Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments
R.S. Chimni (Maj.) (Retd.) Vs. Mr. Jagmohan Dilwari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1999
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)99; 82(1999)DLT646; (2000)124PLR28
ORDERIA. No. 3502/98. 1. By this application Defendant No.3 seeks the condensation of delay in filing the written statement. Defendant No.3 was served for 28.9.1995. Thereafter, several opportunities were given to the defendant No.3 to file the written statement but that was not filed till 21.10.1997. On that day final opportunity to file the written statement within four weeks was given. By the same order it was also directed that if the written statement is not filed within that period the right to file the written statement in the present proceedings shall be closed. Since, the right to file the written statement stand closed by the order dated October 21,1997 after the expiry of four weeks, the question of condensation of delay does not arise. This application is not maintainable and is dismissed. I.A. No. 2894/98 (Order 9 Rule. 7 CPC by D-1) 2. Defendant No.1 was served by publication in 'Statesman' newspaper. As no one had appeared on behalf of defendant No.1 he was proceeded ex-...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ramsons Udyog (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC110
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether Aluminium Water Tanks, Stainless Steel Wash Basins and Lavatory Pans are classifiable under Heading 8607.00 of CETA as decided by the Collector (Appeals) or under Headings 73.24, 76.15 and 76.11 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the respondents M/s. Ramsons Udyog (P) Ltd. who have requested under their letter dated 6-9-1999 to decide the matter on the basis of written arguments. They submitted that the issue regarding the classification of the impugned items has been settled by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Sri Ram Metal Works, reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 616 (Tribunal), wherein it was held that Railway Coach work has to be treated in the broad sense which goes to make the coach functionally complete. In the case of railways, it goes without saying that the provisions of water in th...
Tag this Judgment!Sony India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT175TriDel
1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the following customs duty confirmed and penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi :- 2. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Sony India Ltd. had imported 94 consignments of various components of colour televisions (CTVs); that they had filed Bills of Entry claiming assessment of the components under various sub-headings of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act; that the duty was accordingly paid and after manufacture, CTVs were cleared from their factory on payment of duty; that in subsequent adjudication proceedings the Commissioner has demanded differential duty holding that they had imported complete CTVs in unassembled condition in violation of EXIM policy for the period after 25-3-1996; that exemption under Notification Nos.91/89-Cus., 36/96-Cus. and 79/95-Cus. was not available to the goods imported by them and that extended period of limitation is invoka...
Tag this Judgment!Triveni Engineers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC562
1. The appellant entered into a contract with M/s. Motilal Padampat Udyog Limited, West Champaran, Bihar for the supply of Turbo Alternator Set (TAS). The TAS was to be installed in the premises of the buyer.For this purpose, they manufactured, at their Bangalore Factory, steam turbines and transported the same to the work site. Other items like alternators, ACB Panels, Inventors etc. were purchased from the market and sent to the site for assembly. The work was completed and the TAS commissioned in October, 1994. A show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna on 5-2-1997 demanding duty of Central Excise on the TAS and under the order impugned in this appeal, duty demanded in the show cause notice (over Rs. 20 Lakhs) has been confirmed. Various penalties, demand for interest on the duty demanded and confiscation of the TAS in question have also been ordered under the said order.2. The appellants have challenged the order on time bar, jurisdiction and on me...
Tag this Judgment!Quality Exports and Chemicals and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC556
1. M/s. Quality Exports & Chemicals, Moradabad have filed a ROM application under Section 35 C of the Central Excise stating that the Final Order of The Tribunal No. 335-39/99-NB dated 14.5.99 contained certain mistakes apparent on record and needs rectification. (1) That the Tribunal's Final Order did not contain any finding on their plea of the entire demand being time barred; (2) The Tribunal's order had not taken into account the fact that out of 28,562 Kgs. of DMO and its derivatives, 42,843 Kgs of Menthol could not have been obtained and, therefore the Department's allegation of suppression of production and clandestine removal was baseless. (3) The Tribunal's finding had failed to consider the appellants contention about the manner of verification of stock by the Departmental officers inasmuch as the verification was done on the basis of assumptions instead of actual weighment. (4) That, the stocks recovered from the premises also included stocks belonging to trading units ...
Tag this Judgment!Amritsar Swadeshi Woollen Mills Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT586TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Amritsar Swadeshi Woollen Mills Limited, the matter relates to the classification of woollen fabrics which the Appellants had claimed to be shoddy blankets and the Revenue had classified as other woollen fabrics under subheading 5107.10.2. We have heard Shri L.P. Asthana, ld. Counsel for the Appellants and Shri V.M. Udhoji, ld. DR, for the Revenue.3. The ld. Counsel submits that for the period prior to 1-4-1992, Woollen blankets were being treated as shoddy blankets and no proceedings had been initiated in respect of earlier clearances.Subsequently also there is no dispute and tariff exemption for their fabrics had been extended. The proceedings were drawn on the ground that the procedural requirements as per Board's circular dated 26-5-1988 had not been complied with and the appellants had been penalised for the same and their value of clearances have been based on conjuctures and assumptions. The Tariff rate itself for shoddy blankets was Nil rate. He...
Tag this Judgment!Metal Engineering and Forging Co. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT1018TriDel
1. The appellants herein are a Handling and Terminal Agent of Central Warehousing Corporation. They had handed over goods alongwith documents including GR to the driver of the truck for delivery at ICD, Kanpur.The driver who brought the truck from Nhava Sheva, Bombay was changed at Ajmer and new driver took over the truck. He reached Kanpur and enquired about the place of delivery, checked up about the address, took the goods to the premises of two different importers namely M/s.MARS International and M/s. Mirza Tanner Ltd. at Kanpur and unloaded the goods at the premises of the above mentioned two persons. The case of the Department is that delivery of goods to premises other than ICD is in contravention of law and that the appellants herein are liable to penalty for their act/omission of not guiding the illiterate driver regarding correct location of destination thereby rendering the imported goods liable to confiscation. For this reason, a penalty of Rs. one lakh has been imposed u...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Agro Ind. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT955TriDel
1. This is an appeal by a unit of the U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Limited, an undertaking of the U.P. State Government. The appellants were authorised/licensed by the Department of Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Ministry of Energy, Government of India, to manufacture stoves called 'improved Chulhas' under the scheme of implementation of the National Programme on Improved Chulhas. The details of the National Programme on Improved Chulhas are available from the printed pamphlets issued by the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Government of India, seen amongst records of the case.We think, it is necessary to refer to the salient features of the said programme before proceeding to deal with the dispute in the appeal before us.2. Government of India recognising the fact that the dependence on fuelwood continued to play a pivotal role in meeting cooking and domestic requirements in rural areas, found it necessary to replace the traditional and inefficient cooking st6...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Moosa Haji Patrawalla
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT978TriDel
1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice as per acknowledgement on record. However, we find that appellant filed written submissions which are on record.Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the respondents.2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 21-2-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that Drying oven size manufactured by the respondents are classifiable under sub-heading 7308.90 of the Central Excise Tariff and are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. In respect of Aluminium drums of various sizes, the Commissioner in the impugned order classified them under Heading 83.12 of the Central Excise Tariff and granted the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. In respect of Aluminium Louvers of fixed type, the Collector has classified these items under Heading 76.13 of the Central Excise Tariff an...
Tag this Judgment!Bathija Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC194Tri(Delhi)
1. These are four appeals filed by M/s. Bathija Enterprises being aggrieved by the common Order-in-Original No. 59/92, dated 17-12-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II.2. The matter relates to the clubbing of the clearance of the three units, namely : M/s. Bathija Enterprises is a Proprietary concern. The goods in dispute are Playing Cards. The Adjudicating Authority had raised demand of Rs. 1,71,937.20 and had imposed penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on M/s. Bathija Enterprises, and penalty of Rs.5000/- each on Shri Anil Bathija, Beauty Pack Industries, M/s. Anil Packaging and Sharp Printers. The Appellants have prayed for decision on merits. In their written submission they have submitted that under Notification No. 73/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 sports goods are under exemption and it has been held by the Tribunal as Playing Cards were of sport goods. The period involved in this proceeding is from April, 1984 to March, 1989 and that with effect from April, 1986 to March, 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »