Delhi Court July 2001 Judgments

M/S. Zenith Rubber Limited, Mr. Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above applications for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, who has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 2,74,88,381.00 against the applicant company on the ground that they were carrying out the process of rubberisation of rubber rollers which is a process of manufacture and has imposed a penalty of amount equal of duty under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC, and imposed personal penalty of Rs.10 lakhs on the Managing Director and Rs.50,000/- on the Accounts officers of the Company under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. The adjudicating authority has held that the old and worn rubber rollers received by the applicants were not finished goods but scrap and from this scrap metal spindle is formed after carrying out of various process such as cutting, fitting, welding, threading etc., He has distinguished the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lathia Industries Supplies Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE [1987 (29) ELt...

La Chem Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT794TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by (1) M/s. La chem Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. and (2) Shri S.S. Nandwana, Managing Director. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi who had adjudicated the matter and disallowed the MODVAT credit of Rs. 19,88,497/- and an equal amount of penalty/ had been imposed on M/s. La Chem Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh is imposed on Shri S.S. Nandwana, Managing Director under Rule 209A. Aruging for both the appellants, Shri V.R. Sethi learned Advocate submits that on merits the appellants were not contesting and the duty imposed has already been deposited. It is his submission, that even under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, if, duty is deposited prior to the show cause notice or within one month from the date of order, a lenient view was to be taken and penalty amount should be reduced to 25%. It was his submission that the present case, the penalty has been imposed under Rule 173Q of the...

M/S. Alcobex Metal Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this application for rectification of mistake in Final Order o. 2056/2000-NB(S) dated 28.8.2000.3. The contention of the revenue is that the Tribunal had wrongly held that manufacturer can alvail the benefit of MODVAT Credit on defective final products, which are returned to the manufacturer and the Tribunal has erred in allowing the MODVAT Credit on the defective final products, which are returned to the manufacturer as the invoices, on which the credit had been taken, were not the proper documents, as these were issued by the manufacturers themselves.4. I find that the power to rectify the mistake is limited and this power is restricted to rectify the mistake apparent on record.5. The main ground taken in the application is that the manufacturer had availed the credit on defective goods on their own documents. This issue was not pressed by the revenue at the time of final hearing of the appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balram, Income-Tax Officer...

M/S. Pgo Processors (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1017TriDel

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Jaipur, by which he has upheld duty demand of Rs. 39,883 on shortage of processed man made fabrics, upheld the confiscation of 1721 Mtrs. of finished man made fabrics on the ground that their value had been wrongly declared, with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,000 and upheld penalty of an amount equal to duty in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.2. We have heard Shri K.K. Anand, Learned Counsel and Shri P.K. Jain, Learned SDR. We find that the shortage of 3332.50 Mtrs. of processed man made fabrics on which duty demand of Rs. 33,325 had been confirmed was arrived at by totalling meterage shown on the tags in each "than".Although the shortage is only 0.07%, in view of the trade practice where thousands of meters are involved, and accountal is based on the tags attached in each "than" indicating actual quantity therein, and noting that the appellants have n...

M/S. Scan Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty and penalty arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise by which he has confirmed duty demand of Rs.1,00,87,271 (Rs.87,71,865 BED and Rs.13,15,406 AED) on texturised crimped grey yarn manufactured and captively consumed by the applicant in the manufacture of dyed yarn during the period from 1995-96 to 1997-98 (dyed yarn was cleared at nil rate of duty in terms of Notification 35-95 dated 16.3.95, 4/97 dated 1.3.97 and 34/97 dated 6.6.97. In addition penalty of Rs. 50 Lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, penalty of Rs. 53,08,680 has been imposed under section 11AC and interest of Rs. 53,08,680 has been levied under section 11AB of the Act for the period 28.9.96 to 31.3.98. The ground for the demand is mis-declaration of the assessable value of grey texturised/crimped yarn used captively - it is the case of the Department that the assessees had cleared the yearn and declared t...

M/S. Mono Acrylic Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Mono Acrylic Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. for waiver of predeposit of penalty amounting to Rs. 6 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) under the impugned order.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Applicants purchased CRGO Coils from M/s. Kherwal Steel (P) Ltd. on 29.11.97; that the same was seized by the Customs Officers from their premises on 21.2.98; that a show cause notice dated 19.2.99 was issued to them for demanding Customs duty, imposition of penalty and confiscation of the seized goods on the ground that M/s. Kherwal Steel (P)s Ltd. had deliberately declared the value of the imported goods on a lower side; that the Commissioner under the impugned order has imposed a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs on the applicants besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on M/s. Kherwal Steel (P) Ltd. The learned Advocate further submitted that when the goods were initially importer by M/s. Kherwal Steels Pvt. Ltd. the value decl...

M/S. Prabhat Forgings Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The amount of duty involved is only over Rs. 43,000/-. No strong prima facie case or financial hardship justifying waiver. The assessee to deposit the duty amount within 8 weeks from today. Pre-deposit of penalty waived. Matter to come up on 3.9.01 for reporting compliance....

B.i.C. International, Delhi Vs. Cc, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application for directions for provisional release of energy saver lamps imported by the applicants herein on the basis of the declared transaction value.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai passed Order-in-Original No. 156/2000 dated 01.05.2000 by which he loaded the value of lamps imported by the applicants from Hong Kong to Rs. 13.28 lakhs (approx.) as against the declared value of Rs. 4.35 lakhs (approx.), confiscated the goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- on Shri Brij Mohan Bhatia.This order was challenged before the Tribunal which vide its Final Order No. 839/2000-A dated 10.10.2000, set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the case to the same authority for de novo decision to find out the true character and capacity of goods to determine whether the goods were undervalued. A time limit of two months was prescribed by the Tribunal for passing fresh orders. Since no fresh or...

M/S. Kumar Electricals, Delhi Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the applicants herein on the ground that they misdeclared description and country of origin of energy saving bulbs imported by them and on the ground of undervaluation of the bulbs. It is the finding of the adjudicating authority that the wattage of the lamps was misdeclared. The value of the goods has been loaded for the purpose of assessment and the declared value has been rejected. The goods have been confiscated with the option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 2 lakhs.2. On hearing Shri L.P. Asthana, ld. Counsel and Shri P.K. Jain, ld. DR and noting that the goods valued at over Rs. 17 lakhs are in the custody of the Department and have not been cleared by the importers, we are of the view that no pre-deposit is prima facie called for. Hence we dispense with the pre-deposit of penalty and stay of recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. We direct ...

M/S. Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter is posted today for considering the stay application.Arguing the petition learned Consultant representing the appellant submitted that in the instant case duty demand has not been quantified and mentioned in the adjudication order. He states that the Tribunal has already held in similar cases that adjudicating authority himself has to work out and indicate duty amount in the adjudication order. For this reason, the Tribunal has been remanding cases after setting aside the adjudication orders. The learned Consultant referred in particular to Tribunal's order in the case of Indo Asian Marketing Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 1999 (34) RLT 242 (CEGAT). Heard learned SDR also.2. The demand in the present case is in respect of spheres and petals manufactured and installed in the appellant's premises. With regard to the duty demand the order states as under: "The exact amount of duty on these goods would have to be worked out by the Assistant Collector, Gwalior and commu...