Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments
R.R. Sen and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT187TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 11-7-1997, DRI officers intercepted three persons - Shri Abdul Kader Gulkhan, Shri Khan Shakeel Abubacker and Shri Riyaz Abedin Sheikh at the domestic airport at Santa Cruz, Bombay. While Shri Gulkhan was in the process of handing over a zipper hand bag to Shri Khan Shakeel Abubacker, the officers swooped on them. Shri Gulkhan stated that the zipper hand bag contained foreign currency of US $ 1,50,000/- which he had carried from Delhi to Mumbai by Sahara Airlines Flight No S-2/507.2. On the same day, the DRI officers at New Delhi apprehended Shri Firoz Batliwala, brother of Shri Khan Shakeel Abubacker at the Delhi Airport and search of his residence resulted in recovery of Rs. 3,35,000/- which was seized under a panchnama. Certain incriminating documents were recovered and seized from the residence of Shri Riyaz Abedin Sheikh.3. During the course of investigation, statements of various persons were recorded by the DRI under the provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. J.K. Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC259
1. The Revenue has filed the above application for rectification of certain mistakes that are stated to have arisen from Tribunal's Final Order No. 03-04/2000-C dated 22.12.99. Learned DR submits that there is a mistake in paragraph 6 of the order, in holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not recorded any finding on the alternate submission of the assesees for eligibility to concessional rate of duty in terms of SI. No. 3(i) of Notification 21/95-CE dated 16.3.95, since the Commissioner has given his finding in internal page 2 of Order-in-Appeal (subject matter of Appeal No. E/1992/97-C). The second mistake, according to the Revenue lies in not recording any finding in respect of Tyre 195/65-R-15 which was involved in Order-in-Appeal No.113 dated 19.9.97 (subject matter of Appeal No. E/1993/97-C).2. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not record any independent finding on the eligibility to the benefit of concession...
Tag this Judgment!Hindalco Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC258
1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty imposed on the applicants.2. In this case the duty was confirmed on the ground that vanadium sludge is classifiable under tariff heading 2841.90 of the Central Excise Tariff whereas the appellants are classifying this under heading 2615.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the Revenue wants to classify vanadium sludge under heading 2841.90 of the Central Excise Tariff as a separate chemically defined compound. He submits that even the report of the Chemical Examiner shows that it has 30 per cent impurities. Therefore, it cannot be classified under 2841.90 of the Central Excise Tariff as a separate chemically defined compound. His submission is that the goods, in question, is classifiable under Chapter 26 of the Central Excise Tariff as ash and residues containing metals or metallic compounds. He, further, submits that the demand is time-b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT546TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd., vide Final Order No. 925/99-C, dated 13-10-99 [1999 (114) E.L.T. 947 (Tribunal)], held that the samples drawn before the RG I stage, are not liable for central excise duty.3. The Revenue filed this appeal only on the ground that the appeal has been filed against the earlier decision of the Tribunal, but the Revenue has not produced any order setting aside or modifying the earlier order of the Tribunal. In the absence of any contrary decision, produced by the Revenue, we find no infirmity in the impugned order.The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Krishan Lal Pawan Kumar JaIn (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT575TriDel
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur had filed the present miscellaneous application for the rectification of mistake (ROM) under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), arising out of the Tribunal's Final Order No.A-39/2000-NB (DB) dated 10-12-99 in Appeal No. E/944/99-NB filed by M/s. Krishan Lal Pawan Kumar Jain (P) Ltd. The order rendered by the Tribunal is extracted below in full :- 1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Krishan Lal Pawan Kumar Jain (P) Ltd. order in original dated 26-3-99 is under challenge. 2. Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that on similar facts and circumstances when the earlier order in original dated 27-3-98 was under challenge before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had remanded the matter alongwith the appeal of other appellants under Final Order No. A/573-77/98 dated 9-7-98. He prays that on similar grounds this matter may also be remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Multitech Auto Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT515TriDel
1. According to the Revenue which has filed the above application, a mistake arises in the Tribunal's Final Order No. 921/2000-B dated 16-6-2000 in holding that the appellants have also requested for condonation of the very short delay of two days in filing declaration under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, since no application was actually filed by them.2. I have heard submissions of both sides. In paragraph 3 of the Tribunal's final order it has been held that the appellants have requested for condonation of the very short delay in filing the declaration, and that the delay cannot be the ground for denial of credit, and hence credit of Rs. 17,900/- has been held to be admissible on capital goods. On perusal of the records I find that in reply to the show cause notice, assessees have asked for condonation of the delay in filing declaration and, therefore, the Tribunal has correctly held that there was a request for condonation of delay by the appellants. Hence, no error apparent...
Tag this Judgment!Xerox Modicorp Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT285TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that "Xerox Document Centre 365 C" is classifiable under Customs Tariff heading 9009.21.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the issue in respect of classification of "Xerox Document Centre 365 C" has been settled by the Tribunal in their own case vide Final Order No.1804/2000-B, dated 11-9-2000 wherein the Tribunal held that the goods, in question, are classifiable under heading 8471.60 of Customs Tariff.3. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Indian Polytex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT396TriDel
1. In this case the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jodh-pur Division vide his Order dated 30-3-99/6-4-99 has denied the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,63,493/- to the appellants. The Modvat credit was availed by them during the period from 6-8-97 to 15-8-97 against the four invoices issued by M/s. Mount Synthetics Ltd., Ahmedabad. The credit is denied on the grounds that the invoices did not contain the particulars, viz., Central Excise registration number, ECC number, Range, Division and Collectorate's postal address of the manufacturer/importer which are necessary for the purpose of verification of their authenticity. It is further observed that verification was caused to be made with the Superintendent of Central Excise Range IX, Ahmedabad in respect of these invoices. The concerned Range Superintendent in his report stated that the verification was not possible since the registered dealer himself had not filed the monthly return for the month of August, 99 with the Centr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaanuj Prints Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT871TriDel
1. The applicants in this case have filed an application for condonation of delay and stay of operation of the impugned order.2. The Commissioner in the impugned order dated 8-2-2000 has held that length of gallery shall be includable in the length of chamber for determination of annual capacity of production of the unit.3. The applicant have filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the instant case the adjudicating order is dated 8-2-2000 which was communicated to the appellants on 11-2-2000. The appellant's appeal was received in this Tribunal on 24-5-2000. Thus there is delay of 19 days. Explaining the delay in the application the appellants have stated that compounded levy was imposed w.e.f.16-12-1998; that there was total unrest in the factory; that there was some problem with the electricity department also; that in these circumstances applicants could not submit their appeal in time, it has therefore been prayed that in view of these circumstances t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Lanjekar Sales Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT612TriDel
1. The matter was called. None appeared for the respondents, M/s.Lanjekar Sales Corporation. The notice for today's hearing was issued to the respondents on 31-10-2000. There is no response. Earlier, the respondents have filed cross-objections and have also submitted the cross-objections under communication received in the Registry on 3-6-2000.2. We have perused these communications from the respondents. The matter relates to the period 1992-93. We are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri S.N. Singh, SDR.3. The only issue for our consideration is whether the product - spindle nut as cleared by the respondents was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 178/88 C.E., dated 30-5-1988 (sic), which exempted the cast articles of copper, which were not further worked. The ld.Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had taken a view that the process of drilling subsequent to the casting will not amount to further working as to take the spindle nuts beyond the purv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »