment while making provisional assessment. Such change was in violation of the natural justice inasmuch as no SCN was issued; Nor was any hearing afforded to the assessee. The Commissioner without going into the correctness or otherwise of the change brought out to the basis of assessment, set aside the order and remanded the matter for de noveo decision after issuing a SCN and affording an opportunity of being heard in person. This direction given by the appellate Commissioner is under challenge.3. The main contention raised by the Departmental Representative is that the Commissioner went wrong in directing the adjudicating authority/assessing aut...

M/S. Guru Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC713

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Guru Overseas Pvt.Ltd., is regarding classification of seat covers under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA).2. Shri Jasbir Singh, Managing Director of the Appellant company, submitted that they manufacture car seat covers (leather and non-leather); that initially in 1986 and 1987, these goods were classified by them and approved by the Department under Heading 87.08 of CETA; that however, in 1988 as per verbal instruction of the Assistant Collector, they submitted a revised classification list under covering letter dated 26.7.98 classifying leather car seat covers under Sub-heading 4201.90 and textiles car seat covers under Sub-heading 6301.00 of CETA; that on the suggestion of their customer, M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., they requested the Assistant Collector on 30.9.88 to change the classification of car seat covers under Heading 87.08 which was rejected under letter dated 26.10.1988; that in subsequent years form March...

M/S. Mardia Steel Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of Sec. 35 F of the Act.4. The appellants availed the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of capital goods under Rule 57 Q of the rules. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for disallowing the MODVAT Credit. The adjudicating authority disallowed the MODVAT Credit and confirmed the demand. Against the impugned orders passed by the adjudicating authority, the appellants filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) alongwith an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty.The Commissioner (Appeals) decided the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants and, thereafter, without issuing any notice, dismissed the appeals. In the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants to...

M/S. JaIn and Jayna Foams P. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal. As regards the prayer for waiver, the appellants must wait for the decision of the Larger Bench on the issue of maintainability of appeals involving modvat issues, referred from the case of Kissan Sahakari Chini Mills.Accordingly, the application is adjourned to 26.07.2001. However, in the interest of justice, there will be an interim stay of recovery of the amount till final disposal of the application. Issue certified copy....