Delhi Court May 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.
Universal Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ400
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The only question that needs adjudication in this writ petition is whether the Deputy Commissioner of Customs respondent No.2 was justified in seeking enforcement of the bank guarantees in respect of three orders passed under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. A brief reference to the factual aspects as highlighted by the petitioner would suffice. Two bills of entry No.312146 and No.3'12147 were filed by the petitioner with the respondent No.2 on 23rd October, 1999 seeking clearance of certain goods. Show cause notice was issued in respect of the said bills of entry by the respondent No.2 on 19th November, 1999. Petitioner sought for certain information on 23rd November,1999 in regard thereto. On 15th December, 1999 goods were cleared on provisional assessment basis against payment of Customs duty on furnishing of two bank guarantees of a total sum of Rs.1,94,287/- (Rs.96,354/- + Rs.97,933/-). Thereafter on different dates up to 28th ...
L.M.L. Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1023TriDel
1. A very short issue arises for consideration in these appeals. The issue is, on account of the interstate sales effected from Chandigarh depot and depot at Guwahati, whether appellants, manufacturers of LML Vespa, are entitled to get refund of excess duty paid on the higher value. On account of the inter-state sales effected from these depots, the manufacturers are entitled to have the central sales tax payable by them deducted from the value which results in a lesser assessable value than the value at which duty was paid. Unfortunately, this issue was not approached by the authorities below in this manner.2. The short facts necessary for disposal of these cases are as follows. Appellant, a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, manufacture LML scooters. Their factory is situated at Kanpur. They stock transfer these scooters to various depots situated in various parts of the country. One such depot is situated in Chandigarh and another at Guwahati. These depots...
Dhillon Kool Drinks Beverages Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT81TriDel
1. By the impugned order, namely, Order-in-Original dated 15-2-1999, Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs on the appellants and ordered recovery of interest @18 per cent per annum under Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner also held that since the appellants had cleared their goods without having sufficient balance in PLA, the appellants had acted with malafide intention rendering themselves liable for penal action under Section 11 AC of the Act.2. Brief facts are that the appellants who are manufacturers of aerated waters and beverages falling under Chapter headings 21 and 22 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1985 were found to have taken credit of Rs. 30 lakhs in PLA on 31-3-1998 without submitting TR 6 challan as proof of deposit of Central Excise duty. Against the said amount of Rs. 30 lakhs, the appellants cleared excisable goods without sufficient balance in the PLA account. A show cause notice was issued to ...
Perfect Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT463TriDel
1. In the instant case the applicant has filed an application stating that a mistake has crept in the final order of the Tribunal which may be rectified.2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs within a period of three months from the date of the order and to report compliance on 10-7-1997. The applicant filed a Misc. application for modification of the stay order. The Misc.application for modification of the stay order was rejected. The applicant, however, was given a further time of 12 weeks to make a pre-deposit and to report compliance. The applicant did not make the pre-deposit and therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non- compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant has now filed the petition stating that since a mistake has crept in, in the Tribunal's order, the same may be rectified.3. Arguing the case for the applicant Shri A.K. Jain, ld. Counsel submits that the Hon'ble Bomb...
Goetze India Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT428TriDel
1. Appellants had wanted to take certain Modvat credit on imported inputs on the strength of a copy of the Bill of Entry duly attested by the Customs Appraiser. For this purpose, they applied to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 20-5-1995 for permission to take the credit on the strength of such attested copy of the Bill of Entry. This request was placed before the Assistant Commissioner after more than 4 months since receipt of the goods. The ground stated in support of the request for the Assistant Collector's permission was that the proper copy of the Bill of Entry had been lost in transit. A reply to the above request was given by the Superintendent (Technical) by his letter dated 14-6-1995, wherein he stated that the application for permission to avail Modvat credit on the attested copy of the Bill of Entry, had not been considered by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the party had applied for such permission after a gap of more than 4 months an...
industrial Oxygen Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT188TriDel
1. The appellants herein imported Helium gas and paid CVD thereon under CET Sub-heading 2804.90. They filed a claim for refund of CV duty on the ground that the imported Helium in liquid condition was brought in tankers and was allowed to assume the gaseous condition in its natural form by exposing it to atmospheric condition and bottling it into cylinders, which operations do not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. They further claimed that the product is not manufactured or produced in India, is mostly imported from USA where it occurs in natural form and that it is not obtained by any process of manufacture; hence CVD is not leviable on the Helium in terms of Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which provides that "any article which is imported into India shall, in addition, be liable to a duty (herein after referred to as additional duty) equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on like articles if produced or manufactured...
Handi Gas Equipments (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT272TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh who has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 17,26,866/- on goods such as Cooking Gas Stove, Double Burner Gas Stove, Chapati Plates, Cooking Ranges, etc. manufactured and cleared by the appellants herein during the period from January 1990 to 31.03.1994 on the ground that the goods were affixed with the brand name 'Handi Gas' belonging to M/s. Associated Cylinders Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ACI) who were a medium scale unit not eligible to the benefit of SSI Notification No. 175/86, thereby resulting in denial of SSI benefit to the appellants. The Commissioner has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellants under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. We have heard Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Counsel and Shri Ashok Kumar, learned DR. We find that M/s. ACI have been using the brand name 'Handi Gas' since September 1985 although they applied for registration o...
Shubh Gems Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT426TriDel
1. Facts to the case in brief are that a post parcel bearing No.JP-51532/8/99 was received in the Foreign Post Office, Jaipur addressed to M/s. Shubh Gems, 2045, Stone House Pitalion Ka Chowk, Jaipur for which D-Call Notice No. VIII (JFP) 8/99/564 dated 23-8-1999 was issued to the party to submit necessary documents like invoice, I.E.C. No., technical literature and import licence etc. for the release of said parcel. In response to D-call notice dated 23-8-1999, party claimed release of goods as re-imported parcel and in support of re-impoted goods they submitted export invoice No. 12/S/97-98 dated 13-2-1998 and G.R. No. AN-255206. According to the department, on examination, the parcel was found to contain 10 lots of cut and polished emerald out of which 9 lots of cut & polished emerald bearing valued Rs. 14,05,673.10 were tallied with related invoice dated 13-2-1988 where-under the goods were exported and under G.R. Form No. AN-255206. But the remaining one lot of cut and polish...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hira Cable Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT742TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 13-5-1994 of the Collector (Appeals) and the question involved therein is regarding the classification of aluminium dross and skimmings obtained in the process of remelting of aluminium ingots and scraps.2. The Assistant Collector through the order-in-original dated 21-1- 1992 classified the above referred products under sub-heading 7602 of the CETA w.e.f. 1-12-1990 while the respondents claimed the classification of the product in the classification list under sub-heading 2620.00 of the CETA and they challenged the order of the Assistant Collector in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who set aside the same and directed the classification of the product w.ei.28-2-1993 under Heading 26.20 of the CETA.4. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. They have prayed for decision on merits. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh after going through the record.5. We have gone through the impugned order of th...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sukhjit Starch and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC481
1. The respondents herein are engaged inter alia in the manufacture of Sorbitol (Diglucital), Commercial and I.P. Grade. They hold a drug licence for the manufacture of Sorbitol IP Grade. They cleared Sorbitol manufactured by them on payment of duty at the rate of 10% Ad valorem in terms of Notification No. 6/94 dated 1.3.94 (upto 15.3.95) and thereafter under Notification No. 8/95 dated 16.3.95.2. The Department was of the view that Sarbitol in liquid form manufactured by the respondents fell for classification under CET sub-heading 3823.00 attracting duty at the rate of 20% Ad valorem and not under CET sub-heading 2905.90 attracting concessional rate of 10% ad valorem was availed. Hence a show cause notice proposing classification under CET sub-heading 3823.90 and raising a duty demand of Rs. 16,02,765 was issued on 26.7.95.3. The Adjudicating Authority accepted the assessees claim for classification under CET sub-heading 2905.90 read with Notification No.6/94 and No. 8/95 and dropp...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »