Delhi Court June 1999 Judgments
Balraj and ors. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC790Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi who has inter alia confiscated tempo Nos. DDL 3701, DBL 2035 and DDL 5031 driven by them on 5.2.1994 on the ground that the vehicles were carrying contraband goods such as air conditioners, microwave ovens, colour TVs and movie cameras, all of foreign origin, with option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs each and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on each of the appellants.2. We have heard Shri V.R. Sethi, learned Advocate and Shri H.K. Saran, learned SDR.3. We find that none of the 3 drivers have admitted that they had knowledge that they were carrying contraband. On the other hand, Satish Kumar and Joginder had sated that their tempos were engaged for hire by one Rajiv Sarin and while carrying the goods, the tempo was stopped by Customs Officers and that Rajiv Sarin produced some documents which was not accepted by the officers, who, therefore, took the tempo and the goods, along...
Tag this Judgment!Mool Chand Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT687TriDel
1. In this case the request of the applicant for re-determination of ACP of the Induction Furnace in terms if Section 4 of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been rejected for ;he reason that, in the financial year 1997-98, the applicant had acted for discharge of duty liability in terms of Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules and therefore, the facility for re-determination of ACP under Section 3A(4) is lot available to such manufacturer.2. On hearing Shri Alok Arora, ld. Counsel and Shri Satnam Singh, ld.DR, we find that in all similar cases it has been held that option for re-determination cannot be taken away on the ground of initial option exercised under Rule. The earliest of the orders of the Tribunal on this aspect is that in the case of Meenakshi Castings and Inder Steels (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Kanpur - 1999 (32) RLT 82. This order has been followed in enumerable decision. Following the ratio of the above orders, we set aside the impugned order, after dispensing ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Space Foods (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT416TriDel
2. Question involved in this appeal of Revenue is that whether the value of goods affixed with the brand name of another person who is not entitled to the benefit of Notification 175/86-C.E. and these being cleared on payment of duty in terms of para 7 of the said notification should be taken into account in computing the aggregate clearances of Rs. 20 lakhs or 30 lakhs in terms of that para of the said notification of the specified goods. This question has been decided by the Revenue in the case of Jaina Detergent P. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Allahabad vide Tribunal's Order No. 232/99-C, dated 11-3-1999. Relying on the same, this Bench to which one of us was a party has taken a similar view and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in the case of May Fair Electricals in Appeal No. E/1697/94-D [Final Order No. 471/99-D, dated 26-5-1999].In this connection para 6 of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of May Fair Electricals, supra is reproduced below :- "We have carefully considered the plea of t...
Tag this Judgment!Tosha International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT56TriDel
1. Two stay petitions have been filed by M/s. Tosha International Ltd. one under the Central Excise Act and the other under the Customs Act.One stay petition has been filed by M/s. Essex Marketing (P) Ltd. As the three stay petitions arise out of the same impugned order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Arguing the stay petitions in the three cases as above Shri R.Chibber, ld. Counsel submits that M/s. Tosha International Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of 14" and 17" picture tubes for Black & White TVs and for computer monitors. The raw material and components for the manufacture of picture tubes were either imported or procured through indigenous purchases. A team of Central Excise officers visited the factory premises of M/s. Tosha International Ltd. on 26-7-1996. On demand they could produce only some private records. No statutory records were made available to the visiting officers. On checking the records it was found that M/s. T...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Ram Dass Engg. Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT200TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Guru Ram Dass Engg. Works (P) Ltd., the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 7760.80 basic + Rs. 388.05 special, totalling Rs. 8148.85 had been confirmed against the appellants for the clearances of Mild Steel (MS) Flats exceeding 5mm in thickness for the period from 20-5-1988 to 6-6-1988. The Central Excise duty had been demanded on the ground that Notification No. 90/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 was superceded by Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988, withdrawing exemption available to the M.S. Flats exceeding 5 mm in thickness. In reply to the show cause notice dated 31-10-1988, the assessee had submitted that with regard to their inputs used in the manufacture of flats, they were eligible for the deemed Modvat credit at the rate of Rs 365 per M.T. (P.M.T.) in terms of the Ministry's letter F. No. 342/1/88-TRU, dated 20-5-1988 and that only a differential duty at the rate of Rs. 20/- P.M.T. (Rs 385 - Rs 365 P.M.T.) could only be demanded. Their in...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT697TriDel
1. The appellants filed this application for waiver of the duty demand of Rs. 1,79,055/- and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the Proprietor.2. Learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the order-in-original was passed by the adjudicating authority without giving the appellants reasonable opportunity for defending their case. He submits that the appellants made a request vide letter dated 6-4-1996 to supply copies of relied upon documents. He submits that the relied upon documents were not supplied to the appellants only the copies of the invoices were supplied which were not sufficient to prepare their defence as all the record of the appellants' firm were taken into possession at the time of the visit of Excise Officials. He produced the letter dated 22-7-1998 issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise showing that relied upon documents are not being traced out and will be returned as soon as the same were traced. He, therefore, submits that the adjudication orde...
Tag this Judgment!SharfuddIn Khan Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC656Tri(Delhi)
1. All the above appeals arise out of the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta, confiscating absolutely 62 fire arms consigned under a master Air Way Bill to Sharfuddin Khan and imposing a penalty of Rs. 7,500/- on Sharfuddin Khan in the cases of 33 imports (each case comprising of one fire arm i.e. rifle) and imposing a penalty of Rs. 17,500/- in two cases of import of 2 fire arms viz. one rifle and one revolver, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 7,500/- on Smt.Quresha Begam in the case of one import by her.2. The case relates to import of 37 fire arms in 35 gift parcels; in 33 gift parcels, one fire arm each was imported, while in 2 gift parcels, 2 fire arms were each imported. Originally 62 fire arms in 60 gift parcels have been imported under one master Air Way Bill in the name of Sharfuddin Khan with separate individual House Air Way Bill in the name of individual gift recipients; 15 fire arms had been released before the issue of the original show cause notice dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Zee Telefilms Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)545; 80(1999)DLT472; 1999(50)DRJ647
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 12th March, 1999 by which learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, the petitioners/appellants have filed this appeal.2. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner No.1 is a company dealing in the business of production, acquisition etc. of various programmes, films and the like and telecast, export etc. thereof. Petitioner No. 2 owns a well known film magazine namely Zee Premiere. Petitioner No. 3 is the editor of said film magazine while petitioner No. 4 is one of the shareholders of petitioner No.1 company. Respondent No. 2 is a statutory corporation constituted under Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of india) Act, 1990. Respondent No. 3 is the Chief Executive Officer while respondent No. 4 is the Deputy Director General (Doordarshan) of respondent No. 2. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 allots time slots for telecast of programmes and events etc. on Nati...
Tag this Judgment!Zee Telefilms Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1999
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)777; 78(1999)DLT738; 1999(49)DRJ268
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition has been filed by Zee Telefilms Ltd. for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the action and decision of the respondents in declining the live telecast of the Lux Zee Cine Award, 1999 on 14th March, 1999 from 8.30 p.m. onwards till the conclusion of the said event and consequently to allot the said time slots to the petitioners. The petitioners further contend that they will abide by the terms and conditions of the rate card etc. issued by the respondents for that purpose. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not granted permission to telecast the above-said event on DD-I Channel which is vocative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the act of the respondents in declining to provide slots to the petitioners while having already telecast Film fare Manikchand ...
Tag this Judgment!Threads (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT338TriDel
(a) Credit of Rs. 755/- has been reversed back by the party. The same is confirmed as recoverable under Rule 57-T. (b) Credit of Rs. 5700/-, Rs. 1140/- and Rs. 36/- have been correctly availed by the party. Therefore, the same is not demandable. (c) An amount of Rs. 6318.00 is confirmed and demandable under Rule 57G. (d) Out of the total credit of Rs. 1430/- party has irregularly availed credit of Rs. 159/- and Rs. 417/- totalling Rs. 636/-. Thus I confirm the demand of Rs. 636/- against the party. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 1500/- on M/s. Threads India Ltd., Kampur Dehat under Rule 173Q of CER, 1944". "I have examined the case carefully, I find that the adjudicating authority has disallowed the credit on the ground that the appellants had not filed declaration of the impugned goods. In this regard the appellants have stated that there is no error in making the declaration of Electric Motor falling under Chapter Heading 85.01 rather than Chapter Heading 84.48 as declared by the ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »