Delhi Court June 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 6 of about 106 results (0.018 seconds)Commissioner of Customs Vs. M.i. Khan
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT542TriDel
1. These three appeals have been filed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi on the basis of Order of the Central Board of Excise & Customs dated 28-10-98 reviewing the Order-in-Original dated 29-10-97 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, Delhi, by which proceedings initiated against three Officers of Customs (who are the three Respondents in the present Appeals) namely, Shri W.L. Hangshing, Shri M.I. Khan and Shri R.K. Sharma were directed to be dropped.2. Since the facts relating to the three Appeals were common and common issues have been raised, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.3. Shri Sumit K. Das, ld. JDR appeared for the appellant Commissioner and S/Shri J.S. Agarwal, K.K. Anand, Dev Nath and A. Madhava Rao, ld.Advocates appeared for the Respondents.4. Brief facts are: The staff of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) examined 152 packages in respect of several shipping bills dated 15-5-90 and 1-6-90 filed by a firm ...
Tag this Judgment!Liyakat Shah Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT556TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the above mentioned appellants against penalties imposed on them by the Commissioner by his Order-in-Original dated 27-7-1998. Apart from the penalties on the appellants 230 gunny bags containing ball bearings value at Rs. 1,32,96,400/- were ordered to be confiscated absolutely under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Personal penalties on 12 persons (including the present appellants) were also imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act by the said order. The present appellants are not contesting the confiscation of the goods but are only challenging the personal penalties imposed on them. Shri Sandeep Sood had been imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs and Shri Liyakat Shah had been imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs.2. Shri S.N. Kohli, Sr. Advocate along with S/Shri Satpal Singh and K.K. Choukse, Advocates appeared for the appellants and Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR represented the respondent Commissioner.3. Brief facts are: Shri Sandeep Sood, is the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Chanab Textile Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT417TriDel
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The respondents are the manufacturers of Yarn falling under chapter 52 and chapter 55. They availed Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 30,031/- on the laboratory testing equipment namely Yarn Evenness Tester with Silver Roving to Spectrogram and Yarn appearance examining machine as capital goods under Rule 57Q. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jammu vide his order dated 19-11-1998 held that these equipments were neither used for producing or processing of any goods nor for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products. They were also not specifically mentioned in the rule 57Q. As such the said goods cannot be considered as capital goods for the purpose of availing the Modvat credit. Consequently the original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 30,031/- against the party under rule 57U.2. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) Chandigarh in his order dated 30-11-1999 held that in the facts and circumsta...
Tag this Judgment!Sara Services and Engineers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT459TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Sara Services & Engg. Pvt. Ltd., is whether Hammer Union, Chickson Pipes and Swivel Joints manufactured by them are classifiable under Sub-heading 8479.10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or as parts under sub-heading 8479.90 as confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) in the Impugned Order.2. Shri P.R. Mullick, Id Chartered Accountant, submitted that all the impugned goods have individual function and as such will be rightly classifiable under sub-heading 8479.10; that Hammer Union provides Hydraulic pressure to different air, water, oil or gas applications; that chickson pipes is an appliances to carry water, air, oil, gas as per requirements of the customer; that it is not a part but a mechanical appliances, assembled with different parts having individual functions; that Swivel Joints is also a composite mechanical appliances used for fluid handling, and items, rotary and circulating hose flexible high pressure adju...
Tag this Judgment!Zarafshan Chemical Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC490
1. In application for rectification of mistake, applicants have submitted that certain statements made by them before the Tribunal have not been dealt with in the finding portion of Final Order No.1055-1056/99-C dated 16-12-1999. Ld. Counsel submits that during the hearing before the Tribunal specific reliance was placed by the applicant/appellant on entries in HSN at page numbers 307,449 and 416 besides Customs Notification No. 117/89. Though the submissions have been noted in the Final Order, these have not been dealt with in the finding portion of the order and therefore there was a mistake in the impugned Final Order and they need to be rectified. Reliance has been placed in the Apex Court judgement in Omar Salai Mohd. Saib v. CIT 1959 (37) ITR 151 SC in which it was held that the Tribunal was bound to give its finding and observations on each and every piece of evidence, arguments and submissions made in the appeal. The following further decisions have also been relied upon in su...
Tag this Judgment!H.R. Bhalla and Sons Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC276
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order in original, dated 21/25-10-99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had dropped the duty demand of Rs. 14,76,495/- but imposed penalty of Rs. 1,25,000/- on them under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules.3. The appellants were manufacturer of leather garments falling under TI 68 of the Erstwhile Tariff and exempted under Notification No.234/82-CE, dated 1-11-1982. But this notification was rescinded w.e.f.1-3-1986 and the garments were thereafter classifiable under sub-heading 4201.90 of the new Tariff. The appellants, however, continued to clear the goods without payment of duty without having licence and without following the procedure under the Act and Rules during the period 1-3-1986 to 16-11-1986. They were accordingly issued show cause notice dated 3-3-1989 requiring them to pay duty amount of Rs. 16,80,781.36 (larter on calculation was reduced to Rs. 14,76,495/-). The penalty was also prop...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC273
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 8.2.94 passed by the Collector of Central Excises (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the order in original of the Assistant Collector dated 19.11.93 adjusting outstanding duty amount of Rs. 2,46,260 from their refund claim of Rs. 26,58.655.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of spun yarn of various specifications out of .manmade fabrics. They filed classification list on 2.5.78 vide which they claimed the classification under TI 68 of the erstwhile Tariff, but the same was modified by the concerned officer by classifying the product under TI 18-B(ii) of the Tariff. They contested that modification of their classification list and demand of differential duty raised from them through the show cause notices. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 28 & 29/84-D dated 25.1.84 set aside the orders of the authorities below and observed that the products were classifiable under TI 68 of the erstwhile Tariff. ...
Tag this Judgment!Crown Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC252
1. These appeals are before this Larger Bench upon reference by other Benches of the Tribunal.2. The issue involved in all these appeals is the scope of Rule 57H which relates to 'transitional provisions' relating to modvat credit.This Rule has existed from March 1986 (though subject to various amendments) when modvat credit was introduced. Rule 57A confers benefit of credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs. Rule 57G lays down "procedure to be observed by the manufacturer". Sub-rule (1) of that Rule stipulates that "every manufacturer intending to take credit of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A or Rule 57B shall file a declaration with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over his factory, indicating the description of the final products manufactured in his factory and the inputs intended to be used in the said final products and such other information as the said Assistant Commissioner may require, and obtain a dated acknowledgement of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhushan Steel and Strips
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT431TriDel
1. The present Reference Application filed by the Department seeks to refer a point of law, which according to the Department, has arisen from the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/1112/98-NB, dated 4-12-1998.2. We have heard Shri M.M. Dubey, ld. JDR for the applicant Commissioner. None appeared for the Respondents when the matter was called despite notice.3. The Tribunal had by the impugned Final Order upheld the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that modvat credit will be available on finished goods returned to the manufacturer of finished goods by the customer by reason of the goods being defective.4. Ld. JDR has argued that in the instant case the Respondents who were manufacturers of C.R. Coils/sheets and G.P. Coils/sheets received their inputs from various suppliers and they had been taking modvat credit on the duty paid on the inputs. Some of the purchasers of their finished products returned the goods to them as the goods were defective.Respondents thereu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Viking Engg. (i) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT242TriDel
1. This is a reference application filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court, arising out of Tribunal's Final Order No.A/600/99-NB, dated 17.06.1999 [2000 (116) E.L.T. 563 (Tri.)]. "Whether the Electronic Control Panel Board and the Electrical transformers were capital goods during the period July-August, 1994 in terms of the meaning assigned to the term 'Capital Goods' in Rule 57Q during the relevant period; and whether the credit of the duty of excise paid on them was allowable under aforesaid Rule 57Q during the above mentioned period of July-August 1994."? 2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents, M/s. Viking Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd., inspite of notice.I, therefore, proceed with the matter in the absence of the Respondents.3. Shri R.D. Negi, Id. SDR, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/600/99-NB dated 17.06.1999 [2000 (116) E.L.T. 563 (Tri....
Tag this Judgment!