Delhi Court November 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.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Associated Traders
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT282TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed the above application for reference of the following question of law to the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh: "Whether gate passes issued prior to 1-4-94, but endorsed after that date would fall under the coverage of entry No. 10 in the table to the Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-94 and would consequently become eligible document for taking credit under the Modvat scheme ?" 2. On hearing the learned DR and perusing the records, I find that by the Final order of the Tribunal, the appeal of the Revenue filed before the Tribunal has not been admitted. Hence the final order is not an order passed in terms of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.As a consequence, the provisions of Section 35G are not attracted and hence the application for reference is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed as such....
AshwIn Enterprises Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC240
1. M/s. Ashwin Enterprises had filed the present application for rectification of mistake (ROM) with reference to the Tribunal's Final Order No. 1153/2000-B dated 17.7.2000. In the ROM application, it has been prayed that the errors in the Final Order as pointed out in para 3 be rectified and appeal be allowed following the West Regional Bench decision dated 18.4.2000. In para 3 of the application, the following points have been made-- (i) The issue involved in the present case, on the basis of which the Hon'ble WRB has allowed the appellant's earlier appeal, was not under consideration in Namtech Systems (supra) at all. Namtech Systems (supra) dealt, basically, with whether, if the brand name affixed belonged to a foreign manufacturer, or to a trader who was not a manufacturer, the job worker who affixed the brand name was thereby disentitled from availing the benefit of Notn. 175/86-CE, or not. The appellant's customers were neither foreign manufacturers, nor mere traders who did no...
iqubal Begam Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ2033
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the behavior of the police who, according to the petitioner, took into custody her husband, Sayyad Masoom Ali, a retired Government servant, aged 68 years on 29.8.1994 and brutalized him which ultimately resulted in his death. The petitioner prays for an appropriate order or direction to the effect to call for the post mortem report as also the report of the SDM and thereafter direct appropriate criminal proceedings against the erring officers. Another prayer, amongst others, is for payment, of ex gratia compensation to the tune of rupees ten lacs. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.8.1994 at around 5.00 p.m. the petitioner's husband was summoned to the Police Station, Seelampur. Suffice it to say that during interrogation, it appears, the petitioner's husband met his end. A magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was her ald and the Magistrate submitted his report vide which he found that o...
Rahul Watches (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC576
1. These two appeals were heard together as they arise out of the same order and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case are that 1,627 watches and 3000 watch movements were seized by the Customs Authorities, as a result of search and recovery. No evidence for legal import of the goods of foreign origin was provided to the customs officers. A SCN was accordingly issued asking the appellants to explain as to why the seized watches and watch movements should not be confiscated and why a penalty should not be imposed. The issue was decided by the authorities below confiscating the watches and watch movements and imposing the penalty.The matter came up before the Tribunal in the form of an appeal. This Tribunal by its final order dated 9-8-98 released unconditionally 3000 of watch movements and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner that absolute confiscation of the watches was not warranted and that Rs. 1500/- taken as value of each watch was not correct...
Diana Mining Equipment Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT596TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the credit taken on CI moulds scrap and CI castings moulding scrap was denied on the ground that these moulds are final products of the appellants, therefore, these cannot be treated as input.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants are manufacturing CI ingot moulds and clearing the same on payment of duty. These moulds are used by the customers in the manufacture of steel ingots and after some time these moulds became unserviceable and were cleared as scrap by their customers and the appellants were receiving these CI mould scrap and CI casting mould scrap and taking credit in respect of duty paid by their customers as scrap. The appellants are using this scrap in the manufacture of new moulds after re-melting the same. He submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 2000 (...
Allite Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT281TriDel
1. The appellant imported 413 pcs. of Oil filled Radiators (room heaters) at Jaipur. The clearance of the goods was sought on payment of Customs duty on the basis of the declared prices of US$ 19 per pc. for 9 fins Radiators and US $ 20 per pc. for 12 fins Radiators respectively. The Customs Authorities did not accept the value declared by the appellant. They issued show cause notice dated 10-12-99 proposing confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act on the ground that the declared value did not correspond to the correct value of the goods. The appellant disputed the charges.However, an adjudication Order No. 6/2000 dated 21-7-2000 was passed by the Commissioner of Customs rejecting the value declared by the appellant, ordering the assessments of the goods based on the value ascertained during market enquiry, confiscating the goods under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the importer. The present appeal is dire...
Super Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT278TriDel
1. The applicants filed this application for recalling the Final Order No. A/959/2000-NB(S), dated 29-5-2000. The Tribunal, vide above mentioned final order, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants for non-prosecution, as none appeared on behalf of the appellants.2. Ld. Counsel submits that on 29-5-2000, due to traffic jam, he reached the Tribunal late and when came to the Court, the order had already been passed. He moved an application for recalling of the Final Order at 11.40 A.M. on 29-5-2000. He, therefore, submits that the final order may be recalled.4. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed on 29-5-2000 and the applicants on the same day at 11.40 A.M. filed the present application, therefore, the Final Order No. A/959/2000-NB(S), dated 29-5-2000 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. Adjourned to 10-1-2001 for arguments....
Arora International Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC201
1. M/s. Arora International had filed the present application for rectification of mistake (ROM) under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), with reference to the Tribunal's Order No. 63/2000-D dated 22-2-2000. The ROM application was received in the Registry on 9-8-2000 and was registered as E/ROM/130/2000-D. It has been prayed therein that the Tribunal's Final Order dated 22-2-2000 be recalled and rectified, and the appeal be reconsidered in the light of the submissions made in their ROM application.The main argument taken in the ROM application is that due to inadvertence and bona fide mistake, in the Memo of Appeal filed before the Tribunal, the documents, which were selected for filing with the appeal for correlation of manufacture and export during the relevant period, were not filed, and instead the documents, which were eliminated being not relevant to the period in question, got filed (refer para 11 of the ROM application). It...
Shri Arjan Engineering Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT394TriDel
1. The above applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty arise out of the common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi. Details of the four cases are as under:---------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal Appellant Show cause Period Duty PenaltyNo. notice date Rs.---------------------------------------------------------------------------E/2316 M/s Shri Arjan 13-9-99 August, 10,48,590.00 10.50/2000- Engineering 1994 to LakhsNB Industries July---------------------------------------------------------------------------E/2317 M/s. M.C. 7-9-99 95-96 to 1,98,017 2.00/2000- Industries 97-98 LakhsNB---------------------------------------------------------------------------E/3083 M/s. Chandra 30-8-99 Jan. 6,22,190 6.25/2000- Hi-Tech 1995 to LakhsNB Engineers (P) March---------------------------------------------------------------------------E/2483 M/s. G.M.I. 4-8-99 June 7,76,668 7.80/2000- Super Sales 1995 to lakhsNB Ag...
Shakti Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT476TriDel
1. These are five applications for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of duty of excise confirmed and penalty imposed as under: -A. Appeal Nos. EI1423,1617, and 1431/2000-B Name Amount 2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Adjudicating Authority, under Order No. 64-66/98 dated 9-9-98, has held that the three applicants have connived with each other to avail the exemption under Notification No. 16/97 dated 1-4-97; that the machinery required for manufacture of expeller and its part was installed in the premises of M/s. Super Engg. Works, Applicant No. 3, and there was neither sufficient machinery nor proper power connection in the premises of other two applicants; that one Desh Raj, his four sons and their wives were partners in three firms operating from one premises and common office; that the manufacturing activities were jointly undertaken by the three applicants and accordingly their clearances have to be tlubbed together; that the Commissioner (Appeals), unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »