Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 2 of about 265 results (0.020 seconds)Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT100TriDel
1. Appellant herein is M/s. Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd. M/s. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. is the holding company of the appellant and another company M/s. Super Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Appellant holds the brand name 'Margo'. Super Cosmetics manufactures soaps under that brand name. Royalty for using the brand name 'Margo' was fixed at Rs. 5,5007- per MT. Over and above that, appellant company was to get a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as annual technical know-how fee. The goods manufactured by Super Cosmetics were wholly marketed by Shaw Wallace and Co.Proceedings were initiated by the department against these companies for evading excise duty. One of the allegations made against the appellant's company was that they were party to siphoning off Rs. 15 lakhs per year from Super Cosmetics which should have gone in to enhance the value of the goods manufactured. The period of investigation was from 05.09.1989 to 17.07.1992. During this period, it is alleged that a total sum of Rs. 34 lakhs has been siphon...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. A. Infrastructure Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC867
1. M/s. A. Infrastructure Limited, Hamirgarh, Bhilwara (Rajasthan), are manufacturers of 'A.C. Pressure Pipes' which are liable to central excise duty. Their buyers are mostly public health departments of the State Government. The goods are delivered at work sites by the manufacturer. Therefore, in terms of the agreement, the manufacturer charged freight in addition to the value of the goods. Later on, after the actual transportation took place, it was noticed that, in certain cases, the freight claimed by the manufacturer from the buyer was more than the actual freight paid. In certain cases, the freight claimed was also less than the actual freight incurred. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, in his adjudication order dated 28-11-97, held that the manufacturer was liable to pay duty of Rs. 20,977/- in respect of freight claimed in excess of the actual amounts spent towards freight.He, however, allowed a deduction of Rs. 9,190/- in respect of cases where actual freight pai...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Addi Alloys (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT741TriDel
1. The Commissioner in the impugned order vacated the seizure and dropped the charges of confiscation and penalty against the respondent herein. Ld. Commissioner also ordered that the goods be mutilated within the Customs Area at the importer's expense and under Customs supervision and that the goods be released to the importer after mutilation and be assessed to duty as scrap alongwith a quantity of 133.639 M.T. of heavy melting scrap, provisionally released to the party. Being aggrieved by this order, Revenue has filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents herein imported certain goods and declared them in the Bill of Entry dated 24-7-1997 as Heavy Melting Scrap Grade I. On examination of the goods it was found that in the four containers examined there were 35 pieces of old and used automobile diesel engines valued at Rs. 14 lakhs, 20 pieces of old and used automobile diesel engine blocks valued at Rs. four lakhs and 67.389 m.ts of he...
Tag this Judgment!National Organic Chemical Inds. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT461TriDel
1. In all these appeals the common issue involved is whether Polyethylene Glycol (PEG-300 to 1500) is classifiable under sub-heading 2901.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act from 01.03.1986 to 28.02.1988 and therefter under sub-heading 2905.90 as claimed by the Appellants or under sub-heading 3907.20 as confirmed in the impugned orders dated 28.04.1994 and 30.03.1993.2. Shri A.M. Setalwad, learned Sr. Advocate along with Shri D.B.Shroff, Advocate appearing on behalf of M/s. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., submitted that the Collector, Central Excise under the impugned order No. 24/94, dated 28.04.1994 has classified the impugned product under sub-heading 3907.20 on the basis of Note 3 to Chapter 39 of the Tariff; that before introduction of present Central Excise Tariff the Department was trying to classify the impugned product under Tariff Item 15A whereas they were classifying the product under Tariff Item 68 of the Old Central Excise Tariff and the same w...
Tag this Judgment!Pearls of Beauty Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT495TriDel
1. Shri L.P. Asthana, ld Advocate, mentioned that in this appeal filed by M/s. Pearls of Beauty, the issue pressed by them is only time limit.The ld. Advocate submitted that show cause notice was issued on 4-5-1999 for demanding the Central Excise duty for the period from April 94 to 22-7-1996 in respect of Henna Powder removed by them in unit containers; that the Appellants manufactured Henna Powder which is removed by them in unit containers of 50 gms, 100 gms, 140 gms and 250 gms; that they had classified Henna Powder under sub-heading 3203.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act in their classification list filed by them on 6-4-1994; that they had claimed the Nil rate of duty under Notification No. 27/90, dated 20-3-1990; that as per Sl. No.11 of the table attached to the Notification, Henna Powder falling under sub-heading 3203.00 or 3212.90, was chargeable to Nil rate of duty; that similarly Notification No. 14/93, dated 28-2-1993 provided Nil rate of duty in respect...
Tag this Judgment!iffco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT848TriDel
1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 28,71,954/- and equal amount of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act and Penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173Q imposed by the Commissioner under the Impugned Order.2. Shri Laxhman Dev, ld. Consultant, submitted that M/s. Iffco Ltd. manufacutred Ammonia and Urea; that they had filed an application for L6 licence for getting Furnace Oil for generation of electricity and steam; that after processing their application, the Department issued them L6 licence and subsequently CT 2 certificates for getting the Furnace Oil free of duty under Notification No. 75/84-C.E., dated 01.03.1984; that subsequently both the applicants and the Department realised that the Furnace Oil intended for use otherwise than as feed stock in the manufacture of fertilizers does not attract Nil rate of duty but the concessional rate of duty; that immediately on demand they paid the duty for the past six months period in respect of quantity o...
Tag this Judgment!G.K.N. Invel Transmissions Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC861
1. This appeal is against Order-in-Appeal No. MP (38)/ICD/99 dated 27.1.2000 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. By that order, the appellate authority confirmed assessment Order No.37/KS/ICD/TKD/98 dated 18.7.98 under which the claim of refund made by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,01,06,333 was rejected. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are follows: Appellant company was the manufacturer and supplier of 'Front Wheel Drive Axle Assembly' for maruti cars. For this purpose, they entered into collaboration with G.K.N. Automotive AG, Germany. A number of components manufactured by the collaborators were imported. While making the assessments on the bills of entry, the value shown in the invoice was loaded by 5%. In other words, goods covered by 156 bills of entry spread over a period from 1989 to 1994 were provisionally assessed by loading the invoice by 5%. Special Valuation Branch, by its Order No. 15/94 dated 28.9.94, ordered to accept t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Kumar Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT581TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed against revokation of Customs Licence and forfeiture of security of Rs. 50,000/-deposited by the appellant.2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Krishan Kumar Sharma is a holder of Customs House Agent Licence. During the course of scrutiny of the records while examining the application for renewal of the licence, the Department alleged that M/s. K.K. Sharma had sublet their work of Customs clearance to another company by name "TRACK" who were not authorised by the Customs Department to deal with the Customs clearance work. It was alleged that sub-heading of their work was apparent from the fact that M/s. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur had appointed CHA M/s. Krishan Kumar Sharma to handle their Bill of Entry No. 764989 dated 28.04.1999; that the CHA should have raised the bills for his services to M/s. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur and payment should have been received by the CHA; that the Bill in the instant case for the services ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Municipal Workers Union (Regd.) Vs. Mcd and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi68; 2000(55)DRJ161
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This petition stated to have been filed in public interest questions acceptance of tenders submitted by Ms Duggal Sales Corporation - respondent No. 2. According to petitioner the modalities adopted by Municipal Corpora- corporation of Delhi (for short, MCD)- respondent No.1 for such accepted were tainted and resulted in loss of public money. Prayers made in the petition are to the following effect : (i) Order an investigation by CBI in the purchase of footwears pursuant to NIT No. 41/CUC/96 dated 17th October, 1996. (ii) Direct respondent No.1 to evolve proper guidelines for awarding tender; (iii) To fix individual responsibility in over payment to the tune of Rs. 13,19,970/- and recovery of the same from concerned individuals. 2. Aforesaid prayers have been made in the following background : Respondent No.1 invited scaled tenders vide NIT No. 41/CUC/96 dated 17.10.1996 for the purchase of foot wears, namely, gents shoes and sandals, ladies shoes and sand...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iii and anr. Vs. M/S. Banaras House ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ297
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ. 1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') the only question raised by the Revenue is whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench A (in short 'the Tribunal) was justified in holding that the amount received by assessed on account of forfeiture of advance guarantee commission is business income and not income from other sources, in terms of Section 28(iiia) of the Act. 2. Background facts, which are almost undisputed, are essentially as follows: For the assessment year 1989-90 the assessee, a limited company, filed its return, inter alias claiming that the sum of Rs. 3,05,165/- received as advance guarantee commission from M/s. Jain Sudh Vanaspati Limited by written agreement dated 30th March, 1982 was income from business. Assess- ing Officer, while computing the total income, reduced the aforesaid amount from the net profits as disclosed in the profit and loss account, without disclosing any reason but under...
Tag this Judgment!