Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Agarwal Metal and Rolling Mills

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 refund claim of the respondent was allowed.3. The contention of the Revenue is that in the impugned order Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of Notification No.6/2002-CE., dated 1.3.2002 which was claimed first time in the refund application on the basis of order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of some other manufacturer i.e. Mewar Bartan Nirman Udyog. The contention is that the respondent has never claimed the benefit of this notification and never challenged the assessments which were made on the basis of duty paid at tariff rate, therefore, the refund is not maintainable. The appellant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. We find that in this case the respondent never claimed the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002 in respect of the goods manufactured by them. The respondents duri...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Daya Engineering Works (Sleeper)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC227

1. This appeal is filed by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent had availed services of Goods Transport Operator during the period from November, 1997 to June, 1998.After retrospective amendment of the provisions of Sections 65, 66 and 67 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994, show cause notice dated 2.8.2002 was issued to the respondent for recovery of service tax under Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2002, which re-validated the levy and collection of service tax from the user of services of Goods Transport Operators. The demand was confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the adjudicating authority by following the decision of the Tribunal in case of L.H.Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE Meerut-II and similar other decisions.2. It is contended by the Revenue that the Tribunal's decision in case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. has not yet attained the finality as they have filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Co...

D.S.M. Sugar Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC420

1. These appeals are filed Revenue and by the assessee M/s. D.S.M.Sugar, Asmoli against the Order-in-appeal No. 100-CE/MRT-II/2003 dated 11.6.2003 passed by the Commissioner(appeals), Central Excise, Meerut-II.2. Revenue in their appeal have challenged the Order of the Commissioner(appeals) for allowing credit on Siliconised Butyl Rubber seat and Asbestos Rope AMP 31 on the ground that these are not covered by the definition of capital goods. They relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar & Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, 3. M/s. D.S.M. Sugar has challenged the order of the Commissioner (appeals) denying the credit on Automatic Voltage regulator, CI Plumer Block, HRP Coil, Shape and section, H.R. Coil, A.M.P.32/121 and Transformer of 37.5 K.V.A.4. It was argued that the Deputy Commissioner of Central excise, Moradabad had verified the use/role of the capital goods. Submitted by the assessee and on the basis of which use of each of the item is as unde...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mid India International Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by Revenue. It is contended that for payment of duty of the first fortnight of August 2000, the respondents had utilized the credit of Rs. 3,40,122/- which was availed by them during the period from 16-8-2000 to 18-8-2000. The duty for the first fortnight of August, 2000 was paid on 19-8-2000. Rule 57AB was amended by Notification No. 48/2000-C.E. (N.T.) dated 18-8-2000 providing that credit available upto 15th day of month can only be utilised for payment of duty for the first fortnight of the month. On 19-8-2000 when the payment was made by the respondent at that time, this Notification had come into existence. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner dropping the demand and penalty is not correct and it may be set aside.3. I find the amendment in Rule 57AB was made on 18-8-2000 and this position was clarified by the Board by Circular No. 542/38/2000-C.X.dated 25-8-2000. The debit entry was made by the respondent on 19-8-2000 i.e. before issue of Board's Circ...

Shri Mohd. Hafiz Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant has claimed before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority was received by him on 9.11.2002 and the appeal was filed by him before the Commissioner (Appeals) within time. The Commissioner ( Appeals) in his order has observed that the order-in-original was dispatched to the appellants on 5.5.2000 under the registered cover and the appeal before him was filed on 7.1.2003 claiming that the letter was received by appellant on 9.11.2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) got verified the facts and he found that the letter was sent to the appellants on 5,5.2000 under registered AD cover. He therefore held that the appeal has been filed far beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act and accordingly, rejected the appeal as time barred.2. The department has produced the copies of the despatch register under which the letter was dispatched to the appellants and also the copy of the register of the postal authorities from which it ...

Vinod Kumar Sharma S/O S.R. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Through this OA applicants have assailed Annexure A-1 dated 20.6.2005 whereby their names have been omitted from the field of eligibility to appear in the written examination for promotion to the post of Goods Driver grade Rs. 5000-8000 in the light of Railway Boards circular dated 17.4.1997 (Annexure A-2). Applicants have also challenged Annexure A-2 dated 17.4.1997 whereby services of those who are transferred to a new unit on their own request are placed at the bottom seniority against direct recruitment quota and their eligibility for consideration for promotion has to be counted on the basis of service rendered in the absorbing unit alone.2. Vide order dated 25.8.2005 respondents were directed to allow applicants to appear in the supplementary written examination for the post of Goods Driver provisionally, however, the selection was subjected to final outcome of the OA.3. According to applicants, they were initially appointed as Diesel and Electrical Assistants in grade Rs. 30...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Fairdeal Research Laboratories

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)2STR327

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 3-3-2004 which allowed the appeal of the respondents. The relevant facts arise for consideration are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of P & P Medicines and were availing Cenvat credit in respect of inputs used relation thereto. The respondents opted for exemption of the finished goods from 1-4-2002. As per provisions of Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the appellants were required to reverse the amount of credit involved in the balance stock of inputs lying as on date and in respect of inputs lying in finished goods. The appellants/respondents did not do so. A SCN was issued for seeking reversal of such credit from the respondents. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty on the respondents. On an appeal by the respondents, The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confirmation of the duty but set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents and the ...

Madhur Hosiery Inds. and Salek Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC107

1. These appeals are directed against order-in-appeal No.94-95/CE/MRT-I/04 dt.27.2.04 and order-in-appeal No. 91-92/CE/MRT-I/04 dt.27.2.04 wherein the anneal of the appellants was disposed of by the appellate authority upholding the confirmation of the demand and the penalty.2. The relevant facts for consideration are that the appellants were manufacturer of Elastic Yarn i.e. in the nature of rubber thread covered by yarn. The appellants in both the cases were filing the declaration as prescribed under Notification No. 13/92-CE earlier.During the period of investigation and the period in dispute, both the appellants had not filed the said declaration with the authorities. The premises of both the appellants were visited by the officers of Central Excise and they came to conclusion that the appellants had misdeclared their product as yarn covered with 'Rubber or Elastic Yarn" and 'Nylon covered with Elastic Yarn' thus claimed the exemption not eligible to them. The appellants had also ...

Toroid India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC100

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dt.15.3.04 wherein the refund claim of the appellants have been rejected on the ground of time bar.2. The relevant facts arise for consideration are that the appellants are 100% EOU and are engaged in the manufacture of transformers. They procured duly paid Enameled Wire from their suppliers and consumed the same in the manufacture of transformers which they exported. The appellants preferred a refund claim of the duty paid on the Enameled Wire under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 44 on the ground that as 100% ECU, they are eligible to get the inputs without payment of duty, but having paid the duty as purchasers, they are eligible for such refund of excise duty paid on the inputs. A SCN was issued to them seeking to reject the refund claim on two grounds i.e. on the ground of time bar and for not following the procedure as laid down under Rules 156A and 173N of Central Excise Rules, 44 and notification No. 1/95.The appell...

Triveni Engg. and Inds. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 29.3.2004 wherein the benefit of Modvat Credit was disallowed to the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants have been denied Modvat Credit on the following three grounds: (i) Credit has been denied on inputs on the ground of non-filing of declaration under Rule 57G(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, (ii) Modvat credit on capital goods is denied on the ground of non-filing of declaration under Rule 57T(1), and (iii) Modvat credit denied on M.S. fabricated 150 m.m. pitch for bagasse carrier and on welding road electrodes.On adjudication of the show cause notice the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty on the appellants. On an appeal the learned appellate authority upheld the order-in-original in respect of the above 3 issues against the appellants. Hence this appeal.3. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that in respect of issue No. 1 & 2...