Delhi Court June 2000 Judgments

Jasmine Bhogilal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT478TriDel

1. These are four appeals filed by S/Shri Jasmine Bhogilal Shah (J.B.Shah), Yashpal Wadhera, Pramod Kumar Pahwa and Mukesh Kumar Sethi against Order-in-Original dated 30-9-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. The impugned order directed confiscation of seized goods of foreign origin collectively valued at Rs. 14,10,000/- under Section lll(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 as also absolute confiscation of two trucks under Section 115 thereof apart from imposing penalties under Section 112, among others, on the four appellants before us. The following are the amounts of penalties against the four appellants -Shri J.B. Shah : Rs. 2 lakhsShri Yashpal Wadhera : Rs. 2 lakhsShri Pramod Kumar Pahwa : Rs. 3 lakhsShri Mukesh Sethi : Rs. 50,000/ 2. All the appellants have challenged the penalties imposed on them respectively. Since the appeals arise from a common impugned order and the facts are common, the appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this ...

ishar Alloys Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT192TriDel

1. By the impugned order dated 7-1-98 Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore disallowed Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 24,79,523.74 to the appellants on the ground that the appellants had not received ship breaking scrap as claimed by them as input. Instead, what they had actually received was market scrap, but they had managed to procure excise duty-paying documents such as GPls of ship breaking scrap. The credit availed of by the appellants was therefore held as recoverable and penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs imposed.2. We have heard Shri L.P. Asthana, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR for the Respondent Commissioner.3. The appellants are a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 manufacturing at their factory at Indore, cast billets for melting iron and steel scrap with the aid of electric furnace. They were also availing of Modvat credit on the inputs procured for the manufacture of their final products. According to the appellants they were receivin...

Abilities India Pistons and Rings Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT384TriDel

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Bare Piston & Piston assembly falling under Chapters 84 and 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They are availing Modvat facility on capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. In February 1997, they took Modvat credit of the duty paid on exhaust fans amounting to Rs. 1697.00 treating the goods as capital goods under Rule 57Q. The said goods had been received in their factory in August and November 1996. The adjudicating authority and lower appellate authority disallowed the credit so taken by the party, on the ground that the exhaust fans had no use in the process of manufacture of final products in the appellants' factory and on the further ground that the goods stood excluded from the category of capital goods. The present appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. I have carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities and have heard ld. Advocate Shri Rajesh Chhibber for ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT382TriDel

1. Revenue has filed five Reference Applications stating that the following questions of law arise out of the Tribunal's Final Order No.A/840-44/98-N, dated 11-9-1998: 1. Whether it is legal to accept the accuracy of a private document of MUL (computer generated data) partially with regard to 56 vehicles of different models found in excess of the recorded balance in a statutory document i.e. R.G.1 Register and ignore the same with regard to 126 vehicles of different models found short. 2. Whether it is legal to set off excess of 56 vehicles of different models against shortage of 126 vehicles of different models not comparable with the models of aforesaid 56 vehicles.2. Arguing the case for Revenue Shri S.K. Das, Ld. DR submits that the Tribunal, on the basis of private records of MUL, in the form of computer generated data, though these were not found entered in their statutory record in form R.G.1 Register in absence of any evidence in support of the hypothetical contention of MUL t...

M/S Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s Shree Cement Ltd., have filed the present appeal being aggrieved with the Order-In-Appeal passed by the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur, confirming the demand of Rs. 8,89,656/- and upholding the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- 2. Shri G. Shiv Das, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacturer cement and clinker; that they use explosive in their captive mines for quarrying the lime stone which is basic input for the manufacture of the cement; that besides using substantial part of lime stone in their factory, some part of it is transferred to their another unit Raj Cement for use therein in the manufacture of cement; that the Appellants take Modvat Credit of the duty paid of the inputs including the duty paid on explosives; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 32/99 dt. 19-3-99, confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty holding that they were liable to pay an amount of 8% for the clearance of exempted/non dutiable goods i.e. lime ston...

Ratangiri Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT733TriDel

1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dated 28-10-1^5^ passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur by which two Orders-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting refund claims of the appellants for Rs. 6,53,924.41 and Rs. 4,46,416/- were confirmed.2. Briefly, the facts are : the appellants are a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in the manufacture and export of synthetic blended fabrics falling under Chapters 51, 52,54 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their claim for refund of excise duty paid by them on yarn procured as raw material from indigenous suppliers during the relevant period was considered by the Assistant Commissioner and the same was rejected on the ground that they had not followed the instructions contained in Notification No. 42/94-C.E., dated 22-9-1994.The assessee requested for reconsideration of the matter by letter dated 18-6-1997 on the ground that their unit was a 100% EOU and they were entitled to dut...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Nulon India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT346TriDel

1. The Department is in appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 14-9-1995 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise, Meerut by which the Commissioner had held the extended period of limitation invoked by the Department is not invokable in the facts of the case since the charge of wilful suppression, etc. with intent to evade payment of duty has not been proved.2. Arguing the appeal, ld. JDR Shri Sumit K. Das explained the facts of the case as under : The respondents herein were found to be engaged in the manufacture of Nulon branded lubricating oil additives, PTFE greases and coolant. They had not got themselves registered with the Central Excise Department claiming that the goods manufactured by them were exempted in terms of Notification No. 120/84 dated 11-5-1984. On a visit to the respondents factory, the officers of the Preventive Branch of Central Excise noticed that additives for engine oil and coolant were not items covered under exemption Notification 120/84 and on the bas...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Agarwal Steel Re-rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT869TriDel

1. Revenue has filed this Reference Application stating that the following point of law arises out of Tribunal Final Order No.E/853/97-NB, dated 28-7-1997 :- "whether the facility of deemed Modvat credit under Ministry of Finance Order No. MF (DR)/Order/TS/36/94-TRU/ dated 1-3-1994 would be available to the re-rollers even after crossing the monetary limit of Rs. 75 lakhs in respect of value of clearances, in terms of Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993".2. Shri S.K. Das, ld. JDR, arguing the case for the applicants submits that the Tribunal by the Final Order held that the deemed Modvat credit will be admissible even after crossing the limit of Rs. 75 lakhs during the financial year. This decision of the Tribunal was based on its earlier decision in the case of Sandeep Steel and Agro Industries and Ors. contained in Final Order Nos. A/261-262/97-NB, dated 4-2-1997. He submits that in the meantime because there were different views by different Benches, the matter was referred to t...

Liberty Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT434TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Liberty Enterprises is whether the assessment is provisional.2. Shri R. Pal Singh, Ld. Consultant, submitted that the appellants manufacture footwear; that a show-cause-notice, dated 4-3-1999, was issued to them for demanding central excise duty amounting to Rs. 24,57,8697- on footwear cleared during the period from November 1996 to August 1997 on the ground that they were ineligible for exemption if the expenses incurred from factory gate up to depot is added in the ex-factory price which has been shown as Rs. 75/-; that duty amounting to Rs. 95,767'/- was also demanded on the basis of M.R.P.; that the Commissioner Central Excise in the Impugned Order No. 19/99, dated 11-10-1999 dropped the demand of Rs. 95,767/-; that the Commissioner, further, did not express any view on demand of Rs. 24,57,869/- observing that the Assistant Commissioner, Sonipat, would take a view on the question of determination of the assessable value of footwea...

Suhaib Ilyasi Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000CriLJ4766; II(2000)DMC340

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 26.4.2000 by which the petitioner, Suhaib Ilyasi's bail application was rejected, on the ground that the case is still under investigation and some more relevant facts remain to be investigated. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have argued this bail petition at length, Since this petition is at the stage of bail and the trial of this case is yet to begin, thereforee, I would refrain from giving my findings on various submissions made before me. My endeavor in this order would just be to note the basic arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. I would not like to analyze the submissions and give my findings, as any findings on these issues may directly or indirectly influence the trial of this case. 3. The brief facts which are absolutely necessary to decide this bail petition are recapitulated as under. 4. Mrs. Anju Ilyasi was married to the petitio...