Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

M/S. Chopra Electricals Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application, filed by M/s. Chopra Electricals, for waiver of predeposit of central excise duty amounting to Rs.8,38,899/- and penalty Rs. 50,000/- imposed on them by the Commissioner of Central Excise under the impugned Order.2. Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Advocate, submitted that the duty has been demanded and the penalty has been imposed on the ground that the applicants were affixing the goods manufactured by them with the brand name "BENTEX" owned by Chopra Electrical Sales Corporation; that for the initial period the Appellate Tribunal had granted unconditional stay; that their matter for earlier period has been heard by the Tribunal and the Order has been reserved; that in view of this fact the requirement of predeposit may be waived and the recovery be stated.2. Opposing the prayer Shri Ashok Kumar, learned D.R., submitted that in the earlier case the stay was granted awaiting the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal inn the case of Namteck systems Ltd.; th...

Shri Hari Babu Gupta Vs. Cc and Ce Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These stay applications arise out of appeals Nos. C/141/2001-NB, C/136/2001-NB(SM) and C/140/2001-NB(SM) which have been preferred against the common order in original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 3.2.01.2. In all the stay applications the appellants have sought complete waiver of the penalty amount of Rs. 1 lakh which had been imposed on each of them under Section 112 of the Customs Act.3. While arguing these stay applications the learned counsel has contended that all the 25 biscuits of gold recovered from Mahesh Chand Verma and Mukesh Kumar Gupta appellants are already with the Customs authorities and being not financially well off they are not in a position to make pre-deposit of Rs. 1 lakh each. The counsel has, however, offered to make pre-deposit of Rs. 20,000/- each on behalf of these appellants.4. In the case of appellants, Hari Babu Gupta the counsel has contended that the currency of Rs. 80,000/- recovered from him is already with the Custom authori...

Rajbeer Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.2.The allegation against the appellant is that one R.K. Verma, Prop. of M/s. Glints Global filed seven shipping Bills for the export of Ladies Skirts and the value was declared at the rate of US$ 11.00. On examination of the goods, it was found that goods sent were of poor quality and are defective as such had no market value. The allegation against the applicant as per Revenue is that Shri R.K. Verma approached the present applicant and the present applicant after examining the samples referred him to another CHA who filed the Shipping Bills.3. Learned Counsel submits that there in no evidence on record to show the investments of the present applicants in attempt to export the goods in question. He submits that the only evidence is that he referred Shri R.K. Verma, Prop. and the exporting firm to another CHA.He, therefore, submits that the application be allowed.4.Heard learned SDR. He submits ...

M/S. Rajasthan Explosives and Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These stay petitions are filed against Order-in-Original dated 3.1..2000 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur in which he has confirmed a demand of Rs.51,51,960/- on the appellants M/s Rajasthan Explosives and Chemicals Ltd. (RECL) and imposed a penalty of equivalent amount of them. The Commissioner in the same order has also imposed a penalty of Rs.25 lakhs on sh.Rajesh Jain, MD of M/s RECL and penalties of Rs.10 lakhs each on S/Sh. B.D.Agrawal, Vice President and A.K. Jain Vice President under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944.A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has also been imposed on Sh. Ganesh Mathur, MD of M/s H.N. Explosives under the same rule. This order is passed by the Commissioner on remand vide Tribunal Final Order No. A/837-40/99-NB dated 25.8.99 in which a direction was given to the commissioner to provide the appellants an opportunity of being heard in person and also to supply him with copies of the relied upon documents. The case proceedings relate to the ...

M/S. Man Structurals Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, mentioned that the present appeal has been filed by M/s. Man Structurals Ltd. against the impugned Order rejecting the refund claim filed by them. He, further, mentioned that the appellants are engaged in the business of supplying materials for errection of steel structurals like high tention transmission tower, Sub-station structure, etc. for Electricity Board; that they process these materials out of duty paid M.S. Angles, Plates, Channels, etc.; that the process carried out by them does not amount to manufacture; that however, the Assistant Collector classified their product under Sub-heading 7308.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act under Order-in-Original No. 24/90 dated 15.1.90 which was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals); that against Collector (Appeals) order they had filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the appeal No. is E/61/91-B; that simultaneoulsy they had filed the refund claim in respect of duty paid by...

M/S. Addi Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT751TriDel

1. The applicant filed this application with the prayer that the operation of the impugned order be stayed.3. In this case the abatement claim of the applicant has been rejected by the Commissioner. Both sides admitted that the amount of duty is not quantified. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the present application. The same is rejected. However, the Registry is directed to list the appeal on 24.7.2001....

M/S. V Vs. Concast Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. We find that by the impugned order the Commissioner has only fixed the annual production capacity of appellants unit and there is no confirmation of demand of duty in the impugned order. As such we find that the stay petition under the provisions of Section 35F is not maintainable. The same is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable....

Sh. Ashok Singhla and Others Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The prayer in the two stay petitions are for dispensing with the consition of pre-deposit of personal penalty of Rs.5 lakhs imposed on each of the applicants/appellants. After hearing Sh. G.L. Rawal, Advocate and Sh. Mewa Singh, SDR, we find that vide impugned order Commissioner has also confiscated appellants goods worth Rs.55.72 (approx.) lakhs with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs.15 lakhs. Sh. Rawal gives an undertaking that during the pendency of the appeal the appellant will not redeem the goods in question and as such the goods should be taken as a security towards penalty, subject to the final outcome of the appeal. In view of the undertaking given by the advocate we dispense with the condition for pre-deposit and stay of the recovery during the pendency of the appeal. The main appeals are also fixed on 5.7.2001....

M/S Sail Vs. Cce, Raipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT401TriDel

1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner Central Excise, Raipur has confirmed demand of Rs.46,14,072/- against the appellants on the following grounds:-a) Aluminium ferruls are not inputs Rs. 3,683/-in terms of Rule 57Ab) Chromic acid was used in the Rs. 14,600/-manufacture of exempted final productsc) Modvat credit availed on LSHS on Rs.12,31,358.04d) Credit availed on quadruplicate Rs/ 33,67,431/- Apart from confirming the demand of duty he has also imposed a personal penalty of Rs.10 lakhs from the appellants.3. It is seen that the modvat credit in respect of aluminium ferruls has been denied on the ground that being a part of the machine, the same are hit by the exclusion clause or Rule 57A. However, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide & Others Vs. CCE, reported in 1996 (86) ELT 613 has held that the explanation to Rule 57A does not cover the parts of a machine. By applying the ratio of the said decision we find that the aluminium ferruls are eligi...

M/S. Northland Industries Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT183TriDel

1. The issue involved in these 3 appeals, filed by M/s. Northland Industries, is whether Modvat Credit of duty paid on flattered metal containers which were reformed as metal container before use is available under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri V.R. Sethi, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. A-566/99 dated 22.6.99 in their own matter has allowed the Modvat Credit for the earlier period and in view of this, these 3 appeals may also be allowed. We also heard Shri Ashok Kumar, learned D.R.3. The issue involved in these appeals is no more res integra as the issue has been decided by the Appellate Tribunal in the appellants' own case vide Final Order No. A-566/99 dated 22.8.99. The Tribunal in that case has observed as under: "We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that the issue involved has already been decided by the Appellate Tribunal in Kaytis Food Preservers, supra. The Tribunal held as under:- "In case of...