Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments

NaveenjaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT895TriDel

1. Appellant herein Shri Naveen Jain was Noticee No. 4 in the show cause notice C. No. VIII (CARGO PREV.)10/1798/290 dated 14.07.98 issued by Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Delhi. As per the said notice, appellant and other noticees were called upon to explain why 4, 908 pieces of 'Computer Software CD ROMs Lotus Smart Suite-97' seized from the godown and office premises of M/s. Somerset International Ltd. on 16.04.98 should not be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty should not be imposed on them for contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 under Section 112 of the Act. In reply to the notice, appellant herein raised a contention that he was not connected with the import of disputed CD ROMs and that he is not liable for any penalty. By order-in-original No. ACU/VS/27/99 dated 08.09.99, adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The penalty so imposed is...

Mayur Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT387TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 9-12-99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PVC wires & cables and PVC compound. On 9-5-96, the factory premises of the appellants was visited by the Central Excise officers and on physical verification of the stock, certain shortages were found in respect of raw material as well as of final product. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants and adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 73,551/- in respect of final product found short and confirmed the demand of Rs. 40,643/- in respect of inputs found short. A personal penalty of Rs. one lakh was also imposed on the appellants. The appellants filed the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), vide impugned order, reduced the penalty to Rs. 50, 000/-.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the ld. Commissioner has not considered the subm...

Regal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT176TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 3-8-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of rubberised coir, mattresses and cushions and were availing the benefit of Notification No. 115/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975.The notification exempts the goods, in question, from payment of Central Excise duty manufactured by Coir Industry. Vide impugned order, a demand of Rs. 14,88,75,634.00 was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 14.89 crore was imposed on M/s. Regal Industries and a penalty of Rs. one lakh was imposed on the Managing Director of M/s. Regal Industries.Commissioner also confiscated the seized goods and ordered release of goods on payment of redemption fine.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that Notification No. 115/75-C.E. grants exemption to the goods manufactured in factory of Coir Industry. He submits that CBEC, vide its circular no. 13/1...

Duncans Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT279TriDel

1. These appeals are directed against order-in-original No. 3/99 dated 24-3-1999 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I. The order inasmuch as it concerns the appeals read as under :- (a) I determine Rs. 17,67,13,315/- (Rupees Seventeen Crore Sixty Seven Lakh Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen Only) as due from DAIL (now called Duncan Industries Ltd., Calcutta under Rule 9(2) read with Proviso to Section 11A of the Act and demand the same from them to be paid within 30 days of the service of this Order upon them; (b) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 52A of the Rules on DAIL".2. We take up the appeal of the assessee first for consideration. The appeal contends that the duty demand and the penalty are not maintainable. The contention with regard to duty liability is that the said duty demand made for the period September 1981 to February 1983 is not maintainable inasmuch as the duty demand for the period July 19...

Raj Wire Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(94)LC507Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 27.8.1999.2. In this case the benefit of modvat credit was denied to the appellants on the rejected goods received by them from buyers on payment of duty.4. In this case show cause notice was issued to the appellants denying the benefit of modvat credit on tin copper wire, which was cleared bv them on payment of duty and their buyers, thereafter, again on payment of duty, returned the wire as defective to the appellants. In the show cause notice, the allegation against the appellants is that they cannot take credit on the tin copper wire as the tin copper wire was the final product. The issue in respect of taking the modvat credit is decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Tin Mfg. Co.reported in 2000 (39) RLT 197. In this case the Tribunal held that returned defective goods to be treated as eligible inputs as the same were subjected to the process of manufacture. The another larger bench o...

Metal Forging Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT757TriDel

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 39,667/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. In this case the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of inputs was denied on the ground that the applicants had not declared the inputs in their declaration.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the applicants, declared M.S. rounds classifiable under heading 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff as inputs. He submits that some of the manufacturers of M.S. rounds described these M.S. rounds as RCS (Round Corner Steel) in their documents. He submits that this RCS is also classifiable under heading 7214.90 and in the trade it is known as M.S.rounds. He, therefore, prays that the application be allowed.4. Heard ld. DR, who reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.He submits that Tribunal in the case of Samrat Forgings Ltd. v. CCE Chandigarh reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 622 (T) considered these RCSs as ingots. He, therefore, s...

R.D. Extrusion (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT885TriDel

1. The appellants M/s. R.D. Extrusion (P) Ltd. purchased one Water Hydraulic Extrusion Press Plant for price of DM 2,10,000 ex-factory, Sweden. The importer sought clearance of the goods under EPCG Scheme on the basis of licence issued by Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi. Customs Authorities doubted the correctness of the value declared by the importer. They caused an investigation to be made to find out the actual value of the machinery. On such investigation they came to the conclusion that the machinery was to be dismantled by the importer and the dismantling costs should be added to the price shown in the invoice and duty levied accordingly. By Order-in-Original No.BKG/CC/ ICD/TKD/7/2000, dated 29.01.2000, the Adjudicating Authority finalised the valuation of the machinery by including dismantling charges of DM 1,40,000. The authority also included differential amount of freight and other expenses stated to have been actually incurred by the importer in making the asse...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rajasthan Spg. and Wvg. Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT239TriDel

1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 2-6-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of man-made yarn and were availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of inputs used in the final product. On 15-5-1996, a fire accident took place in factory's blow room, due to which, a quantity of 15,025 kg. of fibre was burnt in fire. Since the respondents had availed the benefit of Modvat credit on the above quantity of fibre, the revenue issued a show cause notice to reverse the credit taken on the fibre as the fibre destroyed in fire was not used in the manufacture of final product. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. The revenue filed the appeal and the same was rejected vide impugned order.3. Ld. SDR, appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that in this case, inputs were not destroyed during the process of manufacture. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeal...

Faqir Chand Gulati Vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) assailing the order of the District Forum No. II dated 10.5.1996, passed in Complaint Case No. 1866/96 - entitled Sh. Faqir Chand Gulati v. M/s. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant was the owner in occupation of the premises built on free-hold plot of land, measuring 308 sq. yard, bearing No. L-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048. The appellant and the respondents entered into a Collaboration Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement), dated 17.5.1991. In terms of the said Agreement the respondents were to demolish the existing structure and in its place were to raise a three storey building, at their own costs. In lieu of the appellants providing the plot of land, the respondents were to allocate, the entire ground floor alongwith a servant room, in the pr...

Rajinder Singh Vs. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Anot ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Shri Rajinder Singh, the complainant, has filed the present complaint, alleging deficiency in service (negligence) on the part of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and claiming damages of Rs. 15 lakhs. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is a Civil Nazir in the District Courts at Narnaul (Haryana). He was suffering from pain in the neck and spinal cord, and for the above ailment, in December, 1992, he had undergone MRI Scan of the Spinal Cord at the GMR Institute of Imaging and Research MRI Scan Centre, 35-B Pusa Road, New Delhi. Thereafter, the complainant was referred to Batra Hospital, New Delhi, for specialised consultation and treatment. It is stated that on 2nd December, 1993, the complainant visited Batra Hospital (opposite party No. 1), where he was examined by Dr. H.N. Aggarwal (opposite Party No. 2), who after examination, assured the complainant that the complainant would be alright after a minor operation in the neck. It ...