Delhi Court November 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mitsui and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)104
ORDER1. Heard finally.2. The grievance raised in this petition is very limited. Penalty proceedings under Section 271C of the IT Act, 1961, were initiated and finalised by Dy. CIT, Range 23, New Delhi, against the petitioner resulting into a penalty of Rs. 6,99,82,708 being imposed on the petitioner by order dt. 31st July, 1997. The penalty order is subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal.3. The petitioner sought for inspection of the records so as to defend himself. The inspection is not being allowed to the petitioner as the same is being resisted by the Department. This petition has been filed during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal by (the petitioner/assesee submitting that even before the Tribunal, the petitioner would not be in a position to defend itself and argue the appeal effectively unless the inspection is allowed.4. Today, it is stated at the bar that the hearing before the Tribunal is concluded, but the petitioner has made a request to the Tribunal to a...
Asian Rubber Works Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT291TriDel
1. This application has been captioned by the appellant as to rectify the mistakes and Ironing out the creases on account of inadvertent mistakes which has crept in Final Order No. 801/98-C, dated 17-9-1998.2. It is stated that the basis of the present application is as a result of earlier miscellaneous application filed on 30-6-1998 for consideration before the third Member who was to hear the differences of opinion between the original two Members on the questions formulated by the Original Bench. The basis of the said Miscellaneous Application filed on 30-6-1998 was inter alia the submission of the appellant that the direction of the learned Members was to cut the tyres into two pieces before clearance for home consumption was an error apparent on the face of the record in view of the following :- (i) It is stated that it is the condition in which the goods are imported that determines: (ii) The tyres in question were imported without any cut. Such tyres are classifiable under Head...
Premier Credits Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC224Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeal arises out of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore confirming a duty demand of Rs. 11,74,450.94 P for thinners manufactured by the appellants herein by disallowing the benefit of Notification No. 230/86, dated 3-4-1986 on the ground that they were manufactured with the aid of power, confiscating two electric motor pumps and pipelines with option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plasticizer and thinner falling under sub-heading 2917.00 and 3814.00 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In their classification list No. 18/89-90 they claimed exemption for thinner under Notification No. 230/86 which grants total exemption from payment of duty to certain goods specified in Col. 3 of the table annexed thereto and falling under heading or sub-headings of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tarif...
Krishna Fabrications (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT448TriDel
1. The issue in this appeal relates to the availability of exemption in terms of Notification No. 61/86 of Central Excise dated 10-2-1986 to Steel Seats designed for use in Buses, Trucks, Vans etc. (which are Automobiles) but used in Hydraulic Excavators and Front End Loading and Cranes. The Revenue denied the benefit of Notification on the ground that the Cranes and Front End Loaders etc. are not Automobiles and therefore Steel seats actually used in Cranes etc. cannot be deemed to be specially designed for use in Automobiles.2. We heard Ms. Smriti Mishra, Id. Counsel and Shri R.S. Sangia, DR. We find that the Revenue, in assessee's own case, as reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 729, has held that Steel seats designed for use in Automobiles, although actually used in Tractors and Trucks as moving equipments are eligible for exemption under Notification Nos. 91/68 and 61/86. The ratio of the above decision is directly applicable in the present case, and hence, following the same, we hold t...
Raj Sandeep Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1028TriDel
1. These two Appeals arising from the common Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh dated 31-1-92 were heard together. By the said order, the Collector had confirmed a duty of Rs. 13,91,148.65 against the appellant M/s. Raj & Sandeep Co. Ltd., Ludhiana and imposed a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs on them apart from directing payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/- for release of the confiscated goods.2. We have heard Shri Harbans Singh, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri P.K. Jain, ld. DR for the Department.3. Ld. Counsel Shri Harbans Singh contended that the case relates to allegation of clandestine production and removal of M.S. Steel Ingots weighing 12.780 M.T. seized from a truck on 29-12-90. Consequent on the said seizure and further investigation, the Collector by SCN dated 19-6-91 asked the appellants to explain why the seized goods should not be confiscated and why duty amounting to Rs. 14,34,533.50 on suppressed production of 2508.317 M.T...
Collector of Customs Vs. Alkav Overseas
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC222Tri(Delhi)
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal, dated 29-10-1992 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents imported 20 sets of Sunstar Model Stitch Machines and claimed the classification under Sub-heading 8452.21 of Customs Tariff. The Revenue assessed the Table Drawers under Sub-heading 8452.40 and stand of machine under Sub-heading 8452.40 and clutch motor under Sub-heading 8501.10 of Customs Tariff.3. Present respondents filed appeal and the Collector of Customs in the impugned order held that Sewing Machines along with clutch motor are classifiable under Sub-heading 8452.21 of Customs Tariff.4. Revenue filed this appeal against this order and challenged the classification of clutch motor only. Ld. JDR, Shri S.N. Ojha submits that the industrial sewing machine means sewing machine head only and sewing machine does not include anything else. He submits that electric motor is optional accessory which the buyer may order alon...
Eacom'S Controls (India) Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(81)LC25Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from the order-in-appeal dt. 31.8.1988, passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellants have imported a consignment of 'Converters' vide Bill of Entry No. 27593 dt. 19.5.1987 and claimed the assessment under Chapter heading 9032.89 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 along with the benefit of exemption from auxiliary and countervailing duty under Notification No. 69/86 read with112/87. The department did not accept the assessment claimed by the importer, and held the item to be classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8543.80. The Assistant Collector in the order-in-original has referred to examination of the goods done by the department. It was found to be nothing but current to pneumatic converters type ITOPO-I. It has been noted that the basic function of the above item is to convert electronic analogue signals to pneumatic signals. It converts 4.20 mA dc current to 3.15 Psig and provided high output capacity to power any positioning or actuating device...
Universal Conveyor Belting Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC600Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from order in appeal No. 185/94 dated 25.3.1994 by which the Commissioner held that refund in the cases before him does not arise. The reason given is that the appellants had not denied that their refund claim certain duty element was not included in their contract prices. He has also taken a view that the order passed by Assistant Collector for crediting the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund is justifiable and reasonable.2. The appellants are not present. On the last date of hearing the representative of the appellants was present and took the hearing date.Learned JDR Shri S.F. Rao submits that the issue with regard to the credit of refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund is justifiable, as the appellants had submitted of not having passed on the element of duty to the customers. There (sic) prayer that they would refund to consumers at a future date is not sustainable in terms of Judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Addison as . The prayer made b...
Manohar Brothers (Capacitors) Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT813TriDel
1. The impugned order raises duty demand of over Rs. 62 lakhs on the appellants. The two components of this demand are (1) a demand of over Rs. 54 lakhs on account of duty which is held to be payable on items which the appellants purchased from outside and supplied along with the Capacitors manufactured by them and (2) a demand of Rs. 8 lakhs approximately on account of denial of Small Scale exemption to the appellant in respect of clearances made during the financial year 1991.The impugned order also imposes penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. Arguing the appeal, Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, ld. Advocate submits that duty demands are not maintainable in law. With regard to the demand of duty of over Rs. 54 lakhs on bought out items, he submits that these items are themselves separate goods assessable to duty under Central Excise Law. These items are Lightening Arresters, CT, RVTs etc.He submits that these are not components or parts or accessories of Capacitors manufactured by the appellant. Theref...
Indian Shaving Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT546TriDel
1. The ld. Commissioner, Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi in the impugned order held : "9. The imported goods of the GIF value of Rs. 14,14,184/- are ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The importing party is however given an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only). This option should be exercised by the party within 20 days of the receipt of the order failing which the goods will stand absolutely confiscated." 2. The facts of the case are that the Appellants are importers and imported Shave Foam and Shave Gel and claimed the ITC Classification under Heading 3307.10 and claimed clearances thereof under Special Import Licence (SIL) as Shaving Cream. The Department alleged that the goods did not answer the description of Shaving Cream as they have been described as Shave Foam and Shave Gel and, therefore, specific licence was necessary. The Importers waived the requirement of issue of Show Cau...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »