Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

Mil India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT717TriDel

1. This appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 9-4-2003. The issue raised herein relates to the duty liability of the assessee on various bought out parts, which were cleared directly to the site of the customers, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that this issue is decided in its favour by the decisions of this Tribunal in Cimmco Birla Ltd. v.CCE, Jaipur reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 1019 (Tribunal) = 2003 (57) RLT 754 (CEGAT-Del.) and Fujitsu Indi Telecom Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 2003 (151) E.L.T. 354 (Tri.-Del.). It is not disputed before us that the duty is demanded in respect of bought out items, which were directly supplied by the assessee to the site of its customer M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd. If that be so, the appellant is fully justified in relying on the above-mentioned decisions to contend that the duty liability is not sustainable.2. The contention raised by the Reve...

Shiv Ganga Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)BC123

1. Respondent-State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 200/2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi-II (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT) against the appellants herein (who were defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 6, respectively; hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants/defendants') and Anil Kumar Gupta (4th defendant) for the recovery of Rs. 1,38,81,986.66 with interest and costs.2. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order dated 29.4.2002, directing the appellants/defendants to pay the said amount with interest and costs, but dismissed the O.A. as against the 4th defendant. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT observed that the defendants, in spite of numerous opportunities, did not file the written statement and, therefore, they are deemed to have admitted the averments in the O.A. and held that the respondent-Bank is entitled to the Recovery Certificate, as indicated above. The appellants/defendants...

Vimka Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Saurashtra and anr.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: IV(2004)BC70

1. The applicant/appellant has filed this appeal, which is yet to be registered, against the order dated 16.1.2003 by which it was ordered that if the appellant does not file the written statement by 23.1.2003 and also pay cost, the right to file the written statement will stand closed and the consequential Order dated 31.7.2003. Apparently, the appellant/defendant did not file the written statement within the stipulated time. The learned Counsel for the. appellant points out several orders passed between 16.1.2003 and 31.7.2003 to show that there was not only a talk of compromise but a compromise had, in fact, been arrived at between the appellant and the Bank by which the appellant had agreed to pay the amount due to the Bank in quarterly instalments of Rs. 3 lakhs each commencing from 23.1.2003. Subsequent instalments were to be paid on 23.4.2003, 23.7.2003 and 23.10.2003, The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the bona fides of the appellant are amply clear from the f...

Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT734TriDel

1. Facts of the case in the two appeals are somewhat similar and hence, we are disposing of the two appeals together.3. The appellants are challenging the recovery of interest, which has been ordered to be recovered from them, in terms of order passed by the lower authorities. The facts of the case are that the appellants have taken Modvat credit in respect of HSD oil used in the factory. In terms of the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the credit amount was denied to them and recovery of appropriate interest was also ordered. The said recovery was ordered in terms of provisions contained in Section 112(2) of the Finance Act, 2000. The said Section 112(2) was incorporated in the Finance Act to validate the denial of credit of duty paid on High Speed Diesel oil and also to disallow such credit to be utilised for payment of any kind of duty on any excisable goods from 16-3-1995 till 12-5-2000 (date of President's Assent to Finance Act, 2000). The appellants had ta...

English Indian Clay Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT583TriDel

1. The issue raised in this appeal is whether the classification as done by the Revenue of the products as modified maize starch under 3505.20 is justified or not. The demand relates to alleged modified starch whereas the starch manufactured by appellant is sold and purchased as unmodified starch at a lower price than the modified starch.2. Prima facie, we are inclined to accept the contention raised by the appellant that maize starch will not give rise a product which can be termed as modified starch. In view of the above, we exempt the condition for pre-deposit and grant the stay. Post for hearing on 3-12-03....

R.K. Machine Tools Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant M/s. R.K. Machines Ltd. manufacture non-alloy steel ingots/billets by operating two induction furnaces of 3.5 MT 3 MT capacities. They opted for payment of duty on compounded levy basis.The present dispute relates to the appellant claim for abatement of duty to the tune of over Rs. 23 lakhs for short periods from August 1997 to January 1998. The ground taken was that during the periods in question, one of the furnaces had been closed down. The impugned order has rejected the claim.2. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both sides. This issue had come up for consideration before this Tribunal in an earlier appeal filed by M/s. Waryam Steel Castings Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh 2003-TaxindiaOnline- -CESTAT and the Tribunal held that abatement will be available only in case of closure of factory and not closure of one of the furnaces. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the order dealing with the issue raised are reproduced below: "10. The appellants have a...

Cce Vs. Larsen and Toubro (Ecc) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC32Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether Zinc Ash and Zinc dross are classifiable under Heading 79.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Revenue or under Heading 26.20 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order.2. We heard Shri U. Raja Ram, learned D.R., and Mrs. Reena Kher, learned Advocate for the Respondents M/s. Larsen and Toubro (ECC) Ltd. The learned D.R. submitted that the Respondents manufacture towers and structures; that during the process of galvanization of pieces cut from M.S. angles and plates, etc, they obtain Zinc Ash Zinc dross which is classifiable under Heading 79.20; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v.CCE, Patna 2001 (135) ELT 1142 : 2001 (97) ECR 515 (T) against which the Revenue's appeal has been admitted by the Supreme Court.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has mentioned in the impugned Order that ...

Hello Mineral Water P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC114

1. These three appeals are against a common Order-in-Original No.29/Commr/2001, dated 30-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise involving the issue of availability of benefit of exemption Notification No. 15/94-C.E., dated 1-3-94, Notification No. 67/95-C.E.and Notification No. 1/93-C.E., under valuation of the goods namely water dispenser manufactured by M/s. Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd., Appellant No. 1, and eligibility to Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2.1 Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant No. 1 manufacture Aqua Minerals water in their unit No. 1 (Water unit), Hot and Cold Water Dispenser in their unit No. 2 (Dispenser unit) and Polycarbonate bottle and PP bottles in their unit No. 3 (Bottle unit); that all these units are located at different places in Noida; that Mineral water and Dispensers were removed after obtaining Central Excise Registration and following the procedure ther...

Indian Toners and Developers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT546TriDel

1. The appellants succeeded before the Assistant Commissioner for obtaining a refund of Rs. 44,000/- in respect of imports under Bill of Entry No. IGM/2367/10, dated 441-92 Cash No. HD 411, dated 7-1-93. The original claim was for Rs. 53,660/-, against which the Assistant Commissioner sanctioned Rs. 44,000/-. The aforesaid excess payment occurred on account of calculation errors. The Assistant Commissioner directed that the sanctioned amount be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appellant's challenged the order-in-original on two grounds :- (ii) The rejection of the claim for the balance amount of Rs. 9,660/-.The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order held that unless and until the order of assessment is set aside, reversed or modified by the appellate authority, the appellant had no right to claim the refund. He cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at [2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) - 2000 (40) RLT 131(SC)].2. On examining the order of the Commissioner (Appe...

Parda Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC619

1. The appellants have been issued with 2 show-cause notices proposing disallowance of Modvat credit and imposition of penalty. The main allegation was that the format of the invoices (on the strength of which the inputs were received) was not in accordance with the format prescribed under Rule 52-A, 173G and duty-paid character of material received under the invoices issued from the disposal store of Bhillai Steel Plant was not ascertainable.2. The appellants submitted appropriate reply to both the show-cause notices and explained that even if some discrepancies exist in the duty-paying document, which can be attributed on part of the manufacturer/dealer, the credit cannot be denied. The lower authorities viz. Asstt. Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) did not agree with the appellants and the denial of credit as proposed in the show-cause notice was confirmed. The impugned order is under challenge in the instant appeal.4. The Ld, Counsel invited attention to the findings of the ...