Delhi Court April 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shahalam Faiyaj Ahmed Nomani

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT594TriDel

1. This is an application for stay of operation of the Order-in-Appeal No. 17 & 18/Cus./chd/99/ dated 5-7-99 filed by the Revenue.2. Shri Ashok Kumar, learned D.R. submitted that Shri Kaifee Faiyaz Ahmed Nomarti, an Indian repatriate from Kuwait, crossed to India via Pakistan in his car, Nissan Datsun. As the car at the time of import was neither exempt from custom duty nor from ITC restrictions, it was released conditionally on execution of a general bond 70/90, dated 9-10-1990. Subsequently as the car was not re-exported within six months it was seized from the possession of the Respondents Shahalam Faiyaj Ahmed Nomani. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order, extended the benefit of Notification No. 258/90-Cus., dated 23-10-1990 and set aside the Adjudication Order confiscating the car and imposing penalty on respondent and Shri Kaifee Faiyaz Ahmed Nomani.3. The learned D.R. submitted that the Car was imported on 8-10-1990 whereas the Notification was issued on 23-10-1990...

Aishwarya Ispat (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT730TriDel

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order dated 11-3-99 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur.2. Arguing for the appellant Shri R. Santhanam, ld. Advocate submitted that the issue relates to abatement of duty for closure of the unit with reference to determination of Annual Production Capacity. He said that in the instant case the unit was closed for more than 7 days.Further, he said that unit was closed on 15-1-1998 to 2-3-1998 and intimation of closure was duly submitted on 15-1-1998. Claim of the abatement has been rejected on the ground that reading of electricity meter was not submitted nor balance of stock at the time of closure. He said that the very issue has come up for consideration before the Tribunal in another case (M/s. Hans Castings Pvt. Ltd.) and the Tribunal as per order No. A/144-45/2000-NB(DB) dated 22-2-2000 in the similar facts and circumstances allowed the abatement as claimed by the assessee. In this context, he read para 9 of the said order wh...

Vardhaman Spg. and Gen. Mills Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT566TriDel

1. Both appeals E/2561 -2562/98-A are directed against the same order.Accordingly, both these appeals are taken-up together for consideration and are disposed of by this common order in appeal.2. The appellant M/s. Vardhman Spinning and General Mills Ltd. is a public limited Company with its registered office at Ludhiana. They are engaged in the manufacture and sale of different varieties of yarn which are liable to Central Excise Duty. The manufacturing operations are carried out from different factories located at different town. The present appeal relates to manufacture of Dyed Yarn carried out in its Auro Dyeing Division Factory at Baddi, Solan Distt, Himachal Pradesh.3. The show cause notice proposed duty demand on dyed yarn after denying the appellants, claim for exemption from Central Excise Duty on dyed yarn under Notification No. 35/95 and the valuation of "yarn". "(i) the above said demands raised against the noticee are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the factory of n...

Life Long Appliances Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC313

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Over Toaster Griller classifiable under sub-heading 85.16 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Parts of their produce is sold with the brand name of another, namely "Bajaj". Therefore, those goods are not eligible for small scale exemption. They claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No. 16/97 in respect of the remaining goods sold by them under their own brand name "Lifelong". The impugned order has denied them the exemption on the ground that the appellants had taken Modvat credit in respect of inputs used for the manufacture of the goods sold under the brand name Lifelong in violation of Para 2 (iii) of Notification No. 16/97. Para 2 (iii) of the Notification stipulates that the exemption shall apply only subject to the condition that "the manufacturer does not avail of the credit of duty" under Rule 57A.2. The contention of the assessee is that revenue's allegation that they had availed themselves of Modvat credit on the in...

Parishudh Sadhan Yantra Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT922TriDel

1. The applicants filed this misc. application with the prayer that the Assistant Commissioner may kindly be directed to sanction the amount of refund.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the applicants' appeals were allowed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.342-346/99-A, dated 3-3-1999 1999 (112) E.L.T. 917 (Tri.) with consequential relief. Ld. Counsel submits that, in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal, applicants filed the refund claim before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner rejected the same. He, therefore, submits that as the refund claim is in pursuance to the final order of the Tribunal, the Assistant Commissioner be directed to sanction the refund claim.4. The refund claim, filed by the applicants, in consequence to the final order passed by the Tribunal, was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is an appealable order. Therefore, we are of the view that the...

Punj Lloyd Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT147TriDel

1. M/s Punj Llyod Ltd. have filed the present appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal No. 348/98 dated 11-12-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants had imported one second hand old and used diesel generating set 400Hz, 1500 KVA and four new pre heat coils; that the Deputy Collector of Customs confiscated the same with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 3 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- holding that the goods had been classified under sub-heading 8502.12 of the First schedule to the Customs Tariff Act which is for electric generating sets of out put exceeding 75 KVA but not excluding 375 KVA; that in terms of Para 156 serial No. J(11) of Import Policy 1992-97, the import of diesel generating sets up to 1500 KVA required a valid import licence; that in absence of valid licence goods in question were liable for confiscation; that the Commissioner (Appeals) ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. A.M.A. Extrusions

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT723TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for consideration is as how to calculate the extent of exemption when a manufacturer was manufacturing goods falling under more than one heading, clearances in one heading had exceeded the exemption limit of Rs. 20 lakh but the exemption as a whole was taken only for the goods below Rs. 30 lakh.The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has taken a view that as the assessee has paid excise duty on the clearances in excess of Rs. 20 lakh under one heading, he would be eligible for exemption in respect of other headings till the overall exempted clearances exceeding Rs. 30 lakh.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents. The notice for today's hearing was issued on 22-3-2000. It is an old matter in which the show cause notice was issued in the year 1992.Accordingly, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri Satnam Singh, SDR.3. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, referred to the Tribunal's decision...

Gulshan Rai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant has claimed the following reliefs in the OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:- (i) To respondents No. 1 and 2 to take back the applicant as J.P.O. in the cadre post in the DGS & D in which post the applicant has the lien. (ii) To respondents 3 and 4 to relieve the applicant to enable him to revert back to his lien post in the DGS & D. (iii) To quash the wrongful and retrospective allotment cancellation order dated 30.8.96 and allow the applicant to continue in the Central Govt. General pool accommodation, and (iv) To pass any other order as deemed fit and necessary to protect the legitimate rights of the applicant including his right to continue in the accommodation on payment of normal licence fee." 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that after following the policy decision taken by the Government of India to decentralise part of the Central Govt. purchase functions carried on by Respondents 1 and 2 i.e. Directorate Ge...

Salwan Construction Co. and ors. Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)786; (2000)161CTR(Del)300; 85(2000)DLT821; 2000(54)DRJ40; [2000]245ITR175(Delhi)

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.ADMIT1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide the petition finally at this stage itself. 2. The petitioners - a firm and its three partners, impugn in this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the legality and validity of the authorisation issued by the Commissioner of Incometax- respondent No.3 herein, under Section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') sometime in March, 1992 for filing complaint against the petitioners under Section 276B of the Act, as it stood prior to the insertion of amended Section 276B with effect from 1 April 1989, in respect of assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88; consequent filing of the complaints under the said Section by the Assistant Commissioner, Income-tax-respondent No.2 herein, in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 31st March 1992 and the order 2 March, 1998 passed by the learned 'ACMM dismissing the petitioner's appli...

Shivalik Agro Poly Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT736TriDel

2. The Order-in-Onginal dated 20-11-1987 confirmed demand for duty of Rs. 30,34,806.50 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of LDPE films and its fabricated products i.e.protective caps/covers which are used by the food grains procurement agencies like Markfed, Punsup- FCI etc. It was alleged that the covers were exempted from payment of Central Excise Duty but the film used in the manufacture of these covers was liable to duty. Accordingly, a SCN was issued to the assessee on 31-10-1986 asking them to explain as to why duty amounting to Rs. 30,34,806 should not be demanded from them by extending the period of demand as they had suppressed the fact of manufacture/clearance of 368937.900 kgs. Of LDPE films with an intent to evade payment of Central Excise Duty. The case was adjudicated by the then Collector, Chandigarh who in his Order-in-Original dated 20-11-1987 confirmed duty of Rs. 30,34,8...