Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 10 of about 321 results (0.019 seconds)Shafaat Ali Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)563; 1999CriLJ4522; 81(1999)DLT333; 1999(66)ECC100
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. The petitioner was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short referred to as COFEPOSA) pursuant to an order of detention dated 3.2.1997. The grounds on which the order has been made against the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA were : 2. That on 25.7.1996 one passenger Salahuddin Abdul Razak was going to Dubai from I.G.I. Airport. After clearance from immigration and customs while he was going towards the security check area he was intercepted on suspicion and on being searched foreign currency notes equivalent to Indian Rs. 13,48,979.80 were recovered from the briefcase being carried by him as his hand baggage. It is alleged that in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act Salahuddin stated that on 1.6.1996 he came to Delhi and brought 5 kgms. of gold with him; the gold was given to him by one Mohammad Umar Along with foreign currency to pay the customs duty; that...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab National Bank Vs. Pioneer Overseas and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)693; 81(1999)DLT713
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This suit was filed by the plaintiff-Punjab National Bank on 5.2.96 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,93,197.95 with interest @ 20.25 % per annum. The plaintiff is a body corporate under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The defendant No. 1 is a sole proprietorship concern which carries on the business of manufacture & sale of woollen and acrylic yarns used in hand-knitting and machine knitting and the defendant No. 2 Smt. Neelu Singh is the sole proprietor of defendant No. 1. 2. The plaint on behalf of the plaintiff inter-alia avers as follows:- 3. Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are stated to be the guarantors and defendant No. 4 is also stated to be the mortgagor of property No. 38, DLF Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. It is also averred that one Smt. Satwant Kaur who was also a guarantor had died and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are her legal heirs and are also liable in that capacity. 4. It is averred that ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil JaIn and anr. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(90)LC324Tri(Delhi)
1. Short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: 2. M/s. Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. imported one set of design workstation with flat bed scanner, floppy disc, etc. from M/s. Viable Systems Inc., USA. The breakup price shown in the invoice was US $ 22,500.00 for hardware and US $ 60,000.00 for software. That worked out at Rs. 7,16,974.00 for hardware and Rs. 19,11,930.00 for software.Officers of the customs department raided the premises of the importer.One of the documents seized was a proforma invoice dated 27.12.1994. It showed a total price of US $ 82,500.00 and discount of US $ 39,325.00.The breakup value of hardware and software was not separately given.Commissioner of Customs by his order dated 31.5.1995 rejected the discount of US $ 39,325.00 and enhanced the value of the imported goods to US $ 1,21,825.00. He confiscated the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and gave an option to redeem them on a fine of Rs. 15 lakhs. Penalties of R...
Tag this Judgment!themis Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT668TriDel
1. From a reading of the show cause notice, allegation as made out in the said show cause notice dated 3-1-1992 issued by the concerned C.C.E. was that the appellants herein had cleared 333,337 kgs. waste chemicals (solvent) etc. outside the factory and these waste chemicals had emerged during the course of manufacture of Dane's salt in 100% EOU. It was also alleged in the show cause notice that the said unit had not classified the said waste chemicals (solvent) though it was classifiable under chapter Sub-heading 3832.00 and chargeable to duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem as specified against the said Chapter Heading. It was also alleged that the said unit had also not filed price list to the proper officer nor they issued any Central Excise Gate-passes determining the payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon. Further allegation was that the unit had not maintained any statutory record for production and disposal of the said waste. Amount of duty alleged to be evaded by clear...
Tag this Judgment!United Engineers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC121Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 4-3-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In this case the benefit of Notification No. 155/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 is denied to the water filter produced by the appellants on the ground that water filter is an on-line attachment.2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that there is no dispute regarding classification of the goods. She submits that Notification No. 155/86-C.E. at Sri. No. 4 allows nil rate of duty on the water filter of the capacity of less than 40 litres. She submits that the water filter produced by the appellants does not exceed capacity mentioned in the notification. She also produced the catalogue of the water filter. She submits that the notification does not prohibit benefit to the instant filter or on-line filter. She also relied upon the decision in the case of IEK Plastics Ltd. (Final Order No. 1030/98-131, dated 6-7-1998 -1999 (107) E.L.T. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Abrasive India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT365TriDel
1. We are concerned in this appeal with classification of calcined of bauxite, Appellants herein contend that the proper classification of the aforesaid goods is 26.06. Tariff description of the TH reads as "Aluminium Ores and Concentrates". The lower authority, however, has classified the product under TH 68.07 pertaining to "all other articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or similar materials not elsewhere specified or included.2. Process of manufacture of the calcined bauxite is given in the impugned order as follows :- "Bauxite is mined. It is thereafter processed in chaft furnace at a temperature of 1200C to 1400C using coke as the heating medium. After this heat treatment takes place the calcination of 100 grade of Bauxite which hardens the amery stone present in it and reduces it to amery lumps. These lumps are crushed and graded and thereafter amery grain powder obtained." 3. Reasoning of the lower authority for classifying the aforesaid product under TH 68.07 is ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT734TriDel
1.1 The appellants herein were manufacturing three products and were availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 1/93 in 1994-95. For the subsequent year the appellants herein wanted to pay duty on one of the items and take Modvat credit of duty in respect of that item and continue to claim the exemption for the remaining two items. This was denied by the lower authorities on the ground that, an assessee cannot avail of the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 in respect of some of the products manufactured by it and not all the products manufactured by it. The lower authorities have relied on non obstante clause immediately before the Explanations to deny the benefit of exemption Notification No. 1 /93 and has held that the exemption can be allowed to all the products manufactured by the appellants and not some of the product manufactured by them. For better appreciation of the finding of the lower authorities we extract the said clause on which reliance has been placed by that au...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Ssk Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT332TriDel
1.1 Appellants herein are quarrying stone from a mine leased out to them by District Collector in the State of Maharashtra. They are further converting the said stone in a workshop within the area of mines. A question has arisen whether conversion of stone into what is described as metal stone will be governed by exemption Notification No.179/85, dated 1-8-1985 (as amended). It was the finding of the adjudicating authority that they are not entitled to the benefit of the said notification. However, on appeal the appellants herein have succeeded so far as the benefit of the aforesaid notification is concerned vide Tribunal's Final Order No. 200/98-C, dated 26-3-1998 [1999 (110) E.L.T. 727 (Tribunal)] on the basis of the definition of the word 'mine' in Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Mines Act, 1952.Following is the finding of the Tribunal in another collateral proceeding regarding availability of the said notification : - "Since we are concerned with the coverage of the Explanation not...
Tag this Judgment!Kores (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT661TriDel
1. By Order No. C. Ex.4/PL/V/Kores/86/1810 dated 14-4-1988, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Thane, gave certain concessions in levying duty to the appellant. Certain discounts were allowed in levying duty as per the price lists produced before him. The period covered by that order was from 1-7-1986 to 30-6-1987. That order was reviewed by the Collector in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it stood at the relevant time. Sub-section (3) of that Section fixed a time limit of one year from the date of the order of the adjudicating authority for review. The Collector interfered with the adjudication order passed by the Assistant Collector and remitted the case for de novo consideration. This decision of the Collector is under challenge in this appeal.2. Main contention raised by the learned Counsel representing the appellant is that Collector passed the review order beyond the period of one year fixed by Section 35E(...
Tag this Judgment!Primlaks Waffles P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC411Tri(Delhi)
1. In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise held that M/s. Primlaks Waffles Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Western India Chocolate Products Ltd. manufactured the goods on behalf of the same manufacturer, therefore, their production and clearances have to be clubbed under the excise law. The Collector of Central Excise also held that both these appellants are related to M/s. Target Marketing Pvt.Ltd. with mutuality of interest, therefore, the extra consideration received by M/s. Target Marketing Pvt. Ltd. would have to be added to the assessable value.2. Ld. Sr. Counsel, Sh. Joseph Vellapally, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that M/s. Primlaks Waffles Pvt. Ltd. and Western India Chocolate Pvt. Ltd. are independent manufacturers having their own independent manufacturing units on separate plots and both have separate financial arrangements, workers and separate income-tax and sales-tax registrations and separate excise licence. He submits that neither Primlaks Waffles P...
Tag this Judgment!