Delhi Court June 1999 Judgments

Sudhir Dutt Mittal Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(85)LC649Tri(Delhi)

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi who has imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs upon the appellant herein for being concerned with illegal acquisition/possession/disposal of cellular phones and computer parts of foreign origin recovered from Maruti 1000 car bearing registration No. DLI-ICE-7139, on 19.10.1996 at Adhyatmik Nagar Police Check Post in Ghaziabad, UP. There were two occupants in the car at the time of interception, one Shri Ramesh Ghosh and the other Shri Sheesh Pal. The car was rummaged at the office complex of Revenue Intelligence Directorate at Lodhi Road, resulting in recovery of the above mentioned contraband goods which were secreted in the car in two specially made secret cavities in the floor of the car, beneath the two front seats of the car. The investigation revealed that Ajay Mohpal and Sudhir Mittal were engaged in smuggling of these items from Nepal into India, that they had carried out smuggling of these items in t...

Moti Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT737TriDel

1. Matter called. None for the appellant despite notice of hearing having been issued on 21-4-1999. We, therefore, presume that the appellants are no longer interested in pursuing the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....

Raipur Bright Steel Wire Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT281TriDel

1. The issue is the eligibility of rolls manufactured in the appellants' workshop and captively used in the appellants' factory to exemption under Notification No. 281/86.2. Arguing the appeal, learned Counsel Shri Bhargava V. Desai submits that the issue remains covered in favour of the appellants vide Final Order Nos. E/440 to 445/93-B1, dated 17-12-1993 [1994 (70) E.L.T. 624 (T)] of the Tribunal in Appeal Nos. E/2292/93-B1, E/2498/93-B1, etc. He submits that the Tribunal has held in these cases that rolls manufactured in a rolling mill and used captively are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 281/86.3. Heard learned JDR, Shri M.P. Singh. He submits that the exemption is available only if the goods are used for repairs or maintenance of machinery installed in the manufacturer's factory. In the instant case, rolls have been used for replacement of worn out rolls in the rolling machine. He submits that all replacements cannot be treated as repair or maintenance. He also dra...

Awadh Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT719TriDel

1. The appellants have filed captioned appeal assailing the order of the ld. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise. The ld. Commissioner in the order found the Annual Capacity Production of Rolling Mills as 1968 M.Ts. but held that as per para 5 of the Notification No.45/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-8-1997, the Annual Capacity of Production of the appellant's mills has been fixed as 4641 m.t. w.e.f. 9-9-998.2. It is a case for fixation of the Annual capacity of production of Rolling Mills when there was a change in the parameters envisaged for determining the Annual Production Capacity.3. Arguing the appeal Shri Alok Arora, ld. Counsel submits that the Annual Production Capacity on the basis of the parameters was found to be 1968 mts. He submits that the ld. Commissioner instead of fixing this capacity fixed the annual production capacity of their rolling mills as 4641 m.t. He submitted that he would like to assail the effective date of the implementation of the Annual Production C...

Mansurpur Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT346TriDel

1. In this case, credit on the following items used by the appellants herein in the manufacture of sugar has been disallowed for the reason that the items were specified as Capital goods only with effect from 16-3-1995 and therefore, during the period in dispute which is prior to 16-3-1995, they were not covered by the definition of Capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 : 2. Shri Alok Arora, learned Advocate submits that all the above items are used in the manufacture of appellants' final product; that their use as such, is not disputed; that the items are in the nature of plant/machine/machinery used to produce or process goods or to bring about change in any substance in the manufacture of the final products and that the items in dispute also stood covered by Clause (a) and (b) of Explanation I to Rule 57Q, as it stood during the relevant period and it is not correct to conclude that the items came under the purview of Rule 57Q only with effect from 16-3-199...

Sh. Manohar Dutt Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The prayer in this Original Application is for a correction of date of birth from 23.2.1940 recorded by the respondents to 23.2.1946 on the ground that the discharge certificate and other documents received from the army indicate the date of birth as 23.2.1946.2. The applicant was recruited as a Cook in Artillery Depot Regiment, Nasik Road, Deolali on 23.2.1966 when he was 20 years old. His date of birth was recorded there as 23.2.1946 as evident from letter No.I241003/GNR (CK) Manohar Dutt/NE/LIb dated 14.10.1995 (Annexure-II).Even according to the admission of the respondents, respondent No. 4 affirmed and re-affirmed this date of birth by various letters and references and confirmed the same to the respondents also. The references by the respondents have arisen because the applicant joined the service of respondent No. 2 with effect from 1.1.1973. At that time his date of birth was recorded as 23.2.1940. The grievance of the applicant is it was a mistake and the applicant being ...

Hindustan Marketing and Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by assessee against levy of penalty under s.18(1)(a) of the WT Act, 1957, pertaining to asst. yr. 1986-87. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of advertisement. The return of the assessee was due on 30th June, 1986. The assessee moved application in Form No. 6 for extension of time up to 31st October, 1986. However, the assessee filed its return on 30th September, 1986.This return was not at all signed. Another return was filed on 26th August, 1987, marked "Duplicate return". This return was also not verified nor it was signed. A notice under s. 17 was issued on 6th October, 1988, calling upon the assessee to file the return and the assessee filed return on 8th November, 1988. According to the AO, there was delay of 28 months reckoned from the due date of filing the return till the filing of the return on 8th November, 1988, in persuance of notice under s. 17. Penalty proceedings were initiated under s.18(1)(a) in reply to the said notice, the assess...

Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissione ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(Del)344

ORDERJ.P. BENGRA, J.M.This is an appeal by assessed against levy of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, pertaining to assessment year 1986-87. The assessed is a company engaged in the business of advertisement. The return of the assessed was due on 30-6-1986. The assessed moved application in Form No. 6 for extension of time up to 31-10-1986. However, the assessed filed its return on 30-9-1986. This return was not at all signed. Another return was filed on 26-8-1987, marked 'Duplicate return'. This return was also not verified nor it was signed. A notice under section 17 was issued on 6-10-1988, calling upon the assessed to file the return and the assessed filed return on 8-11-1988. According to the assessing officer, there was delay of 28 months reckoned from the due date of filing the return till the filing of the return on 8-11-1988, in persuance of notice under section 17. Penalty proceedings were initiated under section 18(1)(a) in reply to the said notice,...

Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT708TriDel

1. The impugned order demands Central Excise duty of over Rs. 83,000/- in respect of clamps, cross axes, D.P. Sets etc. fabricated by the workshops of Maharashtra State Electricity Board under Tariff Notification No. 7308.90.2. Arguing the appeal learned Counsel, Shri M.A. Rangaswami explains that the appellants are not manufacturers of goods. They generate electricity and for the purpose of distribution of electricity electrical poles have to erected. They fabricate out of M.S. angles, clamps and other items. The activity involved is one of bending, making holes etc. for specific use at places for fixing these poles. He submits that the issue involved had been considered by the Tribunal in several cases and it had been held that activities like bending making holes etc. on channels, angles would not amount to manufacture of goods. He refers to the decisions of the Tribunal in C.C.E., Madras v.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Workshop reported in 1998 (75) ECR 602 and in Collector of Cent...

Mafatlal Fine Spg. and Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT141TriDel

1. Short question in both the Appeals, one of which viz., M/s. Mafatlal Fine Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd. is represented by ld. Advocate Shri M.P.Baxi and the other case is desired by the appellant to be decided on merits. Question involved is whether the 'slivers' as described by both the assessees are classifiable under Tariff Heading 55.02 as found by the adjudicating authority or that they are non-marketable.2. After having heard both sides and after going through the impugned order, we observe that the adjudicating authority has essentially based his findings on the Explanatory Notes to HSN under Heading 55.06 (corresponding to Central Excise Tariff Heading 55.02) which speaks of "Synthetic Staple Fibres, carded and combed or otherwise processed for spinning".3. The adjudicating authority, in view of the submissions of both the appellants herein appears to have sent an Asstt. Collector to find out the position whether the process of combing is undertaken by the assessees or not. ...