Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These stay applications arise out of appeals Nos.E/31-33 & 92/2001-NB filed by the appellant against common order in original dated 3.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vide which he had disallowed modvat credit of Rs.30,96,349/- to the company appellant no.(1) and imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 57-I(4) and of Rs.10 lakhs under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, alongwith the interest on them.He also imposed penalty of Rs.20 lakhs on Managing Director of the company Shri Rajesh Jain, appellant no.(2) and of Rs.1 lakh each on Shri B.D.Agarwal, Vice President(Commercial) and Shri A.K.Jain, Vice President(Production) of the company, appellants Nos.(3) and (4) respectively. No penalty, however, has been imposed no M/s.HNPEL under Rule 173-Q(1)(bbb) of the Rules.2. The company,appellant no.(1) was engaged in them manufacture of explosives.On 8.11.97 the Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises and resumed several incriminating d...

M/S Wintech Taparia Ltd. and M/S Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT403TriDel

1. The appellants M/s Wintech Taparia Ltd., are the manufacturers of equipment and machinery for food processing falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The intelligence officers of the Central Excise Commissionerate, Indore visited the premises of M/s Gambhir Cold Storage Ltd. Hatod Distt., Indore and M/s Shivshankar Patel MARFED Cold Storage Scheme No. 59, Nai Sabji Mandi, Tejpur, Gadbadi, Indore and on 06.07.1999 and 13.07.1999 respectively. The Central Excise officers found that refrigeration plants and cold storage plants in these premises were installed by the appellants by assembling the equipments manufactured by them. Consequently, a show-cause notice (SCN) dated 23.12.1999 was issued to the appellants along with the aforesaid other two parties calling upon them to show cause why a duty amounting to Rs. 21,57,840/- should not be recovered from them under Rule (9)(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Centr...

Sh. Pankaj JaIn Vs. Cce, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. By Stay Order No. S/93/2001-NB dated 2.2.2001 the applicant (who is the proprietor of M/s Pankaj Tar Udhoyog) was directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs towards the total duty demand within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the stay order and report compliance on 10.4.2001. The applicants submitted that the order was receive on 14.3.2001 and the period for pre-deposit expired on 9.5.2001. They submitted that subsequent to the passing of the stay order, they have suffered heavy financial losses and further, the factory has been sealed on 25.4.2001 under orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicants have been able to deposit only Rs. 75,000/- till date. Due to financial difficulty, they are not in a position to comply entirely with the pre-deposit requirement and, therefore, pray that the stay order may be modified by waiving pre-deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 9.25 lakhs.2. The prayer is opposed by the ld. DR who submits that financial hardship had been taken in...

Sri. Rajpal Manchanda Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. According to the applicant, who is represented by his Counsel Shri Harbans Singh, an obvious error arises in the Tribunal's final order in upholding the confiscation of Indian Currency of Rs.1,05,000 (Rs.65,000 seized from veer Savarkar Block and Rs. 40,000 seized from the residence of the applicant), inasmuch as the proposal in the show cause notice was for confiscation of Rs. 55,000 only. Learned Departmental Representative fairly concedes that the show cause notice proposed confiscation of Rs. 55,000 only.2. Having regard to the above, we uphold the confiscation of Indian Currency of Rs. 55,000 and set aside the confiscation of the balance amount of Rs. 50,000....

M/S Ganpati Sangemermar P. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 3.12.1999 and on verification of stock was found to have excess quantity of 447.039 of marble slabs as against the recorded balance in their RG I Register. On the above basis a show cause notice dated 17.12.99 was issued to them proposing confiscation of the said excess quantity seized by the Officer and imposition of personal penalty.After taking the appellants submissions in consideration, the Original Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 16,000/-. Penalty of Rs. 15,000/- was also imposed upon the appellant.On appeal against the above Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of confiscation reduced the penalty to Rs. 7,000/-. Hence the present appeal.2. I have heard Shri A.L. Mathur, ld. Consultant for the appellant and Shri J. Singh, learned JDR.3. The appellant have strongly relied upon the Tribunals decision in the...

Cce, Indore Vs. M/S Mardia Steels Ltd., Ratlam

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Nobody is present for the respondents. Accordingly, I have heard Shri J. Singh, ld. JDR. The short point involved in this appeal is the availability of Modvat credit in respect of cables and armoured cables.The Commissioner (Appeals) by following the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. has held that the PVC cables are eligible "capital goods" for the purposes of Modvat credit.The Revenue in their appeal have admitted the above legal position, but have contended that the said decision has not accepted by the Government who is in the process of filing of appeal before the Supreme Court. However, ld. SDR has not been able to show that the said decision of the Larger Bench has been stayed by the Supreme Court.2. I also find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Siv Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore [2001 (43) RLT 523 (Madras)], while answering a reference application, have held that wires and cables used for tr...

Cce, Delhi-iii Vs. M/S. Jindal Strips

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. According to the Revenue there is an error apparent from the record in mentioning only on error in appeal in the cause title of the Final Order No. A/1085-92/99-NB dated 30.11.99, since the order disposed of three orders in appeal. There is a further error in wrong mention of amount of modvat credit proposed to be recovered - amount shown in the Tribunal's order is Rs. 28,23,435/- which pertains only to one show-cause notice and the total amount involved is rs. 64,87,821/-.2. Upon hearing both sides, we are satisfied that the above two mistakes have arisen and we, therefore, rectify the final order by correcting the cause title to include order-in-Appeal No. 330-CE-TLH/98 and 331-CE-TLH/98. We also correct the mistake in paragraph 2 by substituting the figure of Rs. 64,87,821/- for the figure of Rs. 28,23,435/-....

M/S Kishori Lal Sudesh Kumar (P) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 2,99,350/- and an equivalent amount of personal penalty imposed under Rule 57I and another personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed under Rule 173Q, I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both sides inasmuch as Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed before him under the provisions of Section 35F by observing that the appellants have neither deposited the confirmed dues nor moved any application for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of the dues confirmed against them.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants draws my attention to a stay petition dated 09.05.1999 filed under the provisions of Section 35F. The said stay petition shows that the same was sent to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) to New Customs House, near IGI Airport, New Delhi under a registered post. Ld.Advocate clarifies that during the relevant time, the Commissioner of Central E...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S. G.P.L. Fibres Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The short issue involved in the present appeal of the Revenue is as regard is as regards the availability of modvat credit in respect of Transfer and Switch Gear Box. The Commissioner (Appeals) by allowing the modvat credit in respect of said items has relied upon the Tribunal decisions and has observed as under:- "I have examined the case carefully. I find that the appellant has objected to allow the credit on transformer and Switch gear box on the ground that these items were not covered under the definition of capital goods at that time. But, I find that the Notification No. 11/95-CE(NT) dated 16.3.95 and 14/96-CE(NT) dated 23.7.96 was introduced under capital goods vide which transformer and Switch gear board were introduced. The Tribunal in a catena of judgement has held that transformer and switch gear board are eligible capital goods for modvat purposes. The decisions of Hon'ble Tribunal are mentioned in para-4 above. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the case reported in 1996 (88) EL...

M/S. Discware Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing their appeal, M/s. Discware Private Limited (formerly known as Cyber Express Pvt. Ltd.) are required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) imposed on them by way of penalty under Section 114 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The allegations levelled against the appellants concerned fraudulently over invoicing the 205000 Compact Disc (CD) Roms for availing inadmissible higher credit under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme, in violation of the provisions of Section 18 (1) (a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973, read with Section 11 of the Act, Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and Rule 11 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. Among other allegations, it was alleged in the show cause notice dated 2.11.99 that some of the items entered for export were unsalable for non-technical fault of CD themselves, and in some cases, the goods in question w...