Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 6 of about 277 results (0.021 seconds)Flovel Tacke (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT337TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held as under : "The issue here is the amount of Customs duty paid as excess duty on the goods imported by the appellant, subsequently, supplied to M/s. Apar Limited. At the time of import an excess duty of Rs. 63,40,757/- was paid by the appellant which was actually not chargeable under notification of 64/94- Cus. dated 1-3-1994. Accordingly the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 486/97 MCH dated 17-6-1997 ordered consequential relief to the appellant. It is observed that the appellant has filed a suit against the M/s. Apar Limited. I also find that there are series of litigations between the appellant and M/s. Apar Limited for recovery of Custom duty paid by the appellant and that finally the matter is pending before Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai. The appellant has in above mentioned suit prayed before Hon'ble High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Containers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC123
1. Appellants are manufacturers of metal containers. Metal sheets, coils and strips are the inputs for such manufacture. Certain amount of metal waste arises in the course of manufacture of metal containers.Whether such waste would be eligible for exemption under Notification 91/88, dated 1-3-1988 and Notification 171/88, dated 13-5-1988 is the issue raised in this appeal. When the case went before a Division Bench of two Members for hearing on 7-4-2000, that Bench referred this case to a Larger Bench on account of conflict between the decisions in the case of CCE v. Universal Containers - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 573 and Amar Steel Container Corporation v. CCE - 1999 (35) RLT 805. Accordingly, this Larger Bench has been constituted to consider the issue.2. Exemption under notification 91/88, dated 1-3-1988 is worded as under: "...The Central Government hereby exempts goods of the description specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed and falling within Chapters 72, 73 or 84 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Harpreet International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC625Tri(Delhi)
1. These cases have come before us in view of Misc. Order No. 261/2000 passed by the South Zonal Bench at Chennai. The circumstances which led to that order are as follows : Aggrieved by Order-in-Original No. 6/99, dated 28-4-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar M/s. Harpreet International and Shri Maninder Singh preferred appeals C/281 and 282/99 before Delhi Bench of this Tribunal. These appeals come up before Northern Bench on 9-3-2000 for hearing. Stay petitions had also been posted. That Bench found that the facts in the case are similar to those in appeals pending before South Zonal Bench in relation to import Of identical goods by M/s. Pearl Associates, Pondicherry. Consequently the Bench took the view that these two appeals are to be heard by South Zonal Bench at Chennai in the interest of justice. Learned Counsel representing the appellant also submitted before the Bench that the two cases may be transferred to South Zonal Bench at Chennai to be heard along wi...
Tag this Judgment!Chandigarh Lithotripsy Centre Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC122
1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs. 19,42,759.00 under Section 28 of the Customs Act and interest under Section 28AB and penalty of Rs. 46,62,621.00 under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the applicants made an import of hospital equipments, namely, 'Lithotriper X-1' and 'Urological X-ray examination Unit' and availed the benefit of Notification 64/88-Cus. dated 01.03.88. He submits that a show cause notice was issue to the applicants on the grounds that the applicants had not furnished proof of installation of the imported machines within a period of two years. He submits that the goods were imported in the year 1991 and the applicants wrote to the Director General of Health Services for issue of the necessary certificate for installation. The Director General of Health Services, vide letter dated 17.1.92 directed the applicants that the application for issue o...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Paper Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT547TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Amrit Paper Ltd. (A Division of M/s. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd.) is whether the exemption under Notification No. 48/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 is available to the writing and printing paper, manufactured by the Appellants.2. Briefly stated the facts are the Appellants manufacture, inter alia, Writing and Printing Paper falling under sub-heading 4802.99 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They filed two classification lists during 14-8-1993 to 28-7-1994 classifying their product under sub-heading No. 4802.99 claiming nil rate of duty under Notification No. 48/91. The Collector, Central Excise, under the impugned order dated 15-3-1995, confirmed the demand of excise duty amounting to Rs. 52,68,282.70 paise and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs, holding that they had removed 'newsprint' during the period 14-8-1993 to 28-7-1994 which was not declared by them; that they were declared as 'mills producing newsprint' by Department o...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Alloys Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC506
1. Carefully examined the recors. Heard both sides. Having been convinced of the existence of a strong prima facie case in favour of the applicants I allow the stay application unconditionally and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, proceed to dispose of the appeal itself finally. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner had disallowed Modvat credit to the tune to Rs. 2,65,846.78, and had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the appellants for alleged wrong availment of Modvat credit. Against this order of adjudication, the appellants preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and also filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts and also for stay of recovery thereof. The said application was disposed of by the lower appellate authority after hearing the party as per stay order dated 21.1.2000. In the said stay order, Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) recorded a prima facie finding that in respect of Modvat credit taken to the ex...
Tag this Judgment!Bindu S. Mehta Vs. Commissisoner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT281TriDel
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot dated 28-1-1993 vide which penalty of 4 lakhs each was imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules on the appellants.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants Smt. Purnima K. Sharma and Smt. Bindu S. Mehta constituted a partnership firm. M/s. Aum Cosmetics and Shri Sandeep J. Mehta was Attorney of M/s. Aum Cosmetics.M/s. Aum Cosmetics were engaged in the manufacture of Telecom powder.During the period 1985-86 and 1986-87, it was found that M/s. Aum Cosmetics shown less clearances than the actual clearance. A show cause notice was issued to M/s. Aum Cosmetics and the present appellants.After adjudication a demand of Rs. 8,22,812 was confirmed on the M/s.Aum Cosmetics and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed on M/s. Aum Cosmetics and penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules were imposed on the present appellants. 1 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behal...
Tag this Judgment!Nehru Steels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC403
2. The appellants are manufacturers of Malleable Cast Iron (MCI) Inserts and other cast articles falling under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and are availing the facility of Modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.They procure iron scrap from outside, melt the same and manufacture MCI inserts using moulds. The product is supplied to manufacturers of concrete (railway) sleepers, who use them as inputs for their products.The appellants had taken Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 3,98,160.49 on inputs used for manufacture of MCI Inserts; during the period February to May, 1997, after filing a declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise disallowed the Modvat credit so taken under Rule 57A, on the ground that, in the declaration filed by the party under Rule 57G, the final product namely 'MCI Inserts' had not been declared and that such non-declaration of the fi...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Mathur Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)74TTJ(Delhi)277
These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the order dated 22-4-1993, of Commissioner (Appeals). They pertain to assessment year 1987-88 and 1988-89.Both these appeals are being decided by a common order as identical grounds are raised therein. In ITA No. 4358, the assessee has raised the following ground : "1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in not cancelling the penalty imposed by the learned assessing officer under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and holding that the delay in filing the return of income was not on account of a reasonable cause." It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the return was filed late due to the negligence on the part of the counsel of the assessee and it was also his contention that in the circumstances penalty should not have been imposed upon him. Reliance was placed on Salahuddin & Ors. v. ITO (1983) 16 TTJ (Ind) 392, ITO v. Pashupati Banerjee (1982) 13 TTJ (Cal) 440. Apart ...
Tag this Judgment!Haryana Wareshousing Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)75ITD155(Delhi)
1. In this appeal against the order of the CIT(A), Shimla dated 28th November, 1997, for the asst. yr. 1992-93, the grounds taken by the assessee run as under : "1. (i) That the order of the learned CIT(A) upholding the charge of interest under s. 234B amounting to Rs. 2,82,59,843 is wholly unjustified and against law. (ii) That the learned CIT(A) has passed a perfunctory order, without in any manner discussing the written arguments filed by the appellant. (iii) That the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. K. Synthetics cases followed by Patna High Court. The order of the learned CIT(A) in not following the said judgments is totally arbitrary. It is, therefore, prayed that interest charged by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) be quashed." 2. As is manifest, the challenge by the assessee is to the levy of interest under s. 234B of the IT Act, 1961. In order to appreciate the point of controversy, the factual matrix of the case may ...
Tag this Judgment!