Delhi Court December 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.
Asian Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT478TriDel
1. Today the case is posted only for consideration of Stay Application.However, on hearing both the sides for sometime I feel that the appeal itself should be disposed of. Accordingly, after granting waiver of pre-deposit, the appeal itself is disposed of under this Order.2. The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 9/CE/CHD/2000 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. Under this order the Commissioner dismissed the appellant's appeal before him for default in making pre-deposit of the amount ordered to be pre-deposited under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Under Order-in-Original No. 169/CE/ADC/97, dated 16-12-1997 the appellant had been directed to pay duty of Rs. 3,29,114.47 and had also been imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/-. When the appellant sought Stay of the pre-deposit of these amounts, the Commissioner passed his Stay Order No. 142/S/99/6356, dated 4-10-1999 directing "the appellant to pre-deposit the duty of Rs. 3 lakhs. The appellant m...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Vacment Pakaging (India) Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT176TriDel
1. The issue involved in the appeal, filed by Revenue is whether penalty is imposable and interest is chargeable from M/s. Vacment Packagings (India) Pvt. Ltd. for availing wrong Modvat credit.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents. In fact the respondents under their letter dated 2-3-2000 have requested to dispose of the Departmental appeal on the basis of submissions made by them. I, therefore, heard Shri R.C. Sankhla, ld.DR, and perused the records.3. The ld. DR submitted that the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise disallowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 10,088.99 and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the respondents and also directed them to pay interest @ of 20% under Rule 57-I(3) of the Central Excise Rules. He, further, mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order upheld the denial of Modvat credit, set aside the penalty and the demand of interest; that as the Commissioner (Appeal) has upheld the order for denial of t...
Indian Polyfibres Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC603
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants M/s. Indian Polyfibres Ltd., Barabanki, UP against the impugned order-in-original dated 31.3.2000 passed by the Commissioner vide which he had classified the goods crimped uncut waste under sub-heading 5501.20 of the CETA as polyester tow or staple fibre and also confirmed the duty demands on them as indicated in the order itself besides imposing penalty.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of polyester staple fibre falling under sub-heading 5501/20 of the CETA. During the manufacture of that product, the waste arose at various stages. They filed classification list under Rule 173-B for the main product under sub-heading 5501.20 and for waste under sub-heading 5503.19 of the CETA. The department, however, drew samples twice of crimped uncut waste and sent the same for test to the Chemical Examiner. On receipt of the Report of the Chemical Examiner dated 20.3.87 the classification list of the appellants was finalised. They wer...
indogulf Fertilizer and Chem. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT155TriDel
1. The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 443-CE/MRT/98, dated 29-9-1998 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad. Under that Order the Commissioner set aside the order of the learned adjudicating authority and upheld the Department's appeal.2. The issue involved was taking Modvat credit based on the original copy of the Invoice, when duplicate copy was lost in transit. The appellants have sought credit against original copies of 5 invoices.Against them they bought goods in April and May 1994. Notification No.23/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 20-5-1994 incorporated Rule 57G (2A) which provided for allowing of Modvat credit by the Assistant Collector in cases where duplicate copies were lost in transit. All the Invoices in question were prior to the issue of this Notification. A show cause notice had been issued proposing to deny the Modvat Credit approving under the 5 Invoices. Originally the credit was denied by the Assistant Collector but when the matt...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Venkatesh Beverages
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC189
1. In this appeal the Revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 21/22.2.98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order in original dated 23.10.97 (wrongly mentioned as dated 5.12.97 in the Order-in-Appeal) of the Deputy Commissioner confirming the duty demand of 18,10,284 and imposing penalty of the same amount besides additional penalty of Rs. 8000 on the respondents for violation of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules payable with interest at the rate of 20%.3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of products known as, frooti, Appy Pingo-Mango and Pingo-Orange falling under Chapter 20 of the CETA. Their factory premises were visited by the officers of the preventive staff of the Excise Department on 22.5.95 and it revealed that they were also manufacturing sugar syrup as intermediate product and using the same captively in the manufacture of the final product, but they neither had any Central Excise reg...
Plastikos Packaging Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT386TriDel
1. The appeal is directed against Orc.er-in-Original No. MP (287/94) 1401-1996, dated 27-5-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Allahabad. Under the said order the Commissioner rejected the application of the appellant for remission of Central Excise duty of about Rs. 95,000/- and confirmed duty demand of the same amount. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.Brief facts of the case leading to the above order are that the appellant is a manufacturer of plastic products like HDPE woven sacks and HDPE fabrics. On 13-12-1989 a fire broke out in the appellant's premises and destroyed the stock of manufactured goods. The duty involved on such goods was about Rs. 95,000/-. On 16-12-1989 the appellant informed the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities about the fire accident. Subsequently on 5-4-1990 the appellant filed an application before the Jurisdictional Supdt. for remission of duty under R...
Samcar Glass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT464TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order in original dated 27-1-2000 (wrongly described as order in appeal in the memo of appeal) passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 36,46,103/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lac on them.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of TV Glass Shells of 14" and 17' classifiable under sub-heading 7008.20 of the CETA and during the manufacture of that product, intermediate goods, namely, glass panels, glass funnels and glass necks were also produced by them during the period 1-3-1999 to 28-9-1999 from the various raw materials including neck tubes etc. These intermediate goods were used captively by them in the manufacture of their final product i.e. TV glass shells.They availed benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. dated 16-3-1995 in respect of these goods. On 9-9-1999 the preventive party of C...
Kirpal Singh and anr Vs. Wazir Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)983; 2001CriLJ1566; 89(2001)DLT396; 2001(57)DRJ630; 2001RLR24
ORDERDalveer Bhandari,J.1. These two Criminal Revision Petitions have been preferred against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.Appeal No.54/98 and Crl.Appeal No.52/98. By his order the learned Additional Sessions Judge has upheld the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 448 IPC. Accused Kripal Singh was also sentenced under Section 408 IPC. The Court directed the accused to restore the possession of the shop to the complainant, Wazir singh and released the accused on probation for one year with an undertaking to hand over vacant possession of the shop to the complainant within a month. 2. The complainant,Wazir Singh is aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge because while convicting the accused, the Court released both the accused on probation. 3. The accused persons also have filed a revision petition against the conviction. I propose to decide both the revision petitions by this common judgment.Brief ...
Smt. Namrita Kalra Vs. Shri Ram Swaroop and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)221; 91(2001)DLT145; 2001(58)DRJ338
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Through this suit the plaintiff has sought a decree for specific performance for completing the sale transaction and executing necessary title deeds in favor of the plaintiff pertaining to their 1/4th undivided share measuring 18 bighas and 11 bids was in village Satbari, tehsil Mahrauli, New Delhi forming part of Khasra Nos. 119/2 (0-01), 301/2 (2-00), 1072/2 (2-08), 1061/1 (0-04), 1073 (6/02), 1078/1 (1-07), 1074 (4-01) and 890/2 (2-08) and to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the land to the plaintiff or in the alternative pay Rs.6 lacs towards the damages. Though on service of summons of the suit defendants 1 and 2 put in appearance and filed the written statement but thereafter they did not chose to participate in the proceedings and consequently they along with defendants No.3 were proceeded ex parte.2. Facts lie in short compass.3. The defendants being the owners of the above referred suit property offered by way of communicating their intent...
Sagun Foundry (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: 2002(143)ELT494(Del)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition has questioned legality of the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short Tribunal') while disposing of an application for waiver of pre-deposit, in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act'). By Order-in-Original dated 4th February, 2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur (in short the 'Commissioner'), various amounts of duty and penalty were imposed. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the duty imposed was Rs. 46,28,437/- with an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act and Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the 'Rules'). Another concern named M/s. Bharat Electical were subjected to penalty and similar amounts were levied on two persons viz. Sh. V.N. Gupta and Sh. Amar Nath Gupta, as penalty. Notices issued to the petitioner indicated that, it was clearing C.I, Castings, without payment...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »