Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

Shri A.V. Rajgopal, Manager Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant filed this appeal for waiver of pre-deposit penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 209A of Central Excise Act.2. Ld. Counsel submits that there is no finding by the adjudicating authority regarding Commission/ommission made by the appellant to make him liable for penal action under Section 209A of the Central Excise Act. He relied upon the findings given by the adjudicating authority where no such finding is arrived at.3. On the other hand, Ld. SDR appearing on behalf of Revenue, submits that against the adjudication order the appellant filed appeal before commissioner. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, only pressed the appeal field by M/s S. Kumar Leathersite and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as not pressed.4. Ld. counsel contended that there is no finding as contested by the appellant in the present appeal.5. Heard both sides. In this case penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 209A of Central Excise Act was imposed on the appellant. Prima Fac...

M/S. Chambal Fertilisers and Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT185TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. the matter relates to the service tax levied on the goods transport operators or clearing and forwarding agents. After the Supreme Court decision in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharathi Vs. Union of India 1999 (112) ELT 365 (SC) the refund claim was filed by the appellants which was sanctioned but the amounts were credited in the Consumer Welfare Fund in view of the provisions relating to unjust enrichment. The appellants agitated that matter that the amount should not have been credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) considered the matter and noted that under Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 retrospective amendments had been made and that the matter as such has been finally settled by the Parliament. Last para of his order is extracted below:- "I have gone through the case records. I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the appellants. being a crea...

Shri Sanjay Maheshwari Vs. C.C. New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT791TriDel

1. Vide Stay Order No. S/72-74/01/NB/DB dated 9.2.2001/14.2.2001, the applicant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs out of total penalty amount of Rs. 15 lakhs as a condition of the hearing of their appeal. For this, the period of 8 weeks from that date was given to the applicant. Subsequently, when the matter came up for ascertaining compliance, the applicant prayed for extension of time to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs inasmuch as an amount of Rs. 1 lakh was deposited by them The Bench considered the applicants' prayer and vide Misc. Order No.79/2001/NB/DB dt. 25.4.2001, took note of the factum of deposit of Rs. 1 lakh by the applicant and extended the time by another 4 weeks from that date to make the deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. The matter was listed for reporting compliance on 28.5.2001.On 28.5.2001, applicant made further prayer for extension of time. The Bench vide its Order No. M.108/2001/NB/D dt. 28.5.2001 observed as under: "We have ...

Clutch Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,91,184/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. In the impugned order, duty is demanded on the ground that the applicant had not followed the procedure as laid down under Rule 57Q of Central Excise.2. Heard both sides. The contention of the applicant is that is technical lapse on part of supplier of the goods. The name of the company is not mentioned in the invoice from whom the applicant arranged finance.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the procedure provided under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules was not followed by the applicant. The case is arguable. It is not a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit of total amount of duty and penalty. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of 4 weeks. On deposit of Rs. 50,000/-, the deposit of remaining amount of duty and whole of penalty is waived for hearing of the a...

M/S. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri R. Krishnan, ld. Advocate appearing for both the applicants submits that vide impugned order, Commissioner of Customs has confirmed an amount of Rs. 88410/- and Rs. 24,45,187/- and penalty of an equivalent amount has been imposed on the main appellant - M/s. Escorts Yamaha Motor Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has also been imposed on the second appellant, Shri G.G. Bhaghchandani. The ld. Advocate submits that they had deposited an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs out of which duty amount confirmed by the Commissioner has been ordered to be appropriated from the said deposit so made by them. For this purpose, he draws our attention to para 4.9 of the impugned order. He submits that even taking into account the order of the Commissioner for appropriation of the interest amount from the said deposits made by them, still there is a balance of about Rs. 21 lakhs with the Revenue.He makes an offer that the appellants will not claim back the refund of the said amount during the pendency of t...

M/S. Navyug Weld Wires (P) Ltd. and Vs. C.C.E., Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On matter being called for ascertaining compliance with the stay order No.S/146-148/2001/NB/D dt. 29.3.2001 directing the applicants to deposit an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively, none appeared. We also find from the records that there is no proof of the deposits made in terms of the said Order. As such, all the three appeals are dismissed for non-compliance under the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1962 read with the Stay Order....

M/S Ployfoams (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty confirmed against the appellants by disallowing he Modvat credit and the penalty imposed upon them, I take up the appeals itself for disposal.2. Accordingly, I have heard Shri R. Pal Singh, ld. Advocate and Shri J. Singh, ld. JDR. The short issue involved in the present appeal is that the Modvat credit was denied to the appellants on the ground that instead of availing the credit on the basis of duplicate copies meant for transporters, they have availed the credit on the basis of photo copies of the invoices. During the proceedings before the authorities below, the appellant could not produce the duplicate for transporters.Shri R. Singh, ld. Adv. appearing before me submits that now they have been able to locate the duplicate copies, which are the proper modvatable documents. Inasmuch as the said duplicate copies meant for transporters were not before the original adjudicating authority, I set aside the impugned order and r...

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application, filed by M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd., requesting for waiver of predeposit of Rs. 10,43,405/- disallowed to them as capital goods credit.2. Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Advocate, submitted that during January to July, 1996 the applicants received electrical panel, electrical motors and spare coils; that as the duplicate copies of the invoices were lost in transit they applied to the Assistant Commissioner under their various letters in terms of Rule 57G(2A) for permission to take the credit on the strength of original copies of the invoices; that the Assistant Commissioner under letter dated 5.5.98 informed the applicants that the impugned capital goods were not eligible for credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules; that under Adjudication Order dated 28.10.98 the Assistant Commissioner disallowed the modvat credit holding that the impugned goods were not eligible for the capital goods credit and this order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appea...

Shri Mukesh Kumar Sethi Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. According to the applicants the amount of penalty imposed on the applicants (which has been set aside by the Tribunal in paragraph 23 of the final order), is mistakenly shown as Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs. 3 lakhs. Ld. DR confirms that the penalty imposed on the appellant by the adjudicating authority was Rs.3 lakhs. We, therefore, correct the figure of Rs.50,000/- mentioned in para 23 of the final order to Rs.3 lakhs....

M/S. Rupenthal Americal Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT684TriDel

1. M/s. Rupenthal Americal Ltd. have filed this application for rectification of mistake stating that no notice was issued to the owner; that the goods were not claimed by the assessee in whose name the parcel was addressed They submit that D-call Notice was sent on 9.1.89; that ownership of the goods was claimed; that the goods in question were freely importable and therefore, an opportunity of redeeming the goods should have been given to the appellants on payment of a nominal fine, if any.2. Shri G.K. Rana, Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that though a number of letters were issued by the appellant claiming ownership of the goods in dispute, however, no SCN was issued to the owners. He submits that in the absence of SCN to the owners, the confiscation of the goods was not warranted.3. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the law provides for redeeming the goods, however, in the instant case, the goods were not permitted to be redeemed. He, therefore, submits that the mis...