Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

Standard Electricals Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC735

1. This appeal is directed against the Order of rejection of refund claim of Rs. 1,46,185 by attracting the clause of unjust enrichment.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants pleaded that the appellants have returned the element of excise duty by issuing credit notes and hence, it cannot be said that they have passed on excise duty to the purchasers.3. Shri V. Valte, learned SDR, appearing for the Revenue pleaded that the appellants at the time of clearance of the goods had passed on duty element to the purchasers and subsequent issue of credit note does not alter the position that duty has been passed on to the purchasers. He relied on the decisions of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries v. CCE, Bhopal, 2003 (153) ELT 694 and in the case of S. Kumar's Ltd. v. CCE, Indore, 2003 (88) ECC 516 (LB) : 2003 (153) ELT 217 where it was held that assessee's contention that the provisions contained under Section 11B of the Central Excise...

Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC705

2. The dispute in the present case is about the eligibility to Modvat credit of plates, angles, channels etc. received by the appellant for use in their factory. The appellant took credit of duty paid on these items on the basis that the items were used as components and parts in the plant and machinery in the factory. A show cause notice was issued alleging that the items were being used as staging structure or used for repairing and maintenance of plant. The appellant submitted that credit is available on use as parts of plant and machinery. The adjudicating authority accepted that claim. That order was reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on appeal filed by the Revenue, noting that the items in question are known to be constructions/fabrication materials in common trade parlance. Based on that finding it was held that credit is not available. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of DSM Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur, 2001 (135) ELT 654.3. The con...

Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC561

1. There is a duty demand of Rs. 1,05,300 and penalties of Rs. 1,06,000 and Rs. 2000. The duty demand is on the basis that when stock taking was done (by dip reading) in the appellants molasses storage tank by Central Excise Officer on 8.9.98 there was a shortage of about 280 qtls. Further, the appellant has also declared a shortage of 1826 qtls.Hence, duty demand has been made and penalties imposed on the appellants.2. The explanation of the appellant is that the difference in quantity is on account of evaporation and other natural reasons. It is also being submitted that this aspect remains recognized by the department and under Board Circular dated 18.7.83 it has been advised that storage loss upto 2% is required to be condoned, during the hearing of the case, learned Counsel emphasized that the shortage in the present case is below, at the rate of 0.2%. The learned Counsel has also submitted that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that would allow the Revenue to take a contrary vie...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Aggarwal Iron Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT397TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of Nuts and bolts. It is entitled to Central Excise duty on inputs. Accordingly, it took credit of duty paid of about Rs. 48,000/- in respect of three consignments received from M/s. Thapar Concast Ltd., Ludhiana during July, September 1999. This credit was denied and equal amount of penalty imposed on the appellant by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the appellants' supplier had misdeclared the products. It was also held that the goods were correctly liable to duty under compounded levy scheme. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner noted that duty amount taken by the assessee was equal to the duty discharged the goods. He, therefore, held that there was no ground for denial of credit. He relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Ashok Leyland Ltd, - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 804. The present appeal of the Revenue challenges that order.2. I have heard the learned DR and perused the records....

Synotex Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT97TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was modified with the direction that the value of good shall be US$ 804.50 PMT for the purpose of assessment.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of one consignment declared as Zinc Scrap 'Scull" value of which was shown at USD 550 MT. The value was not accepted by the revenue and sample was taken from the imported goods for chemical examination and the adjudicating authority after taking into consideration the purity of zinc in the imported goods enhanced the value to USD 725/- PMT. The adjudicating authority while redetermining the value of the goods held that the purity of zinc in the impugned goods is very near to the Special High Grade Zinc, therefore, a discount of 10% on the said value of SHG Zinc would be logical and appropriate for the purpose of arriving at the value of imported goods.3. Revenue failed a...

Sitaram Singhania Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC259

1. The respondent-Industrial Finance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Corporation') has filed O.A. 194/98 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against the appellant (2nd defendant in the O.A.; and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant -defendant') and 10 others for the recovery of the money allegedly due to it from the appellant-defendant and the 1st defendant, and also for certain reliefs against the defendants 2 to 4 in the O.A. The appellant-defendant filed I.A. 48/2004 before the DRT for giving a direction to the respondent-Corporation to make discovery on oath and production of the documents as mentioned in paragraph 12 of that application. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 8.6.2004, allowed the said application in part directing the respondent-Corporation to produce the documents detailed in sub-paras (a), (d), (e) and (g) of para 12 of the said application, and re...

indusind Bank Ltd. Vs. Deva Tools and Forgings

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC97

1. These are appeals arising from the orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal either granting stay of further proceedings to be taken by the Banks/financial institutions concerned, or refusing to slay such proceedings to be taken in pursuance of a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Securitisation Act').2. M/s. Krisha & Co. and others had filed Miscellaneous Appeal 272/2002 on the file of this Tribunal against Indian Overseas Bank. They had also filed Miscellaneous Application for stay. In that appeal and the application I had permitted the Secretary of the DRAT Bar Association to publish notices in the Notice Boards of the DRAT and DRT Bar Associations, Delhi informing that any Counsel who is desirous of advancing arguments and assisting this Tribunal regarding the questions raised in that appeal, including the question whether the Banks and financial ...

A.P.S. Associate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case came up for hearing today, none has appeared to represent the appellant. Therefore, I am disposing of the appeal after hearing the learned DR.2. Appellant is a manufacturer of iron and steel ingots, It took ineligible Modvat credit of about Rs.22,000/- in respect of 16 MT of scrap procured by it. The Central Excise Officers visited the appellant on 28.3.2001 and detected this irregularity. On the very next date, the appellant debited the credit wrongly taken alongwith a penalty of Rs.5504/-. i.e. 25% of the duty amount. However, when the case was adjudicated, the Deputy Commissioner, in addition to confirming the CENVAT credit amount imposed equal amount as penalty under Rule 173Q.Further, demand for interest was also made under Section 11AB. The appellant moved the Commissioner (Appeals) pleading that in view of payment of duty and penalty they should get the benefit of reduced penalty as contemplated under proviso to Section 11AC. That proviso reads as under:- "Prov...

Cce Vs. Sadashiv Ispat Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC403

1. The respondents are manufacturer of alloy steel flats/bars and rounds, falling under sub-heading 7226.00 and 7228.00 of the CETA, 1985, On 18.2.2000, the central excise officers of Chandigarh paid a surprise visit to the factory premises of the respondents and after checking the record and stock, they found that 43.552 MTs of alloy steel flats and 11.998 MTs of alloy steel rounds were not recorded in RG-1 register. Shri Kewal Garg, Director of the unit could not; give any reason for the said excess than the recorded balance in RG-1 on the ground that he was away for few days and it will be due to negligence of the staff who maintained the record. Show cause notice was issued; to the respondents proposing to confiscate the quantity found in excess and demanding duty on the said goods and imposition of penalty on the respondents. The case was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner who confiscated the goods found in excess and allowed the same to be redeemed on redemption fine and impo...

Maharaja Processors Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC318

1. The appeal is directed against denial of abatement claim of the appeal under Rule 96ZQ(7). The appellant was a textile processor and was discharging Central Excise duty under compounded levy scheme. The processing was being carried out by using one stenter and the appellant had already discharged duty for the month of March 2000. The appellant filed his letter dated 10th March 2000 in the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi by way of intimation about closure of the stenter. This letter stated as under: "We would like to declare that we have decided to terminate all the facilities for carrying out bleaching, dyeing, printing of woven fabrics from our factory for which we will stop all above noted process of woven fabrics at 23.00 hrs of 15.3.2000 and thereafter will dismental all the concerned machineries i.e. stenter, jiggers, wintches. You are requested please accept our intimation and issue orders to the needful." 2. The claim of abatement was for the period f...