Delhi Court April 2006 Judgments

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. Ld. Single Member referred the matter to the Division Bench for reconsideration of the decision in appellant's own case vide Final Order No. A. 1205-NB dt. 8.9.03 in Appeal No.E/569/03-NB(S). In this case the Tribunal held that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit as capital goods in respect of Fluorescent Tubes as these are not specified goods under the definition of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Act.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Audio Magnetic Tape and Audio Cassettes and they are availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of capital goods which are used in or in relation to manufacture of final product. The appellant claimed the benefit of credit in respect of U.V. Lamp, Fluorescent Tube, U.V. Radinat Tube which are used as parts of printing machine which is falling under sub-heading 8443 of Central Excise Traiff. The contention is that printing machine is specified goods for the benefit of credit as capital ...

Milton Laminates Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 16.3.2005 wherein Order-in-Original rejecting the refund claim in cash is upheld.2. The issue involved in this case is that the appellants had imported some goods and filed bills of entry for assessment. The said bills of entry were assessed and the appellants produced DEPB license for the debit of duty amount payable against the inputs. The adjudicating authority did not accept the invoice value and enhance the same. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. On appeal against the assessment the Tribunal accepted the contention of the appellants and reduced the assessable value. Due this reduction in assessable value the appellants have debited Rs. 4,49,253/- in excess in DEPB. The appellants filed a refund claim of this amount from the authorities in cash. The adjudicating authority vide its Order-in-Original dated 29.6.2004 allowed the refund and sanctioned a refund claim of Rs. 4...

Setia Woollens Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 1.12.2004 which upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty on the appellants under Section 114A read with Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding non-applicability of the benefit of Notification No. 56/98-Cus dated 1.8.98 to the appellants. The appellants imported Grassy Wool and availed the benefit of Notification No. 56/98-Cus and 22/99. Subsequently it was found that the appellants are not eligible for the benefit of notification. The appellants deposited the amount of duty and interest thereon. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for imposition of penalty and confiscation. The adjudicating authority imposed the penalty and refrained from confiscation as the goods were not available. On appeal learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. I find that during the relevant period ...

Dhanraj Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has appeared for the appellants. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned DR. The appeal is directed against imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 and redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/-.2. The case has arisen thus. The appellant is manufacturer of HDPE/PP woven bags/sacks. The Central Excise Officers visited the appellant's factory on 4-2-2002 by surprise and did physical verification of the stock. It will reveal that 1201 kg of goods were not entered in the books of accounts. Shri Azad Mohammad explained that these goods were returned back from M/s. K.S. Oil Mills, Morena and M/s. Nandeshwari Packaging, Ahmedabad, He also stated that since no documents were received along with returned goods, they have not made entry in the accounts of the factory. On the very next day, he also produced documents covering the goods. All the same, the appellant's goods are confiscated under the aforesaid s...

Bedi Spining Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC626

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 28.2.2005 which upheld the Order-in-Original as regards confiscation of scrap, reducing the penalty on the appellants.2. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the scrap generated when the Barges which were purchased by the appellants were repaired at a place which is notified in the Customs area and the scrap generated thereon cleared, will be liable for confiscation.3. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the appellants bought in 4 Barges and got them repaired at Sikka. After repairs said Barges were plying in the Indian water. It is the submission that the show cause notice seeks to confiscate the scrap which got generated during the repair of the said Barges on Indian shore. It is submitted that the show cause notice initially alleges the denial of benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 for the Barges but later on it goes on to confiscate the goods i.e. 40 M.T. of scrap which got generated when the Barg...

Raipur Bright Steel and Wire Weld Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Facts leading to the passing of the impugned order may be noted. The appellant is a manufacturer of iron and steel products that are excisable. Central Excise authorities visited the appellants' unit on 24-5-96 and did a stock verification. Stock of finished goods was found to tally with the recorded balance. Raw material stock according to the book was about 529 m.t. However, when stock checking was done, actual stock was found to be in excess by about 52 tonnes. In the proceedings, the appellant offered many explanation for the difference in stock.Primarily, it was pointed out from the work sheet of stock taking, that one heap of billets (about 44 tonnes) had been counted twice. It was also pointed out that computation errors would have taken place as actual weighment was not carried out. Ld. Addl. Commissioner, who adjudicated the case, accepted the explanation and dropped proceedings.Revenue filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and in that appeal, Commissioner (Appeals...

Enterprise Public Relations Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. (Appeals)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the order made by the Deputy Commissioner confirming demand of Rs. 1,01,443/- as service tax from the appellant in respect of services rendered as advertising services was upheld.2. A show cause notice dated 25.5.2001 was issued on the appellant for recovery of the said service tax amount with interest. The Deputy Commissioner (Service Tax) confirmed the demand by observing that the appellant had paid the service tax short. It was observed that since service tax was a new concept, penalty was not imposed because the assessee may not be fully aware of the rules and procedures. The order of the Deputy Commissioner (Service Tax) appears to have been made in a pre-determined format and under the head discussions and findings, there is hardly any discussion as to the liability of the appellant and it only records the final finding that the appellant was liable to pay the amount without even discussing the n...

international Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant is a manufacture of tractors. It sent certain parts to job worker in terms of Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. That rule stipulates that goods so sent "return the same to the factory within a period of 60 days or such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise may allow". In the present case, the credit remains denied on the ground that parts in question which had been sent to job worker were not returned to the appellant within 60 days. The order also recognised that goods were returned belatedly. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that appellant had filed an application for extension of time. Learned DR would submit that the application for extension should have been filed before expiry of 60 days.2. No stipulation about filing of application for extension before expiry of 60 days is to be found in the Rule. Therefore, this objection cannot be accepted. Moreover, there was no dispute that inputs in question have bee...

All India Central Government Vs. Deputy Director General (Estt),

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this application applicants have sought grant of pro rata pension w.e.f. 1.11.1998, gratuity from initial dates of appointment, and counting service for pro rata in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders dated 10.8.1993 in IA No. 3 in WP No. 6189-7044 - Chandrakant Jha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.2. Applicant No. 1 who was present in person, was heard. He submitted that applicants No. 2 to 29 were serving with the Central Government.They submitted their technical resignation with option of pro rata pension w.e.f. 1.11.1998, but MTNL has not extended the benefit of counting service with the Central Government for purposes of pension and gratuity in respect of applicants. He submitted that applicants had submitted their representation Annexure A-7 dated 8.11.2005 seeking extension of pensionary benefits to canteen employees working in departmental canteens under MTNL, but respondents have not extended the said benefit to them. He further submitted that in similar...

Vishnu Singh Bora, Senior Clerk, Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant has challenged Annexure A-1 colly. dated 30.4./1.5.2004 which is a show cause notice for imposing penalty and order dated 5.6.2004 whereby penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon applicant w.e.f. 5.6.2004.2. Applicant who was working as Senior Clerk in ICAR was involved in case No. 1977/1992 under Sections 294 and 506 IPC and also in case No.276/93 under Sections 323, 427 and 501 IPC. He was convicted in these cases by order dated 1.12.1995. On the basis of this conviction and after considering applicant's representation in response to show cause notice dated 19.3.1996, penalty of removal from service was confirmed vide order dated 30.4.1996. Applicant's OA No. 1029/1996 against the said punishment was dismissed being premature on 9.8.1996. RA No.172/1996 against Tribunal's orders dated 9.8.1996 was also rejected on 5.12.1996. Applicant then filed OA No. 1935/1999 challenging respondents' order dated 30.4.1996 which was allowed vide order dated 13.2.2004 dir...