Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Aman Alloys (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Short point involved in the present appeal of the Revenue is as to whether the respondents could take the Modvat Credit on the basis of gate passes issued prior to 1.4.1994 but/endorsed there after upto 30.6.1994. After hearing both the sides duly represented by the learned JDR Sh. J. Singh and Sh. K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, I find that the issue is no more res-integra and has been settled in favour of the Respondents by a number of earlier decisions of the Tribunal. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has referred to the earlier orders reported in 1996 (13) RLT 350 (CEGAT-WRB), 1996 (14) RLT-68 (CEGAT-WRB) and in the case of 1996 (13) RLT 350 (CEGAT-WRB).2. The Departments contention is in most of these cases a reference has been made to the Hon'ble High Court including High Court of Punjab & Haryana and it is pending before that Court. Shri K.K. Anand submits that one of the High Courts that is Gujarat High Court in the case of Assistant commissioner,C.E., Ahm...

M/S. Vinod Kumar Bhatia Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Vide stay Order No.S/266/2001-NB(S) dated 3.5.2001 appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 30.5.2001.When the matter came up for hearing today, Sh. Vinod Kumar Bhatia appeared in person and drew my attention to the Misc. application filed for modification of this Stay order. He also submitted that an amount of Rs.10,000/- has already been deposited by them. After hearing both sides I find that a detailed Stay Order was passed after taking into consideration the merits of the case as also the financial position.Accordingly, I do not find any merits in the Miscellaneous Application for Modification of Stay Order. The same is accordingly rejected.However, in the interest of justice the period to deposit the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- is extended by another 8 weeks from today. Matter to come up for ascertaining compliance on 6th August,2001....

M/S. King Steel Rolling Mills, Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This Miscellaneous Petition for early hearing is file dby the Counsel for the appellants in which it is stated that this appeal may be fixed for early hearing in the second week of June, 2001. The grounds for out of turn hearing of the appeal is stated to be that th eapplicant is being pressurised by the Department to deposit the differential duty in terms of the Order-in-Original No.86/CE-2000 dated 30.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner. It is observed that in the Order-in-Original no differential duty is demanded. This order only fixes the Annual Capacity of Production of the appellants. Even in the Miscellaneous Petition the amount of duty for which the Departmental Authorities are stated to be pressurising them is not indicated by the appellant. We are further of the view that since there are evertments to the facts in the Miscellaneous Petition, they should been verfied themselves and not by their Counsel.2. In view of the above we do not find any force in this petition and th...

M/S. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The prayer in the application is dispensing with pre-deposit of Duty of Rs. 1,35,508/- and penalty of Rs. 35,000/-. The said duty has been confirmed against the appellant by the authorities below on the ground that the pig iron, in respect of which Modvat Credit has been availed by them has been used in the manufacture of non-dutiable P.D.Pumps. As such by applying the Provisions of Rule 57 C Modvat Credit would not be available to the appellant. Shri R.G. Seth, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that out of pig iron they are manufacturing P.D. Pump as well as waste and scrap. While admitting that no duty is being paid on the P.D. Pumps, he submits that waste and scrap is being clearned by them on payment of duty. He, further, contends that waste and scrap is one of the declared final products in their declaration.Even Rule 57 F (12) permits them to utilize Modvat Credit for payment of scrap. In these circumstances submits the learned Advocate that denial of Modva...

M/S. Laxmi Engg. Works and Shri Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT573TriDel

1. These two stay applications arise out of appeals bearing Nos.t/1136/2001-NB(V) filed by M/s.Laxmi Engg. Works and E/1100/2001-NB(D) by Bhupinder Jain (appellant no.2) against the common order in original dated 20.2.2001 passed by the Commissioner confirming the duty demand and imposing penalty of the amounts detailed therein.The appellants have sought the waiver of those amounts for the purposes of hearing of their appeals, in these stay applications.2. While arguing the stay applications, the learned counsel has contended that the impugned order in original of the Commissioner is prima facie legally not sustainable as the same had been based on surmises and conjectures. The slip pads, registers and loose papers allegedly recovered from the factory premises were disowned by the appellants and entries therein could not be relied upon by the learned Commissioner for determining the production and clandestine removal of the goods as those did not stand proved on record at all. The tes...

Shri Sumant Sood Vs. Cc, Channai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Application for stay of operation of the order by which redemption fine of Rs.15 Lakhs has been imposed on the present applicant, who is the purchaser of the imported car, is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh application, if so advised.Appeal is fixed for hearing on 6th July, 2001....

M/S. Tamania Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This Reference Application is filed under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 against CEGAT Order No. A/1783-85/96-NB dt. 10.7.96. The brief facts of the case are that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence issued show cause notice dt. 5.7.89 to six individuals including the appellants. The basis of the show cause notice was that certain contraband goods were being transported through a courier service from Calcutta to New Delhi on 21.1.89. The said goods were intercepted by the DRI Officers. One box containing the goods were bearing marks as ``TAMANIA". Inside the said box there two card board cartons. Both of them bore markings as ``Kingbright Electronic Co.Ltd., PO Box 81-153, Taipei". Each contained 32 plastic packets containing 1000 Light emitting diodes each. Totally there were 32 plastic packets in one card board box and the other contained 51 packets. The total value of the said light emitting diodes of foreign was estimated at Rs. 1,11,000/-.Accordingly, the proceedings ...

M/S. Chokshi Contacts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Learned Counsel, Shri K.K.Anand, stated that in this case the entire duty demand of Rs.3,07,015 already stands paid and this fact has been accepted by the adjudicating authority himself. Therefore, prayer before us is for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalty of equal amount which has been imposed in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.2. On hearing both sides and noting submission regarding payment of full duty and further noting that the duty payable subsequent to 28.9.96 which is the date of introduction of Section 11AC in the statute boom, we are of the view that this is a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and stay of recovery. Wr order accordingly.Appeal fixed for hearing on 9th July, 2001....

M/S. Prem Prakash Gupta and Bros (P) Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) observed that "From perusal of the show cause notice and document submitted by the appellant it is apparently clear that there is no allegation regarding clandestine removal or removal with intent to evade payment of central excise duty. Further in view of the fact that the appellants are SSI unit and were regularly informing the department about their manufacturing activities and requesting for proper guidance time and again, I am of the opinion that the contravention of Rules is of technical nature and does not deserve to be penalised in such harsh manner. Accordingly I pass the following order.In view of the aforesaid facts I reduce the penalty imposed upon the appellants from Rupees six thousand to Rupees one thousand (1000/-) only.Except for the aforesaid modification the order-in-original dt.27.11.95 is upheld as legal and proper." 2. In the Order-in-Original, the Assistant Commissioner had confirmed a demand of Rs.957.40 and imp...

M/S. Palm Print Textiles (India) Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Vide the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut has fixed the Annual Capacity of production of the appellant, as a consequence of which the Superintendent has confirmed the demand against the appellant. The prayer in the Stay Petition is for setting aside the recovery of that demand, confirmed by the Superintendent. However, we find that as the Commissioner had only fixed Annual Capacity of Production of the appellant, the stay petition is not maintainable in terms of Provisions of Section 35 F. Accordingly the same is dismissed.2. As the issue involved in the appeal is pending very long, we take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides duly represented by Ms.Nandini Ramachandran, learned Advocate and Shri M.P. Singh, learned JDR.3. The impugned order has been assailed by the appellant on two grounds. Firstly, before passing the same no opportunity was given to them to putforth their defence and secondly, on the ground that the Commission...