Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

M/S. Jyoti Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter came up today for disposal of the Stay petition, ti is seen that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Allahabad in respect of about 27 parties. Shri P.M. Dave, ld.Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that the said parties might have filed the appeals before the WRB, who exercises the original jurisdiction. He however, submits that their matter can be decided separately inasmuch as the facts and evidence of each case are separate and not over lapping. He also submits that for this purpose, they have moved the application for retention of their appeal before the Delhi Bench in view of public Notice No. 2/2001.2. Shri Rajeev Tandon, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue submits that the facts and evidences have been dealt with by the Commissioner separately only out of convenience, otherwise, all the appeals arising out of the same order should be dealt with collectively and disposed of by one Bench. He also submits that the order can...

M/S. Aksh India Ltd. and M/S. C.M.J. Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are two Stay Applications filed against the common Order-in-Appeal No. 1284-1285 (KDT) CE/JPR-I/2000 dt. 12.12.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 225/99-2000 dated 10.11.99 filed in Appeal Nos. E/862-863/2001. The issue involved in both the cases is the same i.e., whether the appellants are entitled for exemption on the quantity of optical fibre cable destroyed during the testing by the customers within the factory of the appellants. Since the issue involved in both the cases in same, both the Stay Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. In the Stay Petition, the applicant/appellant has prayed that the Tribunal may waive the condition of pre-deposit under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal.2. The ld. Advocate, Shri Bipin Garg appearing on behalf of the applicants has argued that the Apex Court in the Case of M/s. Traco Cable Co. Ltd. ...

M/S. Mohindra Agro Industries Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant has filed the present appeal against the Order dt.9.3.2001 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. Shri B.D. Ghai, authorised representative of the applicant/appellant has stated that the letter dt. 6.1.2001 submitted by him has not been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. I have gone through the photo copy of the said order available on record and inter alia it is stated that ample opportunities of personal hearing were given on 4.9.2000, 25.9.2000 and 7.11.2000, but no one appeared. It is also stated in the Order-in-Appeal that the facts stated in the appeal were considered and it was found that the case was not fit for waiver of pre-deposit of the dues. Accordingly vide Interim Stay Order No.199/KDT/CE/JPR/2000 dated 20.12.2000, their application for waiver of pre-deposit of dues was rejected and the applicants was dire ted to deposit the due within three weeks time from the date of passing of the stay order. It is further stated that ...

M/S. Plaza Steel Rolling Mills (P) Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Prasenjit Keswani, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant submits that the Stay Petition has been preferred against the Order-in-Appeal No. 907/CE/DLH/2000 dated 27.10.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi who has disallowed the modvat credit for the period 3.4.96 to 25.4.96 and upheld the imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- by the Asst.Commissioner. The ld. Advocate submits that the appellant was regularly submitting the documents such as - RG 23 Part I/II and RT 12 and in such declaration, they had declared that they were availing the modvat credit in respect of the items describing Iron and Non-Alloy Steel ingots and other primary forms falling under Chapter 7206.10 and 7206.90 on a bonafide belief that Blooms, Billets and Blocks were covered under the category of 'Iron in other primary forms' and further in the declaration dt. 7.6.94 under Rule 57 H, the appellants had categorically stated that they were availing modvat ...

M/S. Mahabir Prasad and Others Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called. No one appeared for the applicants M/s.Mahabir Prasad and others. A request had been made for adjournment on the ground that the applicant's Counsel had gone to his home town for summer vacation and was expected to come back after 15th July 2001.2. Shri M.P. Singh, DR submits that the appeals in this case had already been dismissed for non-compliance vide Final Order dated 4.10.99 and that in the Miscellaneous Application there is no mention that the terms of the Tribunal's Stay Order as modified by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, had been complied with.3. We have gone through the Miscellaneous Application. We have also gone through the Final Order dated 4.10.99. We do not find any justifiable ground for adjourning the matter. As there is nothing on record that the terms of the Stay Order of the Tribunal had been complied with, we don not find any ground for recall of the order already passed. The Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. The appeals have alr...

M/S. Super Tech. Inds. Ltd., Vs. Cc, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The learned Counsel for the applicants filed a Miscellaneous application which was received in the Registry on 29th May, 2001 but it has not been listed for today and even the SDR have not received its copy. Alongwith this application, the learned Counsel has annexed certain documents and the copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 26.4.2001 vide which the Hon'ble High Court directed the Departmental Authorities to de-seal the premises of the appellants firm and make inventories of all the goods/ raw material etc. lying in the premises of the appellant firm. According to the Counsel the factory premised had been de-sealed by the Departmental Authorities and fresh inventories of the goods/raw-material etc. lying in the factory premises have also been prepared. But the ld. SDR wants time to get the report from the Commissioner and also the copy of the fresh inventories prepared by the Departmental Authorities. This report as per the SDR is essential for the decision of the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Steel Strips and Wheels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this application for stay of operation of the impugned order.3. In the impugned order the benefit of MODVAT credit was allowed to the respondents. Taking into facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the application. The application. The application is rejected. However, the Registry is directed to fix the appeal for arguments on 17.9.2001....

M/S. Shree Laxmi Dyeing and Pringing Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants had prayed for decision on merits. According to them the case is covered in their favour vide the Tribunal's decision in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. CCE Reported in 2001 (127) ELT 679. Shri Rajeev Tandon, ld. SDR agrees. In view of the Larger Bench decision aforesaid the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise to recalculate the capacity in the light of the aforesaid Tribunals Larger Bench decision. Thus, the appeal is allowed by the way of remand....

M/S. B.M. Auto India Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT686TriDel

1.This is an application filed by M/s B.M. Auto India for restoration of their appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. E/91/98-B1, dated 09.01.1998.2. Shri Vivek Kohli, ld. Advocate, submitted that the applicant had filed appeal on 06.06.1990 against adjudication order No. 13 of 1990 dated 20.03.1990, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi; that the appeal was filed through Shri D.N. Kohli, ld.Consultant; that Shri D.N. Kohli was handling and taking care of the matter on behalf o the appellants which is apparent from the stay order dated 20.06.1990; all the papers with respect to the matter were with Shri D.N. Kohli; that both the partners of the firm have left Delhi and the unit was lying closed; that Shri Sarabjit Singh one of the partner received a letter dated 23.02.2001 from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Sonepat requiring him to deposit Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,77,165.87 and penalty of Rs. 1,50,000.00; that thereafter, ...

M/S. Simran Tube (P) Limited Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the applicants, inspite of the notice issued to the applicants which was received back with the remarks 'factory closed'. The notice was issued on the adders given in the Appeal Memo. Therefore stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty is being taken up in the absence of the applicants.2. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.4. In this case the duty is being demanded in respect of shortage of raw material and finished products. In the grounds of the Appeal, the applicants attempted to reconcile the shortage of raw material as well as finished goods. In view of the above circumstances of the case, the applicants are directed to deposit the whole of the duty amounting to Rs. 1,54,595/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On deposit of the duty amount, the penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. It is, however, made clear in ca...