Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vishal Printing Press Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT181TriDel
1. In this case, the impugned order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi was received by the appellants on 16-12-1999, the last date for filing of the appeal was 15-3-2000, while the appeal has been filed on 10-5-2000, thus occasioning a delay of one and half months in preferring the appeal. The applicants submit that the Proprietor of the appellant firm fell seriously ill on 5-3-2000 and was advised complete rest till 6-5-2000. A copy of the Medical Certification issued by Dr. S.K. Goel, Shahdara, Delhi is enclosed.They submit that due to illness, the Proprietor could not instruct the lawyer to prepare the appeal and that immediately after recovery from illness, the Proprietor got the appeal drafted by his Counsel and filed the same. In these circumstances, the applicants pray for condonation of delay. The prayer is opposed by the learned DR on the ground that the Doctor's Certificate shows that the Proprietor was only suffering from disc prolapse, which is no...
Brijmohan Bhatia Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT717TriDel
1. Appellant, M/s. BIC International, imported "CFL-Energy Saver Lamps". These lamps were purchased by the appellant from M/s. G and Vs International, Hong Kong, as per invoice No. 862/98/B1 dated 15-1-1999.As per that invoice, the CIF value was HK $ 79.026. The importer filed Bill of Entry No. 4136 dated 10-2-1999 for clearance of the goods Along with the Bill of Entry, Bill of Lading, Packing List, etc., were filed.The Customs Authorities were not prepared to accept the price declared.They started investigation. They loaded the value to Rs. 13,28,040.00 as against the declared value of Rs. 4,34,643.00. In this view, the duty liability was enhanced by Rs. 5,76,139.00. They came to the conclusion that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 10(3) of the Valuation Rules. In lieu of confiscation, redemption fine of Rs. 30,000.00 was imposed. The proprietor of the firm, Shri Brijmohan Bhatia, was found liable to penalty under Se...
Puran Mal Bansal Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC431
1. The issue involved in these two appeals arising out of a Common Order No. 33/97 dated 22-4-1997, the issue involved is whether the process of drawing wire of 7mm diameter from wires in Coil form of 8mm diameter amounts to manufacture so as to attract levy of Central Excise duty.2. Shri Pradeep Jain, ld. Advocate, submitted that M/s. Giriraj Industries are purchasing Wires in Coil from M/s. Starlite Industries Ltd., that these wires in Coil form are 8mm in diameter; that they were redrawing wire into 7mm diameter and cut and sell the same in the market; that this process of redrawing and cutting does not amount to manufacture as no new and distinct commercial product comes into existence. He relied upon the decision in the case of Premier Winding Wires and Conductors v. CCE, Nagpur -2000 (115) E.L.T. 698 (T) wherein it was held that redrawing of wires from coils does not amount to manufacture.3. Countering the arguments, Dr. D.K. Verma, ld. SDR, submitted that the raw material is ro...
Agrico Engg. Works (India) Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT891TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 12.08.96 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of parts of tractors and parts of printing machine and were availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 01.03.1986.A show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that they were clearing the parts with the brand name of Escorts and M/s.Bandhu Machinery Pvt. Ltd., therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification and duty was demanded by invoking the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act on the ground that the appellants suppressed the facts for manufacturing the goods with the brand name of others. The adjudicating authority held that the appellants were not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 01.03.1986 and confirmed the demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Appel...
Klockner Windsor India Limited Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT232TriDel
1. The appellants in Appeal No. C/330/93 (hereinafter referred to as "Klockner"), who were engaged in the manufacture of machinery using various machine tools, imported from Swiz-erland a consignment of two packages containing what they declared as "Mik-ron, Swiss make, Model WF 31C-1, Tool Room Precision Co-ordinate Jig Boring Machine" in December, 1985. They sought to clear the goods at Customs by filing Bill of Entry No. 9027, dated 23-12-1985 through their CHA, claiming that the import was covered under OGL in terms of the relevant Import Policy provisions and that the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Serial No. 2 of the Table to Notification No. 40/78-Cus., dated 1-3-1978 was available to the goods as classified under Customs Tariff Heading No. 84.45/48. The goods had been supplied by M/s. Mikron AG, Switzerland at a CIF value of DM 297780/- under their invoice dated 12-12-1985 which also described the goods as aforesaid vide B/E. The Bill of Entry was assessed an...
Groheven Tradex Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(57)DRJ114
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the show cause notice dated 25-5-1998 and the subsequent communication dated 25-9-1998 issued by Assistant Labour Commissioner, respondent No. 4. By the show cause notice dated 25-5-1998 theAssistant Labour Commissioner, Chandrapur, Maharashtra respondent No. 4 called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the license No. ALCH-46 (53J/97 dated 11-6-1997, issued to the petitioner be not revoked since the work done, fell in the prohibited category as per the Government of India notification No. S. 16011/1/74-LW (S.O. 488) dated 1-2-1975. The notice in terms stated that 'the license is being revoked' and simultaneously asked the petitioner to show cause as to why the license be not revoked. The communication dated 25-9-1998, was in continuation to the above show cause notice, which stated that ...
Devta Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT756TriDel
1. In these cases, vide separate adjudication orders, the Commissioner of Central Excise has applied Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997 to fix the annual capacity of production of the Units as 10324 MTs per annum w.e.f. 1-7-1999 and w.e.f. 22-11-1999 respectively.2. It is the contention of the appellants who are represented by their Counsel, Shri K.K. Anand, that Clause 5 is not relevant for determination of ACP when admittedly there was a change in the parameters of the Mills of both Units, and that Clause 4(2) of the Rules is relevant, and in this connection, he relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Awadh Alloys P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 719, followed in the case of Bellary Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum reported in 2000 (39) RLT 701. Learned DR reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority.3. On a consideration of the rival s...
P.R. Auto Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT402TriDel
1. P.R. Auto industries have filed the present appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal No. 682-C.E. DLH/2000, dated 28.07.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are a tiny unit, engaged in the manufacture of Auto Cables falling under Heading 87.14 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that Central Excise officers searched their premises on 26-11-1993 and detained finished, unfinished goods and raw materials and they also resumed all the records (43 in number); that the detention was converted into seizure on 24.05.1994; that a show cause notice dated 24.05.1994 was issued to them as to why all the goods should not be confiscated under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and why penalty should not be imposed on them under the said Rule; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 131/97 dated 19-12-1997 confiscated all the goods, including raw materials with an option...
Up State Textile Corpn. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC640
1. The issue arising for determination in this appeal is the duty liability of multifold cotton yarn in straight reel hanks, in terms of Notification 31/93 dated 28.2.1993; the period of dispute is May 93 to February 94; the duty demand confirmed is Rs. 8,32,986.37.2. On hearing both sides and noting the admitted position that Notification 53/91 dated 25.7.1991 under which duty has been demanded and confirmed, was superseded by Notification 31/93 dated 28.2.1993 under which duty on cotton yarn falling under Chapter Heading 52.03 (the goods in dispute have been accepted to be classifiable under this Chapter Heading) was nil, and further noting that the issue has been settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad v. Pratap Spinning and Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in 2000 (91) ECR 856 wherein the Tribunal has held that there is no duty liability on cotton yarn plain (straight) reel hanks as it ...
Satish Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT903TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are that acting on a specific information that a passenger named Shri Bahadur Singh travelling on Air India Flight No. Al-302 would receive foreign currency from Shri Satish Kumar, Air India Operations Assistant, on board the said flight for smuggling the same out of India, the DRI officers kept a surveillance in the aircraft which had arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi from Bombay on 27.08.96. The officers noticed that Shri Satish Kumar entered the aircraft and met Shri Bahadur Singh in the aisle of the aircraft and when Shri Satish Kumar was handing over four small packets to Shri Bahadur Singh, both of them were intercepted inside the aircraft. Both admitted that the packets contained foreign currency which was to be taken out of India in the flight by Sh. Bahadur Singh. Both the appellants were escorted to the Preventive room of Customs, Air Intelligence Unit for personal search in the presence of two independent witnesses. The packets were opened and...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »