Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kirpal Steels (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT79TriDel

1. In all these appeals filed by the Revenue the common issue involved is whether runners and risers arising in the course of manufacture of ingots in a unit paying duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act are exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 49/97-C.E., dated 01.08.1997.2. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Excise Executive, appeared on behalf of M/s.Mukesh Steel Ltd. and Shri N.K. Thaman, learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of M/s. Vishwakarma Alloys Ltd. In respect of other respondents no one appeared on their behalf. Shri V.M. Udhoji, learned DR represented the Government and placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bengal Ferro Alloys and Steel Ltd. v. CCE, Bolpur, 3. Learned DR as well as the learned Advocate and representative of the Respondents submitted that the Tribunal has already heard other cases involving the same issue, and the order has been reserved and these appeals may also be disposed of on the basis of decision taken therein.CCE,...

M/S. A.C.C. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture Portland Slag Cement falling under Chapter sub-heading 2502.29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also availing modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 570 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. During the months of August, 1996, October, 96, November, 96 and January, 97, they availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 3,93,360/- under Rule 570 on the Grinding Media Balls and on Hi-chrome Cylpebs respectively. The Asst.Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Bhilai vide his order dt.10.10.97 denied them the modvat credit and confirmed a demand of the aforestated amount on them under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11-A of Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal vide his order dt. 14.10.99 upheld the order of the original authority by rejecting the appeal of the party for the modvat credit on the grinding media but allowed the appeal for ...

Cce, Delhi Vs. M/S. Bharat Foam Udyog (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Respondents manufacture P.U. Foam Sheets, Mattresses, Cushions and Cut pieces falling under Chapter Sub-heading 3921.12, 9404.00 and 3915.90. They are also availing modvat credit facility under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise vide his three order dt. 9.12.97, 25.3.98 and 31.8.98 confirmed a total amount of duty of Rs. 1,98,810/- on the Respondents as also imposed a penalty of Rs. 18,000/- on them on the ground that they had received their inputs 'Drums'. the value of drums was included in the value of inputs, for which, they availed modvat credit. He has observed that in the process of manufacture, the drums have to be opened and after the use of inputs packed in them, the same should be taken to be scrap which arises in the preparatory stages of manufacturing process. It is stated that this scrap is subjected to duty under Rule 57F(4) under the Tariff Heading and the rate applicable to scrap.2. The party filed appeals against th...

Ripen Kumar Vs. Department of Customs

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ1288; 2000(72)ECC722

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. The petitioner has raised questions of law which have far reaching effect, namely:- 1) Whether an order, passed in exercise of revisional powers under Cr.P.C. by a Sessions Judge can be set aside by his successor at the instance of the same petitioner when it was not challenged further. 2) Whether such an order, assuming it was passed not in revisional jurisdiction, attain finality? 3) Whether the word 'evidence' includes the statement in examination-in-chief of the witness who was not cross-examined fully 4) Whether a Sessions Judge can review an order passed under Section 244 Cr.P.C. by his predecessor suo-moto regardless of the considerations of limitation under the Limitation Act 5) Can an Additional Sessions Judge before whom order of dis-charge was challenged set aside previous order of another Addi-tional Session Judge and give directions there under 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the above questions are, that on 28th October,1987 a complain...

Brindco Sales Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Del)148

Arijit Pasayat, C. J.Order dated 31-7-2000, passed by the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Authority'), under section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), directing pre-emptive purchase of property D-1/5, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi, is under challenge in this petition.2. Background facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition, which has been filed alleging non-application of mind and/or non- consideration of relevant materials by the authorities essentially are as follows :A statement in Form 37-I was filed by Span India (P) Ltd., respondent No. 3, on 28-4-2000, indicating that it was the transferor and the petitioner was transferee in respect of an immovable property, i.e., D-1/5, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi, having total land area of 1.042.34 sq. mts. In col. No. 4 of the form particulars of the property were described as an industrial building with base...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Begam Brigees Zahoor Qasim and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)160; [2001]248ITR482(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This order will govern WTRs Nos. 83 to 86 of 1978 arising out of WTAs Nos. 1467 to 1470 of 1975-76, WTRs Nos. 148 to 152 of 1982 arising out of WTAs Nos. 1003 to 1006/D of 1980 and 1009/D of ,1980, WTR No. 45 of 1983 arising out of WTA No. 53/Delhi of 1981, WTR No. 84 of 1983 arising out of WTA No. 120/Delhi of 1991, WTR No. 85 of 1983 arising out of WTA No. 51/Delhi of 1981, WTR No. 92 of 1983 arising out of WTA No. 52/Delhi of 1981 and WTR No. 93 of 1983 arising out of WTA No. 54/Delhi of 1981. 2. At the instance of the Revenue, under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question, pertaining to the assessment year 1974-75, in WTRs Nos. 83 to 86 of 1978, for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that the Wealth-tax Officer ...

Brindco Sales Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)649; 2001(57)DRJ129; [2001]248ITR465(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Order dated July 31, 2000, passed by the Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department, New Delhi (in short, 'the Authority'), under Section 269UD(1) pre-emptive purchase of property D-1/5, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi, is under challenge in this petition.2. The background facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition, which has been filed alleging non-application of mind and/or non-consideration of relevant materials by the authorities essentially are as follows :A statement in Form No. 37-I was filed by Span India Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 3, on April 28, 2000, indicating that it was the transferor and thepetitioner was the transferee in respect of an immovable property, i.e., D-1/5 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi, having total land area of1042.34 sq. metres. In column No. 4 of the form particulars of the propertywere described as an industrial building with basement, mezzanine floor,two-storied office block with built up area of 15...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pep Infotech Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT149TriDel

1. The respondents manufactured and cleared STD/PCO monitor and parts/accessories thereof during November, 1998 to February, 1999 on payment of duty @ 13% as applicable to Chapter Headings 90.30/90.33 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Department wanted to classify the products under Tariff entries 84.70/8473.90 attracting duty @ 18% and proposed to recover the differential duty from the respondents under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act as per show cause notice (SCN) dated 17-5-1999. The adjudicating authority confirmed such demand of duty to the extent of Rs. 6,60,260.00. The appeal filed by the respondents against the order of adjudication was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.2. We have carefully examined the records and have heard ld. JDR Shri M.P. Singh for the appellants and ld. Advocate Shri A.R. Madhav Rao for the respondents.3. We note that the demand of duty as confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner was for a period prior to...

Bansal Ispat (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT210TriDel

1. This appeal relates to the admissibility of the Modvat credit in terms of the deemed credit order dated 7-7-1992. The appellants submitted claim under Rule 57H where they claimed credit of duty amounting to Rs. 4,14,716/- on the inputs viz. old scrap of railway material, M.S. Ingots and other M.S. Scrap. Such inputs had either been purchased from the open market or from the Railways. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs Excise, Lucknow vide his order dated 29-3-1996 allowed this credit. The department filed an appeal against the above order and Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad vide his order dated 27-11-1997 allowed the appeal of the department to the extent of Rs. 81,926/-. The party is in appeal against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Ashok Kumar, JDR for the respondents. At the outset it may be stated that the appellants in the Form EA-3 of appeal have stated that the amount of duty involved in the...

Sankara Fabs Processors P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(93)LC426Tri(Delhi)

1. In these cases, a demand of Rs. 69,73,207/- has been confirmed against appellant No. 1 on the ground that they clandestinely cleared processed fabrics chargeable to duty at different rates during the period 1993 to 1997, in the guise of processed hosiery which is exempt from duty. A penalty of amount equal to duty has been imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 173Q and 226 of the Rules, a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs has been imposed on Shri Sanjay Arora, Director of appellant No. 1 in terms of Rule 209A of the Rules.The Commissioner has also held that appellant No. 1 is liable to pay interest in terms of Section 11AB of the Act. The appellants, who are represented by their Counsel, Shri L.P. Asthana do not dispute the finding; however, they challenge the computation of duty liability as well as the levy of interest and imposition of penalty for the period prior to 28.9.1996, which is the date on which Section 11AB and Section 11AC were introduced in the Ac...