Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

M/S. Wonderseal Packaging Vs. C.C.E., Nagpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are an SSI Unit manufacturing L.D.P.E. lock bags falling under sub-heading 3923.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They exported these goods and claimed the refund of Rs. 88,291/- and Rs. 98,706/- in their two claims in respect of the accumulated modvat credit under Rule 57 F(13) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. These amounts were sanctioned by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Amravati Dn. vide his Order dt. 30.3.2000 and another order of even date. However, the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Amravati Dn.issued two separate show cause notices dated 14.8.2000 for recalling these amount son the ground that they had not followed the AR 4 procedure. On considering the submissions of the party, the Dy.Commissioner of Central Excise vide two separate orders both dt.6.10.2000 ordered for the recovery of the aforestated amounts. The party filed appeals against the above orders of the Original Authority which were dismissed by a common Order dt. 31.1.2001 of...

M/S. Shipra Steel Rolling Mills Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This miscellaneous application is filed in respect of Stay Order No.S/105/01/NB(S) dated 16.2.2001. It is observed that the said miscellaneous petition is filed in the name of the petitioners but the same is not signed by them. It is signed by Shri R.G. Bhagwan, Consultant, Central Excise, Jaipur who is present in person. On a specific query during the course of hearing he is not able to produce any authorisation from the petitioners. Notice the hearing sent to the petitioners, however, is returned by the postal authorities undelivered.2. The miscellaneous application is thus dismissed as not maintainable in law....

M/S. Paneshwar Steel and Agro Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing this appeal M/s. Paneshwar Steel and Agro Industries Ltd. are required to pre-deposit amount of Rs.6,31,252/- and penalty amount of Rs.4,96,719/-. Shri Balbir Singh, Advocate submits that for the period 1.4.97 to 15.7.97 the appellants were eligible for the small scale exemption under Notification No.16/97-CE dated 1.4.97 and they duty availed of the benefit of this notification. When a new Notification 38/97-CE dated 27.6.97 was issued, the appellants from 16.7.97 wanted to avail the benefit of this exemption Notification. The department had denied them giving the small scale exemption from 1.4.97. He submits that they had entered the credit of Rs.3,72,243/- in their accounts but had not utilised the same. The appellants are willing to reverse this credit from the accounts for hearing the present appeal. Shri M.M. Dubey, DR submits that the matter has to be gone into in detail at the time of the final hearing. At this prima facie stage he leaves it to the Bench to orde...

Kamal Kapoor, Krishan Kapoor, Vs. Cc Amritsar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All the above captioned appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common impugned order in original of the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar dated 23.2.2000 vide which he had imposed penalty and fine of various amounts, as detailed therein on them.2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals may briefly be stated as under: 3. Shri Kamal Kapoor and Shri Krishan Kapoor, appellants Nos.(1) and (2) imported second hand knitting machines in the name of their firms M/s.Venus Industries appellants No.(11) and M/s.Shree Ambaji Textile (appellant No.10) respectively. As per the provisions of para 5.4 of the EXIM Policy 1997-2002, in force at that time such machines could be imported without licence by the actual users. However, the condition imposed under para 5.4 of the Hand Book of Procedure was that those machines could not be transferred/sold or otherwise disposed of within the period of five years from the date of import without the prior permission of DGFT. Kama...

Shri Shambhu Nath and Shri Lal Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(0)ELT0TriDel

1. These appeals are against the order of the Commissioner of customs imposing penalties of Rs. 25,000/- each on the appellants under Section 112(b) of Customs Act. The bare facts necessary fro the disposal of these appeals will be stated below.2. A team of preventive officers of Customs intercepted a 'Maruti Gypsy' at Safedabad on the Barabanki-Lucknow road on 24.12.99. The vehicle had three occupants, namely Raj Kumar Sharma (driver), Shambu Nath (appellant in Appeal No. C/7/2001) and Lal Bahadur (appellant in Appeal No. C/11/2001). The vehicle and its occupants were taken to the office of the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow and the vehicle was searched in the presence of independent witnesses. The search revealed secret cavities on either sides of the rear seats. 101 slabs of what appeared to be raw silver along with ornaments and India currency of Rs. 1,13,500/- were recovered from the secret cavities. The silver was got assessed for its weight and purity on the spot by assayers ...

M/S Associated Engg. Industries, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC185Tri(Delhi)

2. Two refund claims relating to the period 13.06.1984 to 07.01.1985, filed by the appellants, were rejected by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise as per Order-in-Original dated 18.06.1991.That order was passed on grounds including unjust enrichment. The decision of the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund claims on the ground of unjust enrichment was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal filed by the party against the order of the Collector (Appeals) was allowed by this Tribunal as per final Order No. A/1563/95-NB dated 21.12.1995, wherein it was held that the refund claims could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment. Notwithstanding such decision of the Tribunal, the Department issued show-cause notice in relation to the very same refund claims to the appellants on 22.04.1997 directing them to show cause why the refund claims should not be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The party contested the notice by pleading res judicata...

M/S. Vikram Vetergents Ltd. Vs. Cce New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC779

1. These are three appeals one filed by M/s. Vikram vetergents Lts. and the others by the Revenue being aggrieved with the same order in appeal dated 2.2.2000. The assessee has filed appeal with regard to the HDPE bags whether they were returnable or not. The Revenue has come in appeal with regard to the interest on receivables on the ground that the interest was allowable only for the period mentioned on the invoices. Shri P.k.Jain,SDR submits that there are some other issues also with regard to valuation and they are also covered by the relevant decisions in the matter. When the matter was called Shri Arbind Jha, proxi counsel prays for adjournment on the ground that this matter is to be argued by Shri P.K. Mittal who is not well today. Shri P.K.Jain, SDR submits that the two main issues involved in these proceedings are already covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in the appellants own case with regard to the HDPE bags in the case of Vikram Detergents Ltd. Vs. CCE New Delhi &am...

M/S. Navketan Auto India Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts and for stay of recovery, pending the appeal. The prayer of waiver must wait for the decision of the Larger Bench on the issue referred form this Bench in the case of KISSAN SAHAKARI CHINI MILLS. As regards the other prayer for stay, there will be an interim stay of recovery of the duty and penalty till final disposal of the present application, in the interest of justice. This application is posted to 24.08.2001 for consideration of the prayer for waiver of deposit. Issue certified copy of this order....

M/S. Rayband Chemicals, Indore Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Having carefully examined the records and heard both sides, I am taking up the appeal itself for final disposal.2. The department framed a case of clandestine removal of the excisable goods without payment of duty, against the appellants on the basis of he results of an inspection conducted by its officers in the factory and depot premises of the party on 31.03.1998. The officers seized certain quantities of paints and varnishes from the premises. It appeared to them that the appellants, an SSI unit, had crossed the exemption limit of clearance value of R. 30 lakhs prescribed under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 for the period 1997-98.Accordingly, the Department issued a show-cause notice (SCN) to the party for confiscation of the seized goods and for recovery of duty of excise on the goods cleared in excess of the aforesaid limit as also for imposing penalties on the party under the provisions of Sections 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 173Q of the Central Excis...

M/S. Haryana Cable Industries, Vs. Cce New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Vide stay order of the Tribunal dated 13.2.2001 the appellants M/s.Haryana Cable Industries and M/s Deepak Cable Co. were directed to make pre-deposit of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs only) and Rs.44 lakhs (Rupees forty four lakhs only) towards the duty liability, respectively, within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The compliance was to be reported on 3.5.2001, but no compliance was made. The learned counsel stated that the appellants had moved applications for rectification of the stay order in which the arguments were heard but had not received copy of any order. But the file shows that rectification applications had already been rejected vide order dated 2.5.2001. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances extension of time for making compliance with the stay order dated 13.2.2001 of the Tribunal, by 31.5.2001 was allowed vide order dated 3.5.2001, although the learned counsel stated that the appellants will not be able to co...