Delhi Court November 1997 Judgments

Francis Xavier Pereira Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed against the order No. Adj/1/AD/RK/G/97/3609, dated 29-4-1997 in show-cause notice No. T-4/9-G/96 for an offence of contravention of sections 8(1) and (2), read with section 64(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (the Act). 2. In brief it is the case of Enforcement Directorate that on 22-12-1995, while conducting a search at the shop premises of Al-Siddiqi, New Market, Margao - Goa, allegedly the appellant came to the shop and during his personal search, the Officers of Enforcement recovered and seized foreign exchange of US$ 198 and Stg. L 520 from his possession during search by the Officers of Enforcement Directorate, Goa and, accordingly, a panchnama was prepared and show-cause notice was issued to which the appellant filed his reply. The reply has been considered by the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned order dated 29-4-1997. 3. The appellant did not attend the adjudication proceedings personally or through any lawyer because ...

Mahesh Iron and Steel Re-rolling Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT472TriDel

1. All these appeals arise from common order passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi against each of the appellants demands were raised by issue of show cause notice in respect of 'rolled flat products of Iron & Steel, having thickness above 5 mm and width less than 150 mm', manufactured by them and in which they had filed revised classification lists effective from 20-5-1988 classification under sub-heading 7214.90 as 'other bars and rods' and full exemption under Notification No.202/88, dated 20-5-1988. However, the Assistant Collector by Order-in-Original has rejected their claim and has classified the goods in question under sub-heading 7211.11 of the Tariff as 'flats', attracting duty at Rs. 3857- per MT plus SED. He has also confirmed the demands for duty according to various periods indicated in the show cause notice. It was contended before the Collector by the appellants that the goods cannot be considered as 'flats' as the same were not so understood in common trade...

Progressive Extraction and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC396

1. In this stay application, the applicant is seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 1,78,200/- and penalty of Rs. 17,000/-. The appellants were issued with a show cause notice dated 29-11-1994 alleging that they had clandestinely manufactured and removed for internal use, various goods of iron and steel such as Hexane Storage Tank, Crude Oil Tank, Water Storage Tank etc. This was noticed by the officers on the visit on 11-12-1993. It is the contention of the appellants that the items manufactured are not goods as these have been manufactured piece by piece and fixed in the underground and that the item is an immovable property. It was also contended that the demands are barred by time, as the show cause notice has been issued after a lapse of time by the department after taking all the details from them.It is their contention that they were under bona fide belief that the item manufactured by them is an immovable property and hence are not goods. In this connection, they have relied on...

Plasma Spray Coats (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT110TriDel

1. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) had held that the benefit of concessional rate of duty cannot be extended to power supply units which have been imported independently and that in the circumstances, he found no reason to interfere with the order of the Assistant Collector.2, The facts of the case are that the appellants imported Plasma Deposition System and presented a Bill of Entry dated 5-12-1989 at Madras. The appellants claimed the benefit under Serial No. 76 of Notification No. 77/89- Cus. The appellants submitted that the power supply units were short shipped by the foreign suppliers and that they have now supplied this power supply unit without payment of duty and, therefore, requested that they may be given the benefit as it was a part of the Plasma Deposition System. The Assistant Collector held against them on the ground that as per Note 2(a) of Section Note XVI power supply unit is to be assessed separately as it was not imported alongwith the main equipmen...

General Electric Co. of India Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT637TriDel

1. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 29-2-1992 of Collector (Appeals), Calcutta.2. Appellants imported components of 25 K.V. Vacuum Circuit Breaker, claiming assessment under Heading 8538.90 read with Notification No.60/87-Cus. and 109/91-Cus. The goods were described in the Bill of Entry: "Components for 25 K.V. Vacuum Circuit Breaker (viz. Vacuum interrupter bottles types - V 506 - 7...) (Parts of high voltage circuit breaker of over 400 volts)." The claim was rejected by both authorities below on the ground that the goods are not classifiable under CTH 85.36 and considering that these are for 25 K.V. circuit breaker, they would be classifiable only under 85.35. The benefit of concessional rate of duty is applicable only to parts of goods which are classifiable under Heading 85.36 as mentioned in table annexed to the Notification.3. Arguing on behalf of the appellants' the ld. Counsel submitted that the goods are directly covered under the description given in Notifica...

Progressive Extractions and Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC167

1. In this ROA application including Miscellaneous application, the applicant is seeking recall of the Order No. 61/97-B1, dated 20-8-1997 passed on the stay application, by which their stay application was rejected, as they were not present on the date of hearing and they were directed to deposit the duty and penalty. In the application, they have explained that they had not received the notice and hence they were not present on the date of hearing. In support of this plea, they have filed the affidavit. The Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellants has also filed an affidavit. They had not received the hearing notice and therefore, the stay application was disposed of without effective hearing.3. On a careful consideration of the submission and on perusal of the affidavit, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented from appearing on the date of hearing, which resulted in passing of the order. Hence, we recall the stay order which directed them to deposit the duty an...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dawn Mills Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT448TriDel

1. These are five appeals filed by the department involving common issue and, therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Heard Shri Lakhinder Singh, JCDR on behalf of the Revenue and the respondents were represented by Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate accompanied by Shri Arun Mehta, Advocate. (1) Whether Central Excise duty on yarn is leviable on single yarn at spindle point as per the department or duty is payable on doubled yarn at the time of clearance, as claimed by the assessees. (2) whether duty on sized weight of the yarn is payable as per the department or duty is payable on unsized weight of the yarn is claimed by the assessee.4. Shri Lakhinder Singh, JCDR appearing for the revenue, submitted that issue with reference to levy of single yarn at spindle point is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur v. Banswara Synthetic Ltd. reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 645. He submitted that this w...

Collector of Customs Vs. Rifox Engg. (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT167TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the order passed by the Addl.Collector of Customs, Bombay, dated 27-2-1992 is under challenge. There were two issues involved in the matter. The first related to the thickness of the sheets imported and the other related to the weight of the consignment. On examination of the goods, it was found that thickness of the sheet was 1.5 mm. The exemption notification provided exemption to the stainless steel, plates, sheets and strips of thickness of 16 B.G. (Birmingham Gauge) or more. The 16 B.G. was converted into 1.58 mm and it was alleged that as the thickness was only 1.5 mm, it was less than 1.58 mm equivalent to 16 B.G. Insofar as the weight was concerned, it was found that the declared weight was 1992 kgs. while on actual weighment, the goods weighed 2120 kgs. Thus there was an excess of 128 kgs. The adjudicating authority while demanding duty on the actual excess weight ordered for the finalisation of the assessment without ordering any confi...

Amulya General Trading and Agencies Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Inco ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)65ITD329(Delhi)

1. These five appeals arose from the consolidated order dt. 30th July, 1996, passed by the CIT(A)-I, New Delhi. Following common order separate orders dt. 30th July, 1996 were passed for each of the assessment years in question. Only common grounds are involved in these appeals. It is enough if we extract one set of common grounds as under : "1. Because the order of the learned CIT(A) is unauthorised, illegal, erroneous, vague, misleading and misconceived. 2. Because the learned CIT(A) has failed to quash and annul the unauthorised, illegal and arbitrary assessment order dt. 8th March, 1996, passed by the Asstt. CIT Co. Cir. I(4), New Delhi. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) has wrongly inferred that the Hon'ble Tribunal had directed the Chief CIT to settle the question of jurisdiction. 4. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the order under s. 124(2) dt. 14th February, 1996, passed by the Chief CIT, New Delhi, as a valid order, without the order of the Chief CIT, Kanpur a...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. S. Surinder Pal Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1998Delhi138

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This judgment proposes to dispose of the writ petition Nos. 1107/86, 1108/86, 1109/86, 1110/86, 1111/86, 1112/86 also. The challenge in these writ petitions is to be common order dated 23-12-85 passed by the Additional District Judge, who while accepting the appeals of the respondents has set aside the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Authorities for the year 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-1981, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 in respect of the property No.CC.-50 Naryana Industrial Area, Community Centre, New Delhi.2. It appears that the property bearing No.CC-50 Narayana Industrial Area-II, Delhi was previously assessed at ratable value of Rs.1,72,800/-. An area of 8807.25 sq.ft. of the said property was let out to M/s. G.M. Satellite Projects (Indian Posts & Telegraphs Department) at a monthly rent of Rs.29,99.65. Consequently a notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was issued to the owner of the property namely M/s Star Pro...