Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments

indo Vanillon Chemicals Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC348

1. Arguing the stay petition for waiving pre-deposit of duty and penalty, Shri R.C. Gupta, Ld. Advocate submits that the department had confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 8,81,850. The department alleged that the goods were clandestinely removed against parallel invoices. He submits that the applicants have already deposited a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. He submits that an amount of Rs. 38,05,826 has been confirmed as Central Excise duty worked out on the basis of bills submitted to Oriental Bank of Commerce. He submits that insofar as this demand is concerned, the applicants have requested the adjudicating authority to supply them the documents on the basis of which the duty was worked out so that they could rebut the allegation and explain their position in this regard. He submits that inspite of the request made by the applicants, the documents were not supplied and thus there was total failure of justice in this case by not observing the principles of natural justice. He submits that the a...

South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC249

1. The appeal, filed by South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (SEC Ltd.) was posted for hearing the stay petition filed by them. As the issue involved was in narrow compass, the appeal is itself taken up for disposal with the consent of both the parties. Accordingly the recovery of duty and penalty is stayed. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the exemption contained in Notification No. 63/95-CE., dated 16-3-1995 is available to the goods manufactured by them in their workshop, Korba.2. Shri P.R. Biswas, ld. Consultant submitted that the Central Electrical and Mechanical Workshop, under the control of South Eastern Coalfield Ltd., was established at Korba in 1967 to facilitate repair of all mining machinery and equipment used in the adjacent coal mines and other collieries, that the Central Government has declared the workshop as a mine under the provisions of Section 82 of the Mines Act, 1952 under certificate dated 1-5-1969; that as per Section 2 (j) (vii) of the Mines Act, mine i...

Arunoday Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC174

1. These appeals are of 1986, The oldest appeals pending before this Tribunal. Last time when these appeals came up in the hearing list it was represented on behalf of the appellants that they approached the Mumbai High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2077 of 2000 questioning the authority of the President to post this case before a bench of 5 Members. Since the matter was stated to be pending before the High Court, we posted the case to today (30.11.2000) for mention awaiting the orders of the High Court on the issue. Appellant has sent a fax message which was received now stating that the matter pending before the High Court stands adjourned.2. From the stand taken by the appellant (M/s. L.D. Textiles) it appears that they want the case to be transferred to Mumbai for disposal. As stated earlier in our order dated 23.10.2000, Mumbai Bench cannot deal with this matter on account of the fact that the Bench of the Tribunal there has got only 4 Members. The power of the President to p...

M/S. Satpushp Steels(P)ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts in this case are that the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur passed an order dt. 1.4.99, in which he disallowed the modvat credit of Rs. 2,72,185/- to the appellants along with imposition of penalty of equivalent amount and another penalty of Rs. 75,000/-. The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dt.17.8.2000 has dismissed the appeal of the party on the ground of its being time barred without going into the merits of the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has observed that on going through the case record, he has found that the impugned order was sent to the party by registered post on 1.4.99 and the same was not received back undelivered from the postal authorities. Therefore, it has to be deemed that the same was delivered especilly when it was sent by registered post as prescribed under the provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He has observed that...

TIn Manufacturing Co. of India Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT431TriDel

1. The applicant has filed an application stating that an error apparent on record has crept in where shortage has been worked out to 46.994 MTs as against 19.134 MTs quantity even admitted by the department in the impugned order in original. It has been prayed that this error may be rectified. Further prayer in the application is that since the quantity that remains unexplained is only of 19.134 MTs and not 389.540 MTs and the duty involved is only Rs. 19,200/-, the redemption fine of Rs. 7 lakhs is most disproportionate.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate submits tiat the Tribunal in its Final Order No. A/188/2000-NB, dated 14-3-2000 calculated the shortage to be 46.995 MTs which was not correct and that the shortage should have been only 19.134 MTs. He also submits that redemption fine of Rs. 7 lakhs on confiscated quantity of 19.134 MTs was out of all proportion. He, therefore, prays that since these two mistakes are apparent on the face of the record, the same may be rectified and...

J.D. Shukla and Company Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC234

1. Today, two appeals filed by M/s. J.D. Shukla & Company have been posted for regular hearing.2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the appellants. The notice for today's hearing was issued on 30.10.2000 and a copy was also endorsed to the counsel on record. There is no response.3. It is seen that earlier the matter had come up on several occasions and in spite of notices, the appellants have failed to appear for hearing.4. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, JDR is present for the respondents/Revenue.He submits that in Appeal No. E/2843/92-A, a demand of Rs. 10,53,804.12 had been confirmed against the appellants, which they have not deposited so far although the Order-in-Appeal was passed way back on 18.2.92. He further submits that another Appeal No. E/ 1091/84-A was with regard to the price list and in that appeal, no demand as such was created by the impugned order. He also clarifies that against the order of approval by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, the appellants ...

Supreme Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. have filed two applications for restoration of their Appeals No. C-329/93-B and C-333/93-B which were dismissed for non-appearance under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules vide Final Order No. C-1990-1991/97 B-2, dated 17-9-1997.2. Shri B.N. Rangwani, ld. Consultant, submitted that they had filed three appeals against the adjudication orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, involving the issue of availability of Notification No. 48/78 to the Machines imported by them; that their third Appeal No. C/764/93-B2 was posted for hearing by the Tribunal from time to time; that as the other appeals were not being posted for hearing the representative of the applicant inquired from the Registry on 2-5-2000 and they were informed about the dismissal of these two appeals for non-appearance. He further, submitted that the applicants had not received the notice as well as the final order dismissing the appeals; that, further, High Court of Gujarat i...

Somani Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Subhash C. Raswant

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi152

Devinder Gupta, J.1. These applications have been filed by the plaintiffs/appellants after disposal of the appeal. By the first application (CM 472/2000) the appellants are seeking modification in the order passed on 20-5-1999 thereby to allow them time till 31-3-2001 to vacate the premises. By the second application (CM. 473/2000) the appellants are seeking leave to place on record some additional documents in support of the first application. In the third application (CM. 483/2000), the prayer is to stay the appellants dispossession till disposal of the first application.2. The appellants had filed appeal (RFA (OS) 16 of 1999) against the order passed on 31-8-1998 in Suit No. 1814/98. By the said order learned Single Judge had rejected the appellants plaint wherein decree had been prayed by the appellants against the defendant/respondent for specific performance to register lease deed for the period from 1-8-1998 to 31 -7-2000 and to grant as decree for declaration that appellant No....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gurbachan Lal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Del)266; [2001]250ITR157(Delhi); [2001]116TAXMAN138(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act'), the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi (in short, the 'Tribunal'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The factual position, as borne out by the statement of case, is essentially as follows :The assessed, who was assessed in the status of an individual, filed a return showing income of Rs. 5,000 for the assessment year 1966 67. A sum of Rs. 48,500 was recovered in cash from his house during a search by the customs authorities. On being asked about the nature and source of the aforesaid sum, he explained it as follows : (i) Loan from Shri Babu Ram on 6-3-...

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC762

1. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. filed application dated 12-10-1998 seeking the imposition of Anti Dumping Duty on Pure Terephthalic Acid (FTA) originating in, or exported from Japan, Malaysia, Spain and Taiwan. The Designated Authority in the Ministry of Commerce initiated investigations on the said application in April 1999. The investigations culminated in the imposition of anti-dumping duty on PTA originating or exported from Spain at the rate of Rs. 521/- per M.T.(Customs Notification No. 82/2000, dated 30th May, 2000 of the Department of Revenue). No duty was imposed on exports from the other Countries.2. The present appeals are directed against this Notification of the Department of Revenue. M/s. Reliance Industries have filed their appeal (numbered as C-267/2000-AD) seeking enhancement of duty in the case of exporter from Spain and imposition of duty on exports from the other countries mentioned in their petition. M/s. Interquisa, Spain has filed their appeal (numbered as C/31...