Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments

Bhansali Engg. Polymers Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT280TriDel

1. The above application has been filed for rectification of mistake stated to be apparent on the face of the record in Tribunal's Tinal Order No. A/823-828/99-NB dated 7-7-1999 by which the Tribunal has upheld the duty demand on ABS waste generated during the course of manufacture of ABS polymers on the ground that waste was reprocessed to manufacture granules which were exempt from the whole of the duty of excise in terms of Notification 111/95 and hence ABS waste did not satisfy the condition of Notification 67/95 which is available to specified inputs manufactured in a factory and used within the factory of production in or in relation to the manufacture of specified final products; provided that those final products are not exempt from the whole of duty of excise or are not chargeable to nil rate of duty. The assessee's plea that the duty demand on ABS waste was bad in law as no show cause notice raising demand of duty on ABS waste was issued, was rejected by the Tribunal on the ...

Vardhman Sales Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT320TriDel

The appellants filed Bill of Entry dated 3-11-1999 for clearance of 34.51 MTs. of imported goods declared as 'Aluminium Tense Scrap' and classified under sub-heading 7602.00 of the Customs Tariff. The appellants, by so classifying the goods, also claimed the benefits of certain Notifications. The appraising officer of the Department, who examined the goods in the presence of the appellants' C.H.A., found that the goods were "Aluminium Scrap" which had been remelted into shapes of bowls for convenience in shipping. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, who re-examined the goods, later on, pursuant to directions of the Commissioner (Adjudicating Authority) at the adjudication stage, also found that the goods were melted/sweated aluminium scrap cast in the shapes of bowls apparently for the sake of convenience in shipping. In his report of re-examination, the Deputy Commissioner further observed that the goods appeared to be aluminium scrap of "Throb" ISRI grade. On the basis of the examin...

Seamless Tubes and Technologies Vs. Collr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT543TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s Seamless Tubes & Technologies India Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 is available to the goods manufactured by the Appellants during the financial year 1989-90.2. The Appellants under their letter dt. 6-1-2000 have mentioned that they would not be appearing in person for hearing and requested to pass an appropriate order. We heard Shri M.P.Singh, Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue and perused the records. The Assistant Collector, under Adjudication order-in-original No. 54/91, dated 8-5-1991 and adjudication order No. 43/92, dated 8-9-1992, approved the classification list filed by the Appellants effective from 15-3-1991 denying the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 175/86 and confirmed the demand of duty, holding that the Appellants became the subsidiary unit of M/s Balaji Tubes Ltd. from 15-1-1988 and lost its independent identity as a SSI unit; that they applied for DGTD reg...

Mardia Steel Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT48TriDel

1. There is no representation for the applicants in these 3 stay applications in spite of notice of hearing. Learned JDR is present on behalf of the respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases as borne on the record, I am inclined to dispose of the appeals themselves finally after allowing the stay applications on the ground of strong pritna face case which does exist in favour of the applicants.2. I have carefully examined the impugned orders and connected records and have also perused the grounds of the three appeals. I have also heard learned JDR for the respondent, who has defended the impugned orders on the strength of the observations and findings recorded by the adjudicating authority.3. In appeal Nos. E/1347-1348/2000-NB (SM), there is a common impugned order passed by the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeals filed by the party against orders of adjudication passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, on the sole gro...

Ram Kumar Kashyap Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT42TriDel

1. The six stay petitions were taken up together as they arise out of the same order and are being disposed of by the common order.2. The facts of the case in brief are that on the basis of an intelligence, DRI Officers organised simultaneous action at Kanpur and Delhi. On 18-12- 1992, a Maruti van was intercepted. Two persons namely Shri Ram Bilas Mandal, driver and Shri Ram Kishore Mishra were found travelling in the van. On enquiry Shri Ram Kishore Mishra admitted that 25 silver bricks made out of foreign marked smuggled silver bricks were concealed in a specially designed cavity built in the van and that these 25 silver slabs were the part consignment made out of the foreign marked silver ingots (sillies) stored at a place Unnao; 25 silver bricks were recovered from the specially built cavity in the van; 25 pcs. of sliver alongwith the Maruti van was seized; 79 pcs. of silver bricks weighing 2640.227 kgs. valued at Rs. 1,75,60,109/- were recovered from Doodh Ki Dairy, Unnao; 15 pc...

Aar Kay Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT74TriDel

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 37,97,418/- and equal amount of penalty.2. Shri R. Santhanam, ld. Advocate submits that the Govt. of India introduced compounded levy on independent processors. He submits that the applicants were having processing unit but at the same time had taken on lease a unit engaged in the spinning of yarn and weaving of fabrics. He submits that with the introduction of compounded levy, the department collected certain information from the applicants on 15-12-98. He submits that this information led to fixation of compounded levy in spite of the fact that the applicants had proprietary interest in a unit spinning the yarn and weaving the fabrics. He submits that the applicants filed a letter on 31-12-98 to the department. He submits that in this letter, the appellants had clarified the position that "Since we are having proprietary interest in a factory named and styled as M/s. Aar Kay Weaving Factory, Prop.M/s. Aar K...

Amrit Steels Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against order dated 6-3-1995 recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by which assessment order of the assessee for assessment year 1992-93 was set aside to the limited extent with direction to the Assessing Officer ("AO" in short) to re-examine the claim of the assessee about manufacturing and other expenses amounting to Rs. 98,65,051 debited by the assessee under sub-head "foreign exchange loss" and to pass suitable order.2. Assessment of the assessee for assessment year 1992-93 was completed on 26-3-1993 at an income of Rs. 27,11,668. From perusal of assessment records, the CIT Meerut noted that assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 98,65,091 under sub-head "foreign exchange loss" in the profit & loss A/c for the year ending 31-3-1992. In the annual report and accounts for that period the assessee had mentioned that due to steep devaluation of Indian rupees vis-a-vis U...

Dolly Farms and Resort (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)74ITD147(Delhi)

1. In an appeal filed the assessee has challenged the order of the AO passed under s. 158BC of the IT Act for the block period 1986-87 to 15th September, 1995.2. The premises of the assessee were searched on 15th September, 1995, by the Department. Certain documents and the books of account were seized. The proceedings were concluded on 27th September, 1996 and the income computed was at Rs. 1,34,87,700. Aggrieved against the order the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. The following additions to the income were contested : (9) Refusal to allow deduction for a loss of Rs. 26,83,800 as per the income-tax returns.2. The assessee filed a paper book consisting of 151 pages listing the documents and the information contained therein along with the certificate which reads as under : (1) That the papers at Serial Nos. 1 to 11 of the paper book are the copies of panch nama prepared by the search party on 16th September, 1995, in connection with a search on the premises of the appell...

Net Ram and Another Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2000Delhi360; 86(2000)DLT606; 2000(54)DRJ814

ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. As the dispute in these twenty two writ petitions is common, this judgment will govern each one of them. While hearing the batch of writ petitions, learned Single Judge felt that on account of views expressed by two Division Benches and a Single Judge, to which he did not subscribe to avoid uncertainty adjudication by the Full Bench is needed. 2. The question is whether direction for grant of interest can be given in respect of the amount of compensation from the date of award till the actual payment @ 15% or 18%, as the case may be. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. On 23.6.1989, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) was issued in respect of large tract of land in the revenue estate of village Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad and Behlopur Khadar for the planned development of Delhi i.e. channalization of Yamuna river. This was followed by declarations under Sections 6 and 17(1) of the Act ...

Vishwanath Gupta Vs. Cegat and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ287; 2000(71)ECC491; 2000LC255(Delhi); 2002(143)ELT35(Del)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ. 1. Rule D.B.2. Since a short point is involved, with the consent of both parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. By this petition, petitioner has questioned legality of order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Tribunal (for short the CEGAT) in Appeal Nos. C/164/99-NB and C/190/99-NB, disposed of by order dated 27th September, 1999. 4. Factual position, so far as relevant for appreciating rival stands, is as follows: Notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act), inter alia, requiring the petitioner to show cause as to: (a) why the seized silk yarn of third country origin should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) read with Section 118 of the Act for having been brought into India in violation of notification No.9/96 dated 22nd January, 1996 issued under Section 11 of the Act read with Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act 1992 (for short the Foreign Trade Act); (b) why the...