Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M.P. Goenka Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was posted for reporting compliance of deposit of Rs. 1 lakh directed by the Tribunal under Stay Order dt. 7-2-2001. Shri M.P.Goenka submitted that an application for Rectification of Mistake has been filed by them which was only heard on 25-5-2001 and it was rejected; that due to moving of application and its hearing, the time for deposit had expired. He, therefore, requested that he may be granted further time for depositing Rs. 1 lakh. Shri M.M.Dubey, ld. DR, fairly leaves the matters to the discretion of the Bench.2. Considering the circumstances in which the amount has not been deposited by the applicant we extended, the time for depositing Rs. 1 lakh. The compliance is to be reported on 11-6-2001....

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....

M/S. Eicher Tractors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT793TriDel

1. The appellants who have moved these applications for stay of operation of Order-in-Appeal No. 103-106/KDT/CE/JPR-I/(54-57)/2001 dated 8.3.2001 are engaged in the manufacture if agricultural tractors.They produced IC Engines and its parts in their factory in Alwar. IC Engines so manufactured in Alwar are transferred to their unit in Faridabad where those IC Engines are fitted in the finished products namely agricultural tractors. Assessments were made provisionally on the IC Engines manufactured in their unit in Alwar. Subsequently, those provisional assessments were finalised. Thereafter show Cause Notices have been issued demanding duty of Rs.26,94,154/- in Appeal No.E/884/01-A and Rs. 42,29,147/- in Appela No.E/885/01-A as having been short levied on the ground that the profit earned by the manufacturers on the sale of agricultural tractors should have been added to the value of the IC Engines, captively consumed by them. On receipt of the SCN, the appellants opposed that action ...

M/S. Kamrup Industrial Gases (P) Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT739TriDel

1. This is an application for restoration of appeal which was dismissed way back in 16.2.1999. For proper understanding of the circumstances under which the appeal happened to be dismissed, we read Final Order No. 124/99-C dt. 16.2.99. That is "The Tribunal vide Stay Order No.157/98-C dated 14.12.98 directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. one lakh on or before 31.1.99. The case was fixed for reporting compliance on 5.2.99. On that day ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant prayed for time for compliance with the order dated 15.12.98. The case was adjourned for today for reporting compliance with the stay order. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant has not deposited any amount. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Sec. 35F of the Central Excise Act." 2. The learned Counsel submitted that some amount deposited by the present appeal in terms of Section 35F in relation to some other ...

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. M.P. Telelinks Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue filed this appeal against the orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of wires and cables used as part of plants, was denied on the ground that these are not used in the manufacture of final product.3. The issue in respect of wires and cables, which are used in machines, is not settled by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of SIV Industries vs C.C.E. reported in 2001 (129) ELT 48. In this case, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that wires and cables used with the plants are entitled for the benefit of MODVAT Credit. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are rejected. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. Rama Enterprises Iron and Steel Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the benefit of MODVAT Credit was denied to the appellants in respect of invoices issued by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on the ground that these invoices are not valid duty-paying documents under Rule 52 a of the Rules.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that this issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. vs Camphar Allied Products reported in 2000 (122) ELT 366 (T).In this case, he submits that the Tribunal held the invoices issued by the IOC are valid duty paying documents under Rule 52 A of the Rules.The appellants also produced photo copies of invoices, in question, which show all the particulars in respect of duty payment on the goods covered under the invoices.3. Heard ld. D.R., who reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.4. In this case, the contention of the revenue is that the invoices...

Krishan Kumar Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT312TriDel

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby his Truck No. HR-29/C-6077 was confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the option was given to the appellant to redeem the truck on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.6.98, the officers of Customs apprehended a truck No. HR-29/C-6077 which was parked near Katra forest barrier, Railway Crossing. On search of the truck various cartons (SIC) third country (SIC) were found of the value of Rs. 14,67,800/-. Shri Harender Kumar Singh, Cleaner of the truck was present on the spot could not produce any legal document in respect of the import of the goods. The goods were taken into possession. Shri Harender Kumar Singh, in his statement under Section 108 of Customs act, 1962 submits that the third country origin goods...

C.C.E., New Delhi Vs. M/S. Bhiwani Textile Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. In the impugned order, the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of electric motors and wires & cables was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals).4. In this case, the appellants availed the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of wires and cables and electric motors. The issue in respect of MODVAT Credit on capital goods is now settled by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Surya Roshni ltd. vs C.C.E.Reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 293. and Siv Indus vs. C.C.E. 2001 (129) ELT 48.5. In the present case, from the facts on record, it is not clear when the wires and cables and electric motors are used in the facility by the appellants. Therefore, it requires re-consideration in view of the above mentioned decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Siv Indus. vs. C.C.E. reported in ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. I.B.P. Company Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC715

1. This is a petition for decision whether the benefit of Notf.No191/87-CE dt.4.7.87 shall be available to a unit manufacturing explosive used in another unit which is engaged in mining copper ore.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that M/s.I.B.P.Company Limited are engaged in the manufacture of prepared explosives.These explosives are sold to M/s. Hindustan Copper Limited. M/s.I.B.P.Company Limited filed a refund claim stating that they were entitled to the benefit of Notf.No.191/87-CE dt.4.7.87 on the ground that M/s.Hindustan Copper Limited were using the explosives for producing copper concentrates after following the Chapter X procedure.The Assistant Commissioner alleged that the refund of duty cannot be sanctioned inasmuch as the explosives are used for mining and mines are not factories.The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the refund claim holding that these explosives are used in relation to the manufacture of copper concentrates and set aside the order of rejection pa...