Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

K.M. Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT170TriDel

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 20-7-1994 passed by the Commissioner of Customs. In the impugned order the benefit of project import was denied to the empty Oxygen Gas Cylinders imported by the appellants.2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant made import of 2520 numbers of empty Oxygen Gas Cylinders of 47 Ltrs, water capacity for initially setting up of their plant for production of gas. The appellant after registration of the contract under the Project Imports Regulations, 1986 for import of Gas Cylinder filed Bill of Entry and claimed the assessment under Sub-heading 9801.00 of the Customs Tariff.3. The goods were cleared after grant of the benefit of project import.Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the appellant denying the benefit of project import and classifying Gas Cylinders on merit.Thereafter, the impugned order was passed denying the benefit of project import and confirming the demand of differential customs duty.4. L...

Nepa Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT637TriDel

1. M/s. NEPA Ltd. have filed this appeal against the Order, dated 1-5-1997 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise demanding Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 12.37 crores on paper for the period from 1-3-1986 to 22-2-1988 denying the benefit of Notification No. 163/67, dated 21-7-1967.2. Shri M. Chandrasekharan, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that on merit the issue has been decided by the Appellate Tribunal against the Appellants in the case of Hindustan Newprint Ltd. v. C.C.E. Cochin, Final Order No. 970/99-C, dated 30-9-1999 denying the benefit of Notification No. 163/67, as amended, since the newsprint manufactured by them did not contain mechanical wood pulp amounting to not less than 50% of the fibre content. He, submitted that the entire demand is hit by time limit specified in section 11A of the Central Excise Act; that the show cause notice was issued to the Appellants on 21-9-1989 for demanding the duty for the period from 1-3-1986 to 29-2-1988; that initially the new...

Sage Metals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT668TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 14-7-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and export of electrical wiring accessories. As the appellants were exporting the final product, they were allowed to import the inputs without payment of duty. On 6-12-1995, the unit of the appellants was visited by the revenue officers and on verification of inputs, it was found that 11897.1 kg. of zinc alloy ingots was found short as compared to their statutory record. During investigation, it was found that zinc alloy was imported by the appellants without payment of duty for use in the manufacture of electrical wiring accessories, which are to be exported. This quantity of zinc alloy was neither cleared on payment of duty nor found to be used in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, the duty was demanded on this quantity and penalty of Rs. 30,000.00 was also i...

Ramsnehi Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC335

1. By the impugned order ld. Addl. Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,000/- on M/s. Ramsnehi Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 8,000/- against Shri Kedarnath D. Agrawal and Rs. 4,000/-against Shri Bhupendra D. Thakkar under Rule 173Q. Ld. Addl. Collector also confirmed the demand of Rs. 49,925/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that information was received by the Central Excise Authorities that M/s. Ramsnehi Synthetics engaged in the manufacture of HDPE Tapes falling under chapter sub-heading No. 506.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were evading Central Excise Duty by suppressing the production and illicitly removing the goods. They visited the factory of the assessee. During the course of checking of the records of the assessee/appellant, the officers found excess stock of 4128 kgs. of HDPE Granules used as raw materials by the assessee and shortage of 189 kgs. of finished goods (HDPE tapes) as against the record...

Prabhat Zarda Factory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT302TriDel

1. The Miscellaneous Application and the Stay petition filed by the applicants were heard when Shri K. Narasimhan, ld. Advocate appeared for the applicant and Shri S. Srivastava, ld. JDR appeared for the Respondent Commissioner.2. In the Miscellaneous Application the prayer is for making certain additions to the Memorandum of Appeal. Ld. Counsel submitted that the addition is merely by way of elaborating the points already made in the Memo, of Appeal.3. On perusal of the application and after hearing both sides, the Miscellaneous application is allowed.4. Arguing the Stay Petition, ld. Counsel submitted that the applicants are praying for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 39,53,024.00 demanded as duty and equal amount imposed as penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.5. Applicants who are manufacturers of branded chewing tobacco were issued Show Cause Notice alleging suppression of facts relating to removal of their products from their depots for delivery to the destin...

Kulkarni Black and Decker Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT231TriDel

1. The issue involved in this case is the classification of Portable All Ball Bearing Electric Blower manufactured by the assessees herein whether under CET sub-heading 8414.20 as Electric fan as claimed by the assessee or under heading 8508.00 as an Electro Mechanical tool for working in hand, as contended by the Revenue.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the re cords.The blower is used in industries for the purpose of blowing air at high speed for removal of dust particles. In the catalogue, the functions have been described as under: "The blower can be used as a powerful suction cleaner or as a means of deliv ering hot air by means of appropriate attachments. The blower is indispensa ble equipment for power stations, tea gardens, textile mills, food processing industry and foundries. Each machine is supplied with approximately 2 me ter long, 3 core (1 earth lead) PVC cable and a nozzle. Attachments (1) Suction attachment (2) Hot air attachment." 3. As per the p...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hill Packaging Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT56TriDel

1. This reference application has been filed by the Revenue. Question sought to be referred, according to the petitioner, arises from the decision of this Tribunal in Final Order No. A/377/97-NB(S/M), dated 20-5-1997 1998 (98) E.L.T. 543 (T). Short facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows.2. Respondent claimed Modvat credit of Rs. 2,66,547.94 on the inputs used by them in the manufacture of finished product. According to the department, credit was wrongly taken. The adjudicating authority thereupon disallowed the above credit and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000.00. It was confirmed by the appellate authority as well. On a second appeal to the Tribunal, the learned single Member allowed the appeal with consequential relief to the respondent/manufacturer. In allowing that appeal, reference was made by the learned Member to the decision in the case of S.B.S. Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, 3. Revenue in this petition takes up the stan...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Midi Tools (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC727

1. The short point to be considered by the Larger Bench in this case is whether limitation commences from the date of payment of duty or limitation starts from the end of the financial year for the purpose of claiming refund.2. When this matter was called, Shri R.D. Negi, learned SDR accompanied with Shri S. Srivastava, learned JDR submitted that the issue referred to the Larger Bench is no longer res integra in view of the fact that the very issue has already been considered by the Larger Bench as per Order No. E/989-990/97-B, dated 4-7-1997 reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T.257 (T). They drew our attention to the finding portion of the said order as appearing in para 12 of the decision. It is as under :- "12. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the time limit for refund claims filed on the basis of the Notifications granting exemption based upon the value of clearances during a particular financial year will commence from the date of payment of duty and that such refund cla...

India Seed House Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal of the assessee is relevant for the block period 1st April, 1986, to 20th July, 1996. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of trading in seeds of different varieties. Export to some neighbouring countries are also made. The firm consists of two partners, namely, Shri Purshottam Das Saini and his mother Smt. Poono Devi sharing 50 per cent each. A search under s. 132 of the IT Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 20th July, 1996. The assessee filed return of income under s. 158BC on 27th June, 1997, declaring a total undisclosed income of Rs. 5 lac for the block period.2. The AO found that several documents and books were seized at the time of operation under s. 132 of the Act. These documents and books contained various transactions of unaccounted nature for the period.The AO examined these details and recorded his findings as below : Annexure A-5 : This is an exercise book with record of bills for sales for the period 10th February, 1995, to 7t...

Lalit Kumar Bhargava, (Now Deceased) Vs. Shri Devender Kumar Bhargava

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)219; 83(2000)DLT567; 2000(52)DRJ486; (2000)124PLR77

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. By this order, I would be disposing of the applications bearing IA. No. 7872/87 & IA. 1494/89 both under Order IX, Rule 9 CPC moved by the plaintiff for restoration of the suit dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. is No. 931/90 is the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of the delay in moving the above applications. 2. Mr. Lalit Kumar Bhargava, the plaintiff now deceased had instituted this suit seeking declaration that the deed of dissolution of partnership dated 9.4.1984, between the parties was invalid and the same had been obtained by the defendant fraudulently and by misrepresentation. Further as a consequence thereof a decree of dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts was sought in the suit. The plaintiff and the defendant were brothers. 3. The application is No. 1494/89 in fact seeks the restoration of an earlier application is No. 7872/87, which was dismissed in default and for non-prosecuti...