Delhi Court June 2003 Judgments

Ratangiri Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT975TriDel

1. Both the appellants are 100% EOUs. Being so, their clearances to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) are liable to duty in terms of proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Act. The effect of this is that duty payable on the goods cleared by these units would be the aggregate customs duty leviable on similar goods when imported into India.2. In the present cases, dispute has arisen as to what is the rate at which additional duty of customs (CVD) is to be levied on the goods cleared by the appellant's EOU to the Domestic Tariff Area. The appellants contended before the lower authorities that rate of duty applicable would be the effective rate of duty as fixed under exemption notification and not tariff rates of duty. The lower authorities held to the contrary, based on proviso to Section 5A of the Central Excise Act. This finding is challenged in the present appeals.3. The appellants contend that it is well settled that additional duty of Customs (CVD) is to be levied at effective rate...

Ratnagiri Textiles Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both the appellants are 100% EoUs. Being so, their clearances to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) are liable to duty in terms of proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Act. The effect of this is that duty payable on the goods cleared by these units would be the aggregate customs duty leviable on similar goods when imported into India.2. In the present cases, dispute has arisen as to what is the rate at which additional duty of customs (CVD) is to be levied on the goods cleared by the appellant's EoU to the DTA. The appellants contended before the lower authorities that rate of duty applicable would be the effective rate of duty as fixed under exemption notification and not tariff rates of duty. The lower authorities held to the contrary, based on proviso to Section 5A of the Central Excise Act. This finding is challenged in the present appeals.3. The appellants contend that it is well settled that additional duty of customs (CVD) is to be levied at effective rates and not at Tari...

Saran Automobiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)1088

ORDERRam Bahadur, J.M.This appeal by the assessed arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Meerut, dated 26-7-1999, for the assessment year 1990-91.2. Below reproduced are the grounds of appeal :'1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut order dated 26-7-1999, is not just and fair.2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have deleted the total addition of Rs. 2,13,770 under section 69 made by the learned Assistant Commissioner, Circle-I, Meerut, as it was found that the DVO's valuation report was incorrect.3. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut, and the Assistant Commissioner, Circle-I, Meerut, the assessing officer, both erred in assuring (sic) the assessed its self-declared cost of construction and period of construction.4. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut, himself accepted the fact that the DVO had calculated the cost of construction by applying the plinth area rates of CPWD, which were meant for FCI godown, and rates adop...

Cce Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC193

1. This application was filed by the department claiming that there is an apparent mistake in our Final Order No. 19/2001/C dated 8.2.2001 in Appeal No. E/3132/2000/C.2. The appeal of the assessee was directed against Order-in-Original No. 51/99 dated 30.9.99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh denying the benefit of Notification No. 138./86-CE dated 1.3.86 to four varieties of paper manufactured and cleared by them during the period 1.3.86 to 20.3.90 and accordingly confirming a demand of duty of over Rs. 4 crores against them under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The demand so confirmed was passed on the basis of a finding that the goods were correctly classifiable under Sub-heading 4806.20 (and not under Sub-heading 4805.90 claimed by the assessee) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. In the final order which we passed in the appeal, we allowed the appeal on the ground of limitation, without going into the merits of the classification dispute....

Hexacom (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT357TriDel

1. The issue raised in this appeal relates to refund of amount paid by the appellants by way of "service tax" on leased circuits. The appellant is a cellular operator who leases circuits from the DOT for the purpose of running the cellular services. In addition to lease charges, the appellants were charged with service tax also by the DOT for the periods 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Subsequently, on revision of lease charges retrospectively, DOT returned the excess amount collected towards lease charges; but did not return the service tax collected on the ground that those amounts have been deposited with service tax authorities. The appellants have, therefore, claimed the amount of service tax paid from the Central Excise Authorities. The lower authorities have rejected the claim on the ground that the refund of the service tax would amount to unjust enrichment.2. We have perused the records and heard both sides. It is not in dispute that no service tax was leviable during the period in qu...

Atma Tube Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC810

1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s Atma Tube Products Ltd., is whether the MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on the inputs is admissible to them.2. Shri Gagan Kohli, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture cold rolled strips and C.R. steel tubes and avail of MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on the inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the Deputy Commissioner, under Order-in-Original Nos. 297-301/99 dated 31.12.1999, disallowed the MODVAT Credit and imposed penalty on them on the ground that the inputs had been cleared twice in the same truck under two different invoices and the time of preparation/removal varied from 5 to 10 minutes during which period it was physically impossible to make two visits from Chandigarh to Dera Basti, a distance of about 25-30 kms; MODVAT documents had not been produced to the Department for verification and the invoices issued by the Second stage Dealer had not been authenticated by the Proper Officer...

Tirupati Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT881TriDel

3. In this case the duty of Rs. 73,364/- was confirmed on the ground that appellants taken credit on the strength of two invoices issued by Shobhit Impex and no inputs were received by the appellants. This fact was admitted by Shri S.K. Sahoo authorised signatory of the appellant's Firm. A penalty of the equal amount was also imposed on the appellant.4. The only ground taken by the appellant in the grounds of appeal is that the duty was deposited even before issuance of the show cause notice. Therefore, in respect of the penalty lenient view may be taken.5. The contention of the Revenue is that appellant availed the credit without receipt of the inputs. Therefore, it is not a case for reduction in penalty.6. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of case as appellants deposited the duty on asking of the Revenue even before issuance of show cause notice, we find that penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the ...

Ashok Joshi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT304TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Rule 209A has been affirmed against him.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellant is an iron and steel scrap dealer supplying goods to various parties including M/s.Ashoka Adhar Castings Pvt. Ltd. The department booked the said company for having contravened the various provisions of Central Excise Rules, by indulging in clandestine removal of the goods, during the month of August, 97. Show cause notice was issued to that company as well as to the present appellant against whom the allegations made were that he was looking after the affairs of that company and one of the employees of that company namely Ranjit Singh, in his statement, disclosed that clandestine removal of the goods was made from the factory of the company at the instance of the present appellant. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand against the company of Rs. 1,76,392...

Dharampal Premchand Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT487TriDel

1. When these stay applications came up for hearing, it was felt that the appeals themselves could be disposed of as the dispute turns purely on a settled legal question. Accordingly, we take up the appeals themselves and dispose them under this common order.3. The appellants are a manufacturer of branded chewing tobacco. They sell their produce in wholesale as well as in retail. To wholesale purchasers, the appellants give discount at the rate of 11.75% or 7.55% (depending upon the value of the goods purchased) from the retail price (MRP). No discount is allowed in respect of retail sales to consumers.4. In the impugned orders Revenue authorities have held that in respect of sales to consumers at retail price (during 1999), the assessable value should be fixed at the sale prices (MRP) as no discount is granted to the buyers in such cases, while the appellants contend that assessment at retail price is totally contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and Centr...

Punjab Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)LC367Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in his appeal, filed by M/s. Punjab Laminates Pvt. Ltd., is whether the benefit of Notification No. 135/89-C.E., dated 12-5-89 is available in respect of paper based decorative laminated sheets manufactured by them and whether the extended period of limitation for demanding the duty under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act is available to the Revenue.2. Shri Vivek Kohli, learned Advocate, submitted that the entire demand of duty is barred by limitation since the show cause notice dated 9-12-97 has been issued well beyond the period of 6 months from the relevant date; that the period for which demand has been confirmed is from 8-1-93 to 31-3-94; that the basis on which extended period of limitation has been invoked is that they were knowing fully well that plastic was being used as an input in the manufacture of decorative laminated sheets, suppressed this material fact from the department and thus, the true and correct nature of the impugned product was nev...