Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

M/S. K.C. Enterprises Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Vide impugned order authorities below have confirmed the demand of duty for Rs. 1,71,696/-. Shri S.R. Kantiwala Learned Adv. appearing for the appellants makes a fair offer to deposit 50% of the confirmed demand of duty in terms of provision under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act. Shri A.K. Jain, SDR appearing for respondent accepts the offer. Accordingly, I direct the appellants to deposit the amount of Rs. 75,000/- within a period of six weeks from today. Subject to deposit of the above amount of duty, condition of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty shall stand waived and its recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. The matter to come up for ascertaining compliance on 23.7.2001. Subject to compliance of the stay order, the appeal itself would be taken on that date for final disposal....

M/S. Basera Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT435TriDel

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs.16,36,750/- and an equivalent amount of personal penalty imposed upon the appellant under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and another quantum of personal penalty of rs. 5 lakhs imposed in lieu of redemption fine by the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Kandla.2. Ms. Sujata Grover, Proprietor appearing in person on behalf of M/s.Basera Exports, New Delhi submits that they had imported 'brass scrap' under the Advance Licence Scheme and availed duty free clearance of imported goods under Notfn. No. 203/92-Cus dated 19.5.1992. As against the said duty free importations they were required to make export of 'Tips for Ball Pen Refills'. However, the export obligation in terms of the licence could not be fulfilled by them inasmuch as their advance licence was taken by the DRI from the premises of their Customs House Agent when their premises was raided by the ...

M/S. Sona Processors (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in the present appeal as admitted by both the sides is covered in favour of the appellants by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara ltd.Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (127) ELT 679 (Tribunal - Larger Bench).2. The stay application filed by the appellants for the absolute waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts is therefore allowed.3. With the consent of both the sides, we proceed to deal with the matter on merits.4. The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the capacity of galleries can be taken into consideration while determining the production of the stenter or not. The ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) while taking into consideration the capacity of galleries had determined the capacity of he stenter and confirmed the duty accordingly alongwith the penalty as detailed in the impugned order itself. But the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained legally in...

M/S. VipIn Enterprise Vs. C.C., Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. By the above application, applicants pray for implementation of the Final Order No. 328/98-A dated 26.2.1998 of the Tribunal by which the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla was set aside and case remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law. They submit that although Tribunal passed the Final Order more than 2 1/2 years above, no fresh orders have been passed. It was brought to our attention that although hearings were fixed by the Commissioner in January and April, 2001, no hearing had taken place till date.2. On hearing both sides, we direct the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs to hear the applicant and pass fresh orders on or before 31.7.2001....

M/S. Procter and Gamble India Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Procter & Gamble India Ltd., the matter relates to the duty liability on a number of items as mentioned in para-3 of the show cause notice dated 13.02.96 at page 31 of the paper book.2. Shri P.K. Ram, Advocate submits that these items as mentioned in para-3 of the show cause notice are in the nature of structurals and there is no finding by the adjudicating authority that they were obtained as a result of manufacturing process and were marketable. He invites attention to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Man Structurals Ltd. - 2001 (44) RLT 113 (SC) and prays for remand of the matter for decision in the light of the aforesaid Supreme Court's order.3. Shri M.D. Singh, SDR has no objection for remand of the matter but mentions that there is clear finding in this case by the adjudicating authority that the goods were first fabricated and then they were installed and thus, the goods were identifiable and...

M/S Atul Chemicals Products Vs. Cce Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri G.K. Khandelwal, CA and Shri A.K. Jain, Ld. SDR, I find that modvat credit has been disallowed on the ground that invoices were not carrying pre-printed serial number. Instead the same were endorsed with the rubber stamp. In respect of Sl. No. 1, it has been brought to my notice that the issue is covered by the earlier decision of Tribunal in the Bajaj Tempo Ld.Vs others, 1999 (106) ELT 45(T). I find the above submission to be correct. Accordingly I allow the stay petition un-conditionally, and fix the main appeal on 31.8.2001....

Cce, Raipur Vs. M/S. Hira Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are two appeals, one filed by the Revenue and the order filed by the assessee, M/s. Hira Industries Ltd. being aggrieved with the same Order-in-Original dated 2.2.96 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur. The matter relates to the duty liability in respect of the cement silos and vertical shaft kiln. The Commissioner had considered the blower house and cement grinding millas immovable property and against this part of the order, the Revenue has not come in appeal. The Revenue's appeal is only in respect of the Cement silos.2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate submits that the Revenue in their appeal had given no ground to challenge the finding of fact of the adjudicating authority that cement silos had been permanently attached to the ground and as such, were not the goods in terms of Section 3 of the Central Excises Act, 1944. He further submits that the vertical shaft kiln was also immovable property and had been constructed and not manufactured. He refers to the...

M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Apurva Bhattacharya, Advocate for the appellants vide his FAX Message dt. 31.5.2001 has intimated that the entire amount of Rs. 7,47,789/- subject matter of this appeal has since been debited in their modvat account and therefore the provisions of Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have been complied with.2. In view of the above submissions made on behalf of the appellants, the present Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous....

M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When matter is called, none present on behalf of the appellant. We find that the appellant is public Sector Undertaking. There is no clearance on file from the High Power Committee in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Courts decision in the case of ONGC. Accordingly we close the Stay petition and appeal for statistical purposes. Liberty is being given to the appellants to pray for getting the appeal restored incase, clearance is given by the Committee on Disputes....

M/S. Eicher Precssion Machines Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT600TriDel

1. Captioned appeal has been filed against the finding of the Collector (Appeals) holding that "I do not find any ground in the appellant's appeal to interfere with the impugned order of the Assistant Collector in this case. The Assistant Collector's order-in-original is accordingly upheld and the appeal of the appellant fails." 2. The Assistant Collector in the order-in-original had held that "Having regard to the facts and discussion above it is, therefore held that the P.T.O.Pulley manufactured by the appellant is to be classified under sub-heading 8483.00 ibid. The classification list is modified accordingly. Regarding the party's contention that the demand is enforceable from the date of issue of show cause notice, in view of the CEGAT order in the case of M/s.INAROO Limited Vs. CCE, Bombay, the contention of the party is admitted and the party should pay duty from the date of show cause notice." 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufac...