Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

M/S. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC443

1. These are three applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order against M/s Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. 2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the applicants inspite of notice. We also observe that no one had appeared on their behalf when the matters were listed earlier for hearing the stay petition. We, therefore, take up the stay applications for disposal after perusing the records and hearing sh. S.P. Rao, ld. DR.3. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has dismissed their appeals as the same were filed beyond the period specified in Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given his findings in the impugned order that the appeals had been filed well beyond even the condonable period. The applicants in their memorandum of appeals has only submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissing the appeal only on the ground of time bar wi...

M/S. Jammu and Kashmir State Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant in this appeal is the Jammu & Kashmir State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') constituted under Section 3 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (Central Act No.63 of 1951). The controversy involved in this appeal relates to a truck bearing registration No.JK-02/7357 which was under hypothecation to the Corporation on the date (2.1.1997) on which it was seized by officers of Customs believing that the vehicle was being used for carriage of smuggled goods (viz. roller bearings) of foreign origin and hence liable to confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act.2. Investigations conducted by the Departments subsequent to the seizure of the truck revealed, inter alia, that the vehicle had been purchased by one Shri Chuni Lal by taking loan from the Corporation in 1990, that he had hypothecated the vehicle to the Corporation as security for due repayment of the loan and interest thereon, that Shri Chuni Lal died a few mont...

Cce, Lucknow Vs. M/S. Camphor and Allied Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)LC41Tri(Delhi)

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has preferred the present appeal.2. We have heard Sh. M.M. Dubey, ld. JDR for the Revenue and Sh. V.Narsimhan, ld. advocate with Sh. M.P. Devnath, ld. advocate for the respondents.3. Originally the respondents were issued a show-cause notice dated 28.5.96 proposing to disallow modvat credit of Rs.1,49,35,146/- on the ground that imported goods have been split into lots and have been despatched separately from ICD Tughlakabad without duty paying documents. However, on adjudication the Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings with respect of the credit of Rs.1,08,82,212.52 but disallowed the modvat credit of Rs.40,52,923.48 and imposed equivalent amount of personal penalty on the respondents, on appeal against the above order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order set aside the same. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.4. After hearing both the sides, we f...

Shri Syed Abdul Shakoor and Co., Syed Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT28TriDel

1. Shri Rajesh Jain, Advocate has filed application for rectification of mistake which was received in the Registry on 9th August, 2000. No rectification of mistake application has been filed by the appellants nor there is any verification by them. In the ROM application the learned advocate after referring to a number of decisions had pleaded that a number of grounds were taken in the appeal which had not been considered by the Tribunal while passing their final order dated 29.10.99.2. It is seen that the appellants in their appeal had prayed for decision on merits. From the records we do not find any vakalatnama or authority letter in favour of Shri Rajesh Jain by the appellants. The matter has been discussed in para 4 of the Tribunal's order and it was ordered that there was no merit in both the appeals filed by the appellants.3. Shri Rajesh Jain submits that against this order the appellants have moved the Allahabd High Court and the High Court had stayed the operation of the Trib...

M/S. D.S.M. Sugar Asmoli Vs. C.C.E., Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The short issue involved in the present case as regards the availability of modvat credit in respect of the items claimed by the appellants as 'Capital goods'. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Rajesh Kumar, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR for the respondents. We find that the law in respect of availability of modvat credit on capital goods has been declared by the Larger Bench in the case of C.C.E. Indore vs. M/s.Surya Roshni Ltd. reported in 2001 (42) RLT 817 (CEGAT-L.B). As such, we are of the view that the matter needs to go back to the Asst.Commissioner of Central Excise, for taking fresh decision in the light of law laid down by the Larger Bench as also in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of SIV Industries vs. CCE Coimbatore reported in 2001 (43) RLT 523 (Mad.). The appellants are at liberty to draw the attention to any other decision relied upon by them. Accordingly, we set aside the impug...

Shri H.P. Goel Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application has been filed by Shri H.P. Goel stating that the mistakes as indicated below have crept in, in the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/311-14/00-NB dt. 5.4.2000:- "4. However, the penalty has been reduced on the ground that there is no direct proof to show that the applicant has been the actual beneficiary of the transaction and he had title for the consignment. 5. The applicant submits that the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration the statement of various persons regarding the applicant's alleged involvement in earlier transactions because these transaction were not the subject matter consideration before the Hon'ble Tribunal and in the absence of any adjudication order in respect of those transactions. It will not be legal to presume that the applicant was involved in those earlier transactions. It, therefore, appears that the Hon'ble Tribunal was influenced by the above consideration in determining the penalty amount at Rs. 10 lakhs, without any pro...

M/S. S.K.N. Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 13,766.00 and penalty of Rs. 2,500/-.3. The contention of the applicant is that applicant declared all types of chemicals/Oils as inputs for manufacture of final products that is pressure regulators. The applicant availed the benefit of MODVAT credit on Zinc salt etc. and the Revenue denied the benefit on the ground that no declaration was filed in respect of these items. The submission of the applicant is that now the Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules has been amended to say that credit shall not be denied on the ground that all particulars are not mentioned in the invoices or in the declaration and then amended as applicable to the pending cases also. For this, he relies upon the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kamakhaya Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut, reported in 2000 (40) RLT 575 (CEGAT-L.B.). In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, prima facie, it is a fit case for waiver of duty a...

M/S. K.E.C. International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 105499000. The credit is denied to the applicant on the ground that the Registered dealer who issued the invoices to the appellant was not having in possession of Duplicate copy of invoice issued by the manufacturer of the inputs.2. Learned Counsel submits that this issue is already covered by the decision of the Tribunal in their own case vide Final order No.A/1735/2000-NB dated 24.8.2000. He, therefore, submits that the application be allowed.4. In view of the earlier decision of the Tribunal it is a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty for hearing of the appeal. Therefore, pre-deposit of whole of the duty is waived. Registry is directed to list the appeal on 11.9.2001 for arguments....

M/S. Siemens Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. By application dated 8th May, the appellant seeks leave to withdraw the above ROM. The ROM is dismissed as withdrawn. The application is allowed....

M/S. Swastik Udyog Vs. Cee, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri J.s. Agarwal, submits that against the Tribunal's Final Order dated 8.6.2000 the appellants M/s. Swastik Udyog Ltd. had already filed statutory appeal in the Honourable Supreme Court and as per orders dated 19.2.2001 the appeal has admitted. in the circumstances, the ROM application is not maintainable and is dismissed as such....