Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

M/S. Monsanto Manufacturers Pvt. Vs. Cce, Meerut - I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application filed by M/s Monsanto Manufacture Pvt. Ltd. praying for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.42,24,113/- and penalty of Rs.21 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner, Central Excise under the impugned order.2. Shri Ashok Sagar, ld. advocate, submitted that the applicants manufacture ice cream by employing their own workmen, who work under the supervision and control of the applicants and on machinery owned by them; that on 14.10.94 they entered into an agreement with M/S Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. (BBLIL) and Unilever Industry Pvt. Ltd. for supplying ice cream, lollies, dairy and non dairy based frozen desserts at prices to be calculated as per formula agreed between them; that the entire agreement was on a purely commercial basis and on a principal to principal basis; that after said agreement came into force with effect from 1.1.95. The applicants stopped their own marketing activity of the ice cream manufactured by them which was marke...

M/S. Doaba Alloys Casting (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Delhi-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 4,09,505.00 and penalty of Rs. one lakh. The allegation against the applicants is that they had removed the final product without payment of duty.2. Ld. counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that they are engaged in the manufacture of rolling products and on receipt of orders from the customers, they load the truck with the products and send it to the weighbridge, which is out of the factory. The demand is being made on weighment slips. He submits that they had paid duty on all the goods cleared. He, further, submits that the unit was closed from 30.11.98 and the excise license was surrendered. In these circumstances, it will cause undue hardship to the applicants.3. Heard ld. D.R., who reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.4. In this case, the allegation against the applicants is that they were removing the goods without payment of duty. However, taking into consideration th...

M/S. Malhotra Industrial Corpn. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing their appeal, the appellants M/s. Malhotra Industrial Corpn., Mandi Gobindgarh were required to pre-deposit duty amount of Rs. 1,10,41,669/- and penalty amount of Rs. 25 lakhs.2. Arguing for the appellants Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Ld. Counsel submitted that deemed capacity has been fixed by the Commissioner of Central Excise on the basis of the declared nominal centre distance of the pinion in the pinion stand at 295 mm. Subsequently, the Revenue has redetermined the capacity assuming the nominal centre distance as 404 mm. He submits that the appellants had correctly declared the above figures and refers to the verification report by the Department at page 73 of the paper book. It is his submission that the 'd' factor at the end was 295 mm and the production has to be determined on this basis.He explained the position of the pinion with reference to the figure at page 169 of the paper book. The appellants had already paid duty of Rs. 60,44,627/- and further submits that...

M/S. Balram Chini Mills Vs. C.C.E., Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs.2,73,253.50 and penalty of Rs. 2,80,000.00.2. In this case the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and excisable products i.e. molasses came into existence during the manufacture of sugar. The applicants made a request for remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Rules on the molasses found short on the ground that the molasses were destroyed due to natural causes. The request for remission was declined and the demand was confirmed.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the shortage of the molasses was less than two per cent, which is permissible as held by the Tribunal in many cases. He, further, submits that the stock was measured by dip method and the Tribunal in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs C.C.E. reported in 2000 (117) ELT 83 and in the case of Ghatampur Sugar Company Limited vs C.C.E.reported in 1996 (85) ELT 69 held that demand ca...

M/S Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application filed by M/s Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. praying for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 11,03,091/- and penalty Rs. 1,50,000/-.2. Sh. V.L. Kumaran, ld. advocate, submitted that the applicants manufacture narrow woven fabrics (tapes) which are supplied by them in their entirety to the garment manufacturers to use them as an input for the manufacture of the garments; that no part of the tapes manufactured by them is sold to anybody else except the respective garment manufacturers; that the department has denied them the benefit of SSI exemption Notification NO. 1/93-CE on the ground that the tapes bear the brand name of another person. The ld. advocate, further, mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in their own case wherein the benefit of the notification was denied to them vide Final Order No. 1056/99-D dated 24.12.99. The ld. counsel mentioned that in order to attract misch...

M/S. Nestle (i) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Ld. Counsel submits that at the time of hearing of the appal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants had already deposited an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh out of the total demand of Rs. 1,98,273.00.3. Keeping in view that the applicants had already deposited a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakh, the remaining amount of duty and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. Registry is directed to list the appeal on 12.09.2001 for regular hearing....

M/S. Adinath Textiles Ltd., Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC285

1. This is an application by M/s Adinath Textiles Ltd., for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,02,315/- confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order.2. Shri. K. K. Anand, ld. Advocate submitted that the applicants manufacture textile yarn mainly Acrylic Yarn; that as per Trade Notice No. 70/94 dated 07.06.1994 that yarn was to be accounted for in RG.1 at spindle stage and, accordingly, they were discharging duty liability at spindle stage; that subsequently, the said Trade Notice was modified by another Trade Notice No.112/94 dated 15.12.1994 wherein it was mentioned that the duty of excise would be chargeable only at the time of renewal and not at the spindle stage; that a show-cause notice was issued to them for demanding differential duty for the period from 06.09.1994 to 14.12.1994; that Deputy commissioner dropped the demand proceedings; that however, an appeal preferred by the Department, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order...

M/S. Supreme Steel and Genl. Mills Vs. C.C.E., Delhi I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this applicants filed this application for waiver of penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 imposed under Rule 173Q of the Rules.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), admitted the fact that the applicants had prepared invoices in respect of consignments and paid duty on the same. The only allegation on the applicants is that the goods were intercepted by the revenue authorities, and at that time the goods were not accompanying the duty-payment documents at that relevant time.3. Ld. D.R. submits that as at the time of interception of the goods, there was no duty-paying document accompanying the goods, the applicants are liable to penalty.5. In view of the finding of the commissioner (Appeals), that the goods were duty paid, prima facie, it is a fit case for total waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty. The pre-deposit of penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. Registry is directed to list the ...

M/S. Bombay Metal Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants field this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed under rule 173 q and 209 of the Rules.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that in this case the unaccounted finished goods were lying in the factory to show that the applicants have made any attempt to remove the goods without payment of duty. He submits that the Tribunal in the case of Bihillai Conductors (P) Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Raipur reported in 2000 (91) ECR 559 held that in the absence of mens rea, the penalty under Rule 173 Q is not sustainable and the applicants are only liable to penalty of Rs. 2,000.00 under Rule 26 of the Rules.3. Heard ld. D.R., who reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.4. In this case, the penalty of Rs. 72,000.00 was imposed under Rule 173 Q and 209 of the Rules. Keeping in view of the decision of the Tribunal, as relied upon by the applicants, prima facie, it is not a fit case for total waiver of penalty. The applicants are, therefore,...

M/S. R.B. Knit Exports Vs. Cc, Amritsar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. R.B. Knit Exports have filed the present stay application with regard to the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar in which the excess amount of draw back of Rs. 12,84,256.00 had been ordered to be recoverable from them. It is mentioned in the order itself that the applicants have already deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- and the same had been ordered to be adjusted against the excess draw back claim. Thus, the net liability of Rs. 2,84,256/- has been fastened on the applicants. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- has also been imposed under the Customs Act.2. We have heard Shri G.S. Bhangoo, Advocate for the applicants and Shri Mewa Singh, SDR is present for the respondents/Revenue.3. The ld. Advocate submits that the demand was hit by time bar and that the Revenue has already withheld an other draw back claim of above Rs. 7,00,000/-.4. After hearing both the sides and after going through the facts on record, we direct the applicants to deposit the ba...