Delhi Court June 1999 Judgments

Poonam Cargo Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC733

1. For reasons recorded below, we stay the operation of the impugned order of suspension of CHA licence and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. Vide impugned order dated 30-3-1999, the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi has held as under : Whereas as enquiry against M/s. Poonam Cargo Services, E-147, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi - 110 024 (hereinafter referred to as the CHA), holder of Regular Licence No. R-35/87 valid upto 5-5-2001 of Delhi Customs House, is contemplated with regards to the clearances of I. V. Can-nula valued at Rs. 1,22,60,000 for misclassification and misdeclaration as "Disposable and non-disposable cannula for aorta, Vene Cauae and similar veins and blood vessels" with a view to wrongly avail benefit of exemption Notification No. 23/98-Cus. and to clear these goods at Nil rate of duty on Bills of Entry Nos. 218025, dated 21-8-1998,110737, dated 29-7-1998 and 215634, dated 1-8-1998.Whereas the statements of Shri Sunil Nanda...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rajpack Well Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT169TriDel

1. These are 3 appeals arising out of the common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Indore involving the issue whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies in the case of refund of duty paid on goods captively consumed.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. We, therefore heard Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR, in Appeal No. E/1212/96-C and Shri K. Panchatcharam, learned JDR, in other two appeals. They submitted that the respondents were manufacturing HOPE tapes which were captively consumed by them in the manufacture of HDPE sacks. They had sought refund of duty paid on HDPE tapes which was sanctioned by the Asstt. Commissioner. After the review by the Collector, the appeals were filed before the Collector (Appeals) who also in the impugned order rejected the department's appeal following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides (P) Ltd. v. U.O.I. -1992 (57) E.L.T. 201 (Bom). The Departme...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Premier Automobiles Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT819TriDel

1. In this appeal matter relates to the eligibility of the sand moulds classifiable under Heading No. 84.80 of the Central Excise Tariff to the benefit of Notification No. 220/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986.2. When the matter was called no one appeared for the respondents M/s.Premier Automobiles Ltd. We have heard Shri R.D. Negi, SDR for the Revenue and gone through the facts on record.3. From the impugned Order-in-Appeal it is seen that there is no dispute that the sand moulds were classifiable under Heading No. 84.80 of Central Excise Tariff. As under Notification No. 220/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986 all articles mentioned in Heading 84.80 are eligible for exemption. We agree with the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) that the sand moulds being moulds for the purposes of Heading 84.80, are eligible for the benefit of Notification No.220/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the Appellate Authority. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue i...

Chinku Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC62Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 56/98, dated 23-3-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs consequent to the matter having been remanded by the Tribunal for de novo consideration.The issue involved, in brief, are as follows : 1.2 Mis-declaration of the quantity of goods submitted for export and shipping bill and 2. In these de novo proceedings, the impugned order records that two opportunities were given to the appellants for personal hearing, but since no one attended, the impugned order was passed ex-parte again.The order imposes penalty of Rs. 14.45 lakhs and Redemption Fine of Rs. 2.89 lakhs on the goods exported.3. Heard Shri K.L. Rekhi, learned Consultant for the appellants. He submits that whereas in the first order-in-original which had been remanded by the Tribunal to the learned Commissioner of Customs, the penalty had been Rs. 10 lakhs, in the present order impugned, which has been passed ex-parte, as neither of the two intimations purported to have bee...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Ram Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT147TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the classification and durability of the tracing cloth. The respondents M/s. Shree Ram Mills Ltd. have claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 47/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 as amended by Notification No. 52/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that while the tracing cloth was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 47/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 and Notification No. 63/87-C.E., it had not been disputed by the Revenue whether their claim for the benefit of Notification No. 56/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 and No. 52/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 was available or not.3. Shri A.K. Agarwal, ld. SDR appearing for the appellant Revenue submitted that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that the tracing cloth was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No.47/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 and Notification No. 63/87-C.E., and that the Notification No. 56/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1...

Delmot Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT821TriDel

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants.The notice issued to the appellants was received back undelivered with the remarks "Company closed". No other address is available on the record. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the appellants.3. In this case the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of diesel generating sets and they claimed the benefit of Notification No.20/79-C.E., dated 2-2-1979. The Notification No. 20/79-C.E. provides a concessional rate of duty to the generator 100V and above. In the impugned order it was held that the appellant has not proved that his generator sets are of the category of generator of 100V and above. We have carefully perused the grounds of appeal. In the statement of facts and the grounds of appeal, the appellant has not pleaded the generator sets manufactured by them are of 100V and above. Therefore, in the absence of pleading and evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. T...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Stay Sharp Diamond Tools Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1063TriDel

1. Revenue filed this appeal in Order-in-Appeal dated 14-10-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that the Diamond Impregnated Segments for Saw Blades falling under Heading 82.02 of the Central Excise Tariff are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 207/88, dated 1-6-1988.4. The contention of the Revenue in this appeal is that Diamond Impregnated Segments are only parts of the blades and cannot be regarded as Saw Blades for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 207/88, dated 1-6-1988 as the notification only grants exemption to Hand Saw Blades for saw of all kinds (including slitting slotting or Toothless Saw Blades).5. We find the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Winter Misra Diamond Tools Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, reported in 1996 (93) E.L.T. 670 (Tribunal). In this case the Tribunal held that the Diamond Impregnated Segments whi...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modern Syntex (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT714TriDel

1. These 4 appeals are based on common facts and question of law.Therefore, are being taken up for hearing together.2. Revenue filed these appeals against the orders-in-original passed by he Commissioner of Central Excise where the benefit of Notification No.3/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 and Notification No. 53/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 vas allowed to the respondents.The brief facts of the case are that respondents are manufacturer of yarn and they cleared the yarn under Notification No. 53/87-C.E. and 53/91-C.E. to various registered Handloom Cooperative Societies. Show cause notices were issued to the respondents alleging that they had received the payment in respect of the yarn cleared under Notification No. 53/87-C.E. and 53/91-C.E. by the manner other than the Cheques drawn on the account of such Societies. The adjudicating authority vide impugned order dropped the proceedings. Learned SDR Shri A.K. Agarwal appearing on behalf of the Revenue and submits that the respondents had violat...

Ram Shanker Verma Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC767

1. In this case, the lower Appellate authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellant herein on the ground of contravention of the provisions of Notification 76/65 which prohibits importing into India, goods which have been exported to Nepal from countries other than India. The case of the Department is based on a statement of appellant in which he has stated that he gets customers from Nepal and India who bring silver to him and the seized silver has been held to be of Nepalese origin and therefore, there is no prohibition against possession of such silver. He therefore, prays that the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty may be waived and its recovery stayed.2. Opposing the prayer, Shri Kilania reiterates the findings contained in the impugned order and highlights the fact that the appellant himself admitted that the silver seized from him was of Nepalese origin.3. On a careful consideration of the rival submissions and having regard to the clear language of Notifica...

Smt. Jaiwati Vs. Parivar Seva Sanstha and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Smt. Jaiwati, the complainant in the present case, has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) averring that after paying the necessary charges, she, on 26.5.1992, had undergone MTP and Sterilisation at the Shahdara Clinic of opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party No. 1). The operation in question, as per the case of the complainant, was performed by OP-2 and after the operation, a certificate of sterilisation was issued to the complainant. It is further averred that on 15.10.1992, the complainant was found to be pregnant. The complainant, thereafter, went for medical check-up in Swami Dayanand Hospital, Shahdara on 3.1.1993 and after checking the complainant, the concerned doctor, in her report, stated that the complainant had conceived on 1st July, 1992 and the probable date of delivery was stated as 8th April, 1993. For the above alleged negligence on the part ...