Delhi Court November 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vijay Silk House Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT220TriDel

1. In this appeal, the challenge has been made by the Revenue to the impugned order-in-appeal vide which The Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original raising demand of interest from the respondents on the alleged delayed payment of the duty.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents presented three Bills of Entries for clearance of their imported consignments. Two Bill of Entries No. 0002/2001 and 003/2001 both dated 1-2-2001 were assessed by the competent authority on presentation by the respondents on 22-3-2001. However, payment was made in respect of the first Bill of Entry on 29-3-2001 and regarding the second on 31-3-2001. The third Bill of Entry No. 004/2001 was assessed on 29-3-2001 and payment was allegedly made on 10-4-2001.3. The demand of interest has been raised by the Revenue on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 47 of the Custom Act, the duty was to be paid within two days excluding holidays from the date on which the Bill of Ent...

Ravi Organics Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC407

1. M/s. Ravi Organics Ltd. have filed this appeal against the demand of Central Excise duty Rs. 74,097 and equal amount of penalty imposed on them on account of shortage in the stock of inputs.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants. Shri Rajesh Chhibber, learned Advocate, has asked for adjournment of the hearing as he has to go out of station. It is observed that the Stay granted to them by the Tribunal, vide Order dated 6.2.2004, was extended vide Order No. M/282/04-NB (S) dated 18.10.2004 on the ground that the appeal is fixed for hearing on 13.11.2004. It is also observed that the appellants had also prayed in the Misc. application for preponing the hearing of the appeal. In view of these facts, the request for adjournment of hearing is not acceded to. I take up the appeal for disposal after hearing Shri V. Valte, learned SDR and after perusing the records.3. When the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises of the appellants on 5....

Cce Vs. Ruby Strips (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC489

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the validity of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has quashed the penalty on the respondents, imposed under Rule 96-ZP(3) in toto.2. Admittedly, the duty liability under the above said rule was not discharged by the respondents and they were served with a show cause notice for payment of the duty for the period April 1998 to June, 1998.Duty earlier deposited by them was Rs. 2,77,755.3. The respondents had later on deposited this duty, but the adjudicating authority still imposed the penalty equal to the amount of the duty. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has quashed the entire penalty by referring to the ratio of the law laid down in the case of M/s Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Agricultural ITO, 218 ITR 417 and M/s Sadashiv Castings, 2004 (165) ELT 362 (Tri). But the ratio of the law laid down in none of these cases is attracted to the facts of the present case. The imposition of penalty for non-payment of full duty...

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Prem Textile Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT69TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether the interest is payable by the Department to M/s. Prem Textile Limited for delay in payment of Rebate beyond the period of 3 months.2. Shri Bipin Verma, learned D.R., submitted that the Respondents had exported the goods under claim for rebate of duty and preferred rebate claim which was initially rejected by the Asst. Commissioner under Order dated 29-8-1996 which was also upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Order-in-Appeal dated 20-4-2001; that however, the Government of India in revision allowed the revision application vide Order No. 109/2001 dated 21-11-2001; that subsequently the Dy.Commissioner had sanctioned the refund under Order dated 12-7-2002 but has disallowed the interest on the ground that as per Explanation appended to Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act the Order passed by the Revisionary Authority cannot be treated as Order passed under sub-section (2) of Section 11B for the purpose of Section...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gahoi Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT186TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether it is open to the Department to adjust the amount of refund against demand due from the respondents, M/s. Gahoi Foods Pvt. Ltd. 2. When the matter was called, no one was present for the respondents nor was there any request for adjournment of the matter in spite of notice having been sent to the respondents. As the issue involved is in very narrow compass, we heard Sh. P.M. Rao, learned D.R. and perused the records. In pursuance of Order-in-Appeal, the respondents had filed a refund claim of duty amounting Rs. 34,740/- and penalty Rs. 26,322/- already paid by them. The Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 376/03, dated 3040-2003 has rejected the refund of duty being time-barred and sanctioned the refund of penalty amount and ordered its adjustment against the demand confirmed against the respondents under another Order-in-Original No. 234/01, dated 24-12-2001. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), under...

Kakkar Complex Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Kakkar Complex Steels (P) Ltd. are challenging the penalty imposed on them and redemption fine demanded from them.2. Shri Gautam Kakkar, Director of the Appellant company, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture iron & steel ingots; that the Central Excise Officers on 21.2.2000 visited their factory and found 14.850 MT steel ingots have not been registered in the RG-1 register. The Additional Commissioner had confiscated the said ingots with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.10,000/- and had imposed penalty of Rs.5000/- which has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order. He, further, submitted that Shri Kulwant Sharma, Accounts Manager, whose statement was recorded by the Central Excise Officers on the spot had explained that the difference of 14.850 MT between RG-1 stock and physical stock was on account of non-entering of the production of 19th & 20th February, 2000; that the production of these two days c...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. D.S.M. Sugar Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC488

1. In these two appeals - one filed by the Revenue and the other by M/s. D.S.M. Sugar Mills Ltd. against the common Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the availability of the Modvat credit.2. We heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate for the assessee and Shri P.M. Rao, and Shri Bipin Verma, learned D.Rs. for the Revenue.3. M/s. D.S.M. Sugar Mills Ltd. manufactured sugar and molasses and availed of the Modvat credit of the duty paid on capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Deputy Commissioner has disallowed the Modvat credit in respect of rubber sheet, extruded plates and strips and M.S. slates on the ground that the same were not capital goods as mentioned in Rule 57Q(1) of the Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat credit in respect of rubber sheet on the ground that it is used for preventing the leakage of steam and maintaining the steam in the pressure for manufacture of finished products relying upon the decision of the Tribuna...

Birla Yamha Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC327

1. M/s. Birla Yamaha Works have filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 180-CE/MRT-1/2004 dated 29-3-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the confiscation of goods seized by the Central Excise officers and penalty imposed on them.2. Shri B. L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture Portable Electric Generator Sets, Multi-purpose Engines and parts/components/spare parts thereof; that the Central Excise Officers visited their premises on 14-9-97 and seized 410 numbers of components of Gen sets/ multi-purpose engines as unaccounted; that Officers again visited their factory premises on 18-9-97 and seized 8347 numbers of Components and sub-assemblies as the same were also not accounted for in the RG-1 Register; that the seized goods have been confiscated for contravention of the provisions of Rules 53 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine and a penalty has also been imposed on...

Cc and Ce Vs. S.P. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. and Naveen

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC707

1. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue for imposition of penalty on M/s. S.P. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director, Shri Naveen Jhanjee, on account of clearing the gutkha without payment of Central Excise duty from their factory.2. When the matters were called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents. However, one Shri Praveen Agrawal, learned Advocate, has submitted Cross Objection on their behalf. I, therefore, heard Shri S.Bhatnagar, learned DR and perused the records.3. The learned DR mentioned that on 25.3.2002 the Central Excise officers intercepted one hand cart carrying five bags of gutkha manufactured by the respondents without duty-paying documents. The Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order, has held that the Company is not liable to penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act as they had paid the duty before the issue of the show cause notice relying upon the decision in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE, 2003 (161...

Jasch Plastic (India) Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC230

1. Shri R.P. Singh, learned Consultant, submitted that the entire duty of Rs. 70,653 confirmed against M/s. Jasch Plastic (India) has been deposited by them; that this fact is also mentioned in Order-in-Original; that the Appellants are also not contesting their duty liability. He, therefore, requested that the pre-deposit of penalty may be stayed. As the Appellants are not disputing the duty liability, after staying the recovery of entire amount of penalty, we take the appeal itself for disposal after hearing Shri R.P. Singh, learned Consultant, and Shri Bipin Verma, learned DR.2. In this matter the Appellants had taken Modvat Credit amounting to Rs. 70,653 in respect of delayed and bleached cloth. As the fabric was not found up to the mark they had returned the same to its supplier without reversing the Modvat Credit already taken by them in their books of account. The Dy. Commissioner, besides confirming the demand, has also imposed a penalty of an equivalent amount. It is the cont...