Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

Cce Vs. A.R. Alloys

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat credit was allowed to the respondent. The case of the Revenue is that the respondent availed the credit in respect of melting scrap on the strength of invoices issued by dealers in turn they had purchased the scrap from various manufacturing units. In the present case the dealer has shown that the scrap was purchased from four manufacturers i.e. M/s Luxmi Steel Industries, M/s Orient Steel, M/s Ambica Steel Ingots and M/s L.D. Steel Corporation and these units are not functioning, therefore, they could not have generated scrap on which credit has been taken by the respondents. The Revenue is relying upon the verification conducted in respect of manufacturing unit.3. The contention of the respondent is that the appellant produced copies of RT-12 returns filed by the manufacturing unit, copies of electricity bills to show that the manufacturing unite were in fa...

Amit Engineering Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC124

1. M/s Amit Engg. are the manufacturers of Tractors and Railway parts availing deemed credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.08.1997 issued under Rule 57-A(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said Notification allows credit @ 12% of the invoice value on declared inputs to manufacturers of final products that is deemed to have been paid under Section 3-A of the Act.2. The main issue of the subject case revolves around the following conditions of the said Notification : 4. The provisions of this notification shall apply to only those inputs which have been received directly by the manufacturer of the final products from the factory of the manufacturer of the said inputs under the cover of an invoice declaring that the appropriate duty of excise has been paid on such inputs under the provisions of Section 3A of the said Act.3. The learned Advocate informs me that the deemed modvat credit has not been allowed in respect of the following situations : (i) Where the invoice st...

Kagaz Print-n-pack (India) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC596

1. This application is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30th May, 2005 in which the appeal filed by the appellants was rejected.3. I find that the applicants had purchased some capital goods in the year 2003-04 and availed 50% of the Credit of the duty paid on such capital goods. Due to some technical problems the applicants disposed of these capital goods in February, 2004 by discharging total duty liability on the same capital goods. Since he had availed only 50% Credit in the year 2003-04 the applicants availed balance Credit on 1.4.2004 as per law. It is this credit the department is seeking to deny, which in my Page 0597 opinion, would result in payment of duty twice on the same goods.4. The appellants have made out prima facie case for waiver of duty and penalty imposed upon him. The pre-deposit of the duty and penalty is waived and recovery of thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal....

indica Chemical Indus. (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC597

1. This application is directed against the stay of demand of Rs. 1,96,298/- and the penalty imposed.3. I find from the record that the applicants were denied Modvat Credit on HDPE Sacks for the period March, 1994 to March, 1995 on the ground that the applicants had not availed of Credit immediately on settlement of the dispute by the Tribunal. This Tribunal vide its Order dated 16.3.98 had settled the dispute in respect of Credit in respect of HDPE Sacks in favour of the applicants. The applicants had from 1.6.94 taken quantitative credit in RG-23, Part I as per Board's Circular No.4/91-CX dated 14.2.1991. In that Circular Board had clarified as follows: The matter has been examined. Board has decided that in case of disputed inputs show cause notices need not be issued if the assessee gives an undertaking that the credit would be taken on such disputed inputs only in RG23A Part I and will not be utilized till the dispute is finally settled. The assessee can pay duty from PLA under p...

P.C.C. Polefactory Mpeb Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC54

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund of Rs. 21,104.11 was Page 0055 rejected on the ground that the same was time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that refund was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Central Excise Act.3. The only contention of the appellant is that the duty was paid under protest, therefore, the refund claim cannot be rejected as time-barred.4. We find that there is no evidence on record to show that duty was paid under protest, therefore, the contention of the appellant is without any merit. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, therefore, the appeal is dismissed....

Venus Remedies Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC505

Accordingly, they were heard together and are disposed of under this common order.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of medicines. It availed itself of exemption under Notification No. 3/2001 dated 1.3.2001 in respect of certain I.V. Fluids. Under the impugned order, the said exemption has been denied on the ground that the products in question contained, in addition to I.V. Fluids, antibacterial, antiamoebic and other medicines, and for that reason, the exemption which is for 'Intravenous Fluids' is not available. The appeal of the assessee is directed against this finding.3. The appeal of the Revenue seeks that the sale price should be treated as assessable value for the purposes of determining the quantum of duty. It is being contended that the Commissioner's order to treat the sale price as cum-duty price is erroneous.4. The submission of the Id. Counsel for the assessee is that I.V.Fluids retained their identity as I.V. Fluids despite the addition of certain medicines in them. It...

Cce Vs. Jyoti Cements (P) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals of the Revenue and cross-objection of the assessee are directed against the same order. They were heard together and are disposed of under this common order.2. The main grievance of the Revenue is that the Commissioner, erroneously, reduced the duty amount of Rs. 7,60,759/- confirmed in adjudication. It is also being contended that the penalty was incorrectly reduced.4. The main issue in the proceedings was about clandestine removal of cement by the respondent assessee. The private record seized from the assessee's factory indicated clearance of 9,441.850 MTs. while duty paid clearance was only to the extent of 4883.46 MTs. In view of this, Revenue authorities alleged " clandestine removal of 4,558.450 MTs, involving a duty evasion of Rs. 7,60,759/-. This amount of duty was confirmed in the adjudication. However, when the matter came up in appeal, the Commissioner went through the raw material account of the assessee and came to the conclusion that the non-duty paid c...

Ramesh Kumar Bansal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The common issue in these appeals is in respect of penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Relevant facts for consideration are the appellants herein are traders in MS Scrap. Shri Ramesh Kumar Bansal, appellant No. 1 placed a verbal order on Shri Bharat Kumar Dhariwal, appellant No. 2 for supply of Misprint sheets which are generated as scrap in industry. The vehicle carrying the said scrap was checked by the Trade Tax Authorities and they found contraband goods in the vehicle. Trade Tax Authorities after investigation at their end, handed over the vehicle and the list of goods to the DRI, who after taking the possession of the vehicle carrying the misprint goods and contraband goods, searched the vehicle in the presence of independent witness and prepared a Panchnama. Statements of the appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 were recorded. A show cause notice was issued to both the appellants for confiscation of the smuggled goods as well as...

Cce Vs. Yamuna Bardana Traders

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC176

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Orders of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The respondents, M/s Yamuna Bardana Traders, were engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP Bags. During the preventive checks conducted by the Department in the premises of the respondents on 18.12.1997, the goods were found short than the recorded balance in RG-1 Register. The respondents admitted the shortage and deposited duty amounting to Rs. 2,09,000/- under protest out of Rs. 2,09,612/-. In the order-in-original issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 27.11.1998, the demand was confirmed and penalty of equal amount of duty under Section 11-AC, earlier imposed. Besides, they were also made liable for payment of interest under Section 11-AB. Aggrieved by the said order of Deputy Commissioner, the respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). In his order dated 13.05.2003, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the orders of Deputy Commissioner observing that, the input fabric...

Olympic Zipper Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Applicants have requested for staying the recovery of Service Tax of Rs. 1,52,801 /- and the penalties imposed on them.2. The Applicants are manufacturers of polyester filament yarn and sewing thread. During the course of internal audit checking of their records, it was found that they have shown Rs. 11,33,504.00 in their balance sheet, as other income for the year 2000-2001 on account of commission from M/s. Avisha International Ltd. for supplying and marketing of goods i.e. garments and booking orders from the purchasers. Accordingly, on investigation, it was found that the Appellants were also receiving sums from M/s. Enkay Zippers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Asian Tex Export as commission for providing such services of transport directly or indirectly to arrange despatch of goods. On the basis of this investigation, service tax was demanded from them and the original authority accordingly demanded the above said amount of service tax and also imposed penalties. The Commissioner (App...