Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

M/S. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC784

1. The issue referred to the Larger Bench is as regards the continuation of the Modvat cases after the repeal of Modvat Rules on 1.4.2000 without any saving Provision. Para 7 of the Referal Bench Order is mentioned below:- "7. At present, the Central Excise Act under which the erstwhile Modvat Rules had been made does not contain any provision saving any actions initiated under Rule 57U of the said Rules. Though Section 125 of the Finance Bill, 2001 seeks to introduce such a provision in the Central Excise Act and Section 126 seeks to introduce in the Act provisions for revalidating, inter alia, actions taken under the said Rule 57U after 31.3.2000, neither of the two Sections has become law hitherto. Contextually, I also note that the above provisions of the Finance Bill, 2001 were not before the SRB when it passed order in Wipro (Supra)." When the matter came up for hearing, both the sides duly represented by Shri. Bipin Garg, learned Advocate and Shri Rajeev Tandon, learned SDR agr...

Shri Parmod Kumar Gupta and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by imposition of penalty and disallowance of draw back claim by the Commissioner of Customs. New Delhi.2. Shri L.P.Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that Shri P.k. Gupta is the Proprietor of M/s. World Fashion, exporting ready-made garments for more than 10 years; that 3 shipping bills were filed on his behalf on 30.12.99 for export of ready-made garments; that on examination 6,874 pieces were found short out of declared quantity of 23, 494 pieces of garments; that in addition 3,996 pieces of garments were found in excess; that in his statement dated 7.1.2000, Shri R.K.Gupta deposed that the shortage fond in the consignment was due to goods being rejected while checking quality aspects and that the goods in excess were those left over from the previous export orders; that the Appellant No. 2 Shri Arun Kumar Dang, Production Manager, in his statement dated 10.1.2000, has deposed that the shipment was to be despat...

Shri Rakesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs (icd)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The present application is for restoration of appeal which was dismissed earlier vide Final Order No. A/264/2001/NB(D) dt. 9.4.2001 on the ground that the Tribunal's Stay Order No. 06/2001/NB(DB) dated 21.12.2000 directing the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs has not been complied with by them.2. Shri V.N. Jha, ld. Advocate appearing for the applicant/appellant submits that the party had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed by the High Court on 30.3.2001 extending the time for depositing the said amount till the end of May, 2001. However, the ld. Advocate appearing today before us submits that the quantum of penalty so directed by the Tribunal to be deposited has not been deposited till today even in terms of the High Court order.The ld. Advocate also submits that the party have filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but fairly conceeded their is no order of the Supreme Court staying the operation of the order of the Hi...

Ester Industries Limited Vs. Cce., Meerut-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT127TriDel

1. The appellants M/s. Ester Industries Limited manufacture Polyester Chips, Polyester Films an Polyster yarn. they availed modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of chips which are intermediate products in the further manufacture of the polyester films and Polyster Yarn. Polyster chips are also cleared outside the factory by availing complete exemption from the payment of duty under Notification No.132/86 dated 1.3.86 and subsequent notification No. 53/88 dated 1.3.88.Further the end product viz. Polyester yarn was not specified under Notification No. 177/86-CE dated 1.3.86 as one of the items in respect of which the benefit of the modvat credit could be available on the duty paid on the inputs.2. They were issued a show cause notice dated 4.6.92 by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut in which apart from stating the above facts, it was also alleged that during the course of manufacture of polyster chips, polyster film and polyster yarn waste, rejects and s...

M/S Dura Cell (i) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi-iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Matter called. Nobody appears inspite of today's notice of hearing having been sent well in advance. Accordingly, I have heard Sh. J.Singh, ld. JDR.2. After going through the restoration application, I find the appellants have explained their non-appearance, when their appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Accordingly, after taking the said explanation into consideration, I restore the appeal to its original number and fix the same for 5-9-2001. Restoration application is accordingly allowed....

M/S. Bansiwal Iron and Steel Rolling Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. After allowing the application for admission of appeal, I take up the stay and appeal together with the consent of both sides inasmuch as the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any decision on the disputed issue involved but has dismissed appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with stay order dated 17.4.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. I find that the amount of duty involved is only to the extent of Rs. 6378/-. Sh. B.L. Ghai, partner appearing for the appellant submits that if given some time, they would reverse back the credit of duty so disallowed by the authorities below. Sh. J. Singh ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue accepts the above offer.3. In view of the foregoing, I direct the appellant to deposit the disputed amount of credit within a period of four weeks from today by debiting the same from their modvat account. In case the credit is not available, the same i...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. National Steel Inds. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC188

1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of "C.R.Sheets/Coils" falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing Modvat credit facility under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. It was observed that the assessees were clearing the inputs, Viz. Hot Rolled Slits at a value lower than that of Hot Rolled Coils received as inputs. The hot rolled slits appeared to be only "offcuts" of hot rolled coils on which modvat credit was availed; therefore as per provisions of Rule 57F(3) it appeared that hot rolled coils/slits should have been removed on payment of duty equal to the amount of credit availed, as the clearances of hot rolled slits were to be treated as removal of inputs. Differential duty of Rs. 1,63,791 was, therefore, recoverable and a show cause notice dated 27.10.97 was issued for recovery of the abovementioned amount of duty for the period April to September 1997, and also for imposi...

M/S. India Trade Promotion Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT25TriDel

1. The matter is posted today for considering the waiver of predeposit of the Service Tax amounting to Rs.493.19 lacs and penalty of Rs.88,300/- imposed on M/s. India Trade Promotion Organisation. As the issue involved is in narrow compass we take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the Applicant is engaged in the mission of developing and promoting exports, imports and upgradation of technology through the main medium of Trade fares held in India and abroad; that the activities of ITPO are promotional in nature and it is not a profit oriented organisation; that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-1 has confirmed the demand of service tax and imposed penalty holding that they are liable to service tax as mundap keeper as they provide the service of space/building/structure to the participants. The learned Counsel further mentioned that as provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 19...

Shri S.S. Gupta, Shri M.R. Naidu, Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT441TriDel

encompassed all the goods seized or cleared from the Ranibagh factory and accordingly the penalty imposed by the Commissioner, Meerut covered the watches seized at Delhi also; that penalty cannot be imposed twice for the same offence as it tantamouts to double jeopardy.3. Countering the arguments, Shri M.M. Dubey, learned D.R. submitted that the appellants have not raised this plea that the penalty cannot be imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act before the Adjudicating authority and as such they cannot raise a new plea before the Appellate Tribunal. He, further, submitted that provisions of Section 111(d) and 111(p) were invoked in the show cause notice issued in this matter and as such the penalty can be imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, of IB cases, dials and hands which were smuggled into the country from France and as such the watch parts which were smuggled into India were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(p) which will invite imposition of p...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. Khanna Paper Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue has filed the present appeal, being aggrieved with the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Sh. J. Singh, ld. JDR. Nobody is present for the respondents.2. The short issue involved in the Revenue's appeal is as regards the admissibility of modvat credit on EOT cranes for the period prior to 16.3.95. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Tribunal decision reported in 1996 (86) ELT 498 as also upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills reported in 1999 (108) ELT 47. Ld. JDR has not been able to show that the said decisions have been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In these circumstances I find no merits in the Revenue's appeal and reject the same....