Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

Cce, Delhi-ii Vs. Smithkline Beecham Consumer

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC669

1. For reasons recorded below we first dispose of the stay application filed by the Revenue by rejecting the same, since the issue in the appeal has since been decided in favour of the assessee/respondent by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Goa Bottling Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Goa 2001 (42) RLT 586 and proceeded to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. Assessees herein are engaged in the activity of repacking of malted food such as Horlicks, Book etc. classifiable under chapter heading 1901 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Duty is paid on the basis of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) as these products are covered under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Respondents sell the repacked Horlicks in different regions. The goods are stock transferred from the repacking stations to various Depots on payment of duty and sold from the Depots. However, on each packet only one MRP is mentioned. MRP of Horlicks packs sold in different regions are ...

M/S. Anant Syntex Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are 2 appeals filed by M/s. Anant Syntex Ltd. against common order in appeal passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the issue in both these appeals relates to the inclusion of galleries while determining the capacity of the stenters and that the matter is already covered in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2001 (127) ELT 671. Shri Rajeev Tandon, SDR submits that one additional point regarding interest at the rate of 36% is also involved in this proceedings. The ld. Advocate submits that in view of the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision the fixation of interest will not arise. We have carefully considered the matter. As the matter has already been covered by the Tribunal's aforesaid decision we consider that the capacity has to be determined by the jurisdictional au...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate submits that this matter is covered against the appellants vide Final Order No. A/354-357/2001 NB (D) dated 4.5.2001.2. Shri R.D. Negi, ld. SDR for the respondent also agreed. As the matter is against the appellants a fairly admitted by the ld. Advocate, the appeal of M/s. Paradise Steel Rolling Mills is rejected and the impugned order is confirmed. Ordered accordingly....

M/S. Rishab Chem. (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matte was called. No one appeared for the appellants M/s. Rishab Chem. (P) Ltd. The notice for todays hearing had been issued on 8.6.2001 and a copy has also been endorsed to the Counsel on record.There is no response. Under Stay Order dated 26.3.2001 the appellants were directed to pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 2877645/- within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of that order. The pre-deposit of the penalty amount of Rs. 2877645/- was waived in Appeal No. E/857/2000-D. In another appeal bearing No. E/858/2000-D the appellants were directed to pre-deposit the penalty amount of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs out of the penalty imposed of Rs. 5 Lakhs. The matter came up for reporting compliance on 4.6.2001 when a application was moved for modification of the Stay Order. No compliance is on records. We have gone though the miscellaneous application. We find that the appellants in the Misc. Application has submitted that the Stay Order be modified for the reasons given in that applica...

M/S. P.V.P. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1042TriDel

1. These are 2 appeals filed by M/s PVP Ltd. Being aggrieved with the common order in appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. In one appeal the matter relates to the rejection of refund claim as time barred and in another rejection of the refund claim partly as time barred and particularly on merits. The matter relates to the duty liability in respect of the acid oil under the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. Shri S.C.Kamra, ld. Advocate agrees that the Larger Bench decision in the case of Ahmed Oomerbhoy Vs.Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1998 (102) ELT 577 (T) is against the appellants on merits. as it has been held by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision that the acid oil was classified under item No.68 and not under item No.12 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Act. We find that as discussed in the order in original passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise that the duty was deposited during 2.10.84 to 26.3.85 whereas the claim was f...

M/S. Lucky Star Industries Vs. C.C., Amritsar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. By stay application, the applicant has sought for stay of the impugned order dt. 29.1.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Amritsar imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the appellant. Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Advocate for the appellants has contended that in the statements dt. 5.11.99 and 15.11.99, it has been fairly conceded that due to inadvertance they have forgotten to mention the auto (moped) parts. He has also contended that keeping in view the provisions of Section 114 (iii) of Customs Act, 1962, the penalty cannot exceed 5 times the amount of drawback claimed. In the present case it is seen from the show cause notice as well as the impugned order that the drawback amount claimed is Rs. 36,470/- and if it is multiplied by 5, it comes to more than Rs.1,80,000/-.3. In view of the facts and circumstances, the applicant is directed to deposit Rs.50,000/-(Rs. fifty thousand) within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The balance amount of ...

Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC670

1. Appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture and supply of certain items such as super enamelled copper wire, refrigerator parts etc. to one of their units at Faridabad on stock transfer basis to be used captively for further manufacture and clearing the same on payment of duty by taking assessable value on the basis of price declaration filed as per Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules. Assessable value of the goods was determined on the basis of cost of production in terms of Rule 6B(ii) of the Valuation Rules. The appellant had added 'nil' profits to the cost of production since they claimed that there was no profit during the previous financial year i.e. 1994-95. However, the audited balance sheet for the year ending 30th September 1995 showed that the appellant had earned 14.91% gross profit which resulted in under-valuation of goods cleared during the period May to September 1996 to the extent of Rs. 2,47,635 and short payment of duty of approximately Rs. 77.74 Lacs as p...

P.M.S. Tajudeen Vs. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is against the Adjudication Order No. DD/MAS/85/86 on File No. T4/30 S2/City/86 dated 25-3-1986 whereby penalty of Rs. 5,000 has been imposed on the Appellant for contravening the provisions of section 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). The amount of penalty has already been deposited by the Appellant. 2. Notices of hearing of this appeal were sent to the Appellant and his advocate but the same have been received back undelivered. However, having gone through the impugned order and appeal petition there against as, available in the appeal file, I find this case fit for invoking the powers vested in this Tribunal in terms of sub-section (6) of section 19 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, as is considered necessary for the purpose of examining the legality and propriety and the correctness of the impugned order. The matter is accordingly being taken up as such. It is seen that on the invitation of his brother-in-law in Singapore, the ...

M/S. Shree Cement Limited Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri M.P. Devnath, ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has filed an application for stay, but it is brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the entire duty amount of Rs. 4,01,792/- has been deposited by he appellants as mentioned in the letter dated 10.2.2001 addressed to the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur Road, Ajmer. A Copy of the said letter has been supplied to the ld. JDR who has seen and has agreed to the said deposit. The issue involved relates to modvat credit on capital goods and the same is covered by the Larger Bench decision in the case of C.C.E. Indore vs.Surya Roshni reported in 2001 (42) RLT 817 (CEGAT-L.B). The case involving the same issue in the case of appellants itself has been remanded by this Tribunal vide Order dt. 16.5.2001 to the Original Authority for deciding the matter afresh in light of the observations contained in the decision of the Larger Bench cited supra. Accordingly, the appeal itself is being taken for f...

M/S. GraIn Tec India Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri K.K. Anand, advocate, prays for withdrawal of the application for COD. it is his submission that when calculated from the date of the receipt of the impugned order, there is no delay in filing the present appeal. Considered. The COD application is dismissed as withdrawn.2. The cause title is also amended as prayed for in the misc.application.3. Both the sides agreed that the matter relates to the duty liability with regard to the structural and the matter has to be re-examined in the light of the guide lines given by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs Man Structural Ltd ., 2001 (44) RLT 113 (SC). With the consent of both the sides, the matter is also taken up for regular hearing after granting stay. As the matter relates hearing after granting stay. As the matter relates to the duty liability on the structural, we remand this matter to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority who will re-examine the matter in the light of the guidelines given by the Apex Court in th...