Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

M/S Aasu Ram Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts in this case are, that the appellant was searched on 26.4.93 by the Police at Gagaria in Roadways Bus No. RJ 14/P-920. On search by the police, Indian currency of Rs. 3,51,1000/- was found on (SIC) person. The appellant, Shri Asu Ram told the police that he had obtained the said currency by selling some silver to one Shri Amra Ram Sonar of Barmer. The currency was therefore, seized and the appellant was handed over to the customs authorities alongwith the currency on 27.4.93. His submission was recorded under Section 108 of the customs Act, 1962 on 2.5.93 in which he reitrated his submissions earlier given before the Police. He also stated that he had been indulging in smuggling for the previous 6-7 months and was bringing silver on commission basis and delivering it to one Mahendra S/o Amba Lal Mali at Barmer. Consequently the proceedings were initiated against him which culminated in Additional Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur passing an order dated 26.6.97 in whi...

M/S. Jiva Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a shipping bill for export of 1000 yards of fabric M/O of one OR M.M./M FIL yarn through M/s K.Padmanabhan, (CHA). The rate of fabric was declared at U.S. $ 40 per yard, both on the S/Bill and the invoice No.42 dated 21.7.2000. On examination, a doubt arose regarding valuation and hence the samples were drawn from the consignment.2. The exporters, after the shipment had gone, submitted before the customs authority that there was a mistake in filing papers and the correct rate was US $ 4 per yard. Consequently the proceedings were initiated against the appellants and the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, Custom House, New Delhi passed an order-in-original dated 13.9.2000, operative portion of which is reproduced below: "I accordingly order confiscation of 1000 yards of fabric attempted to be exported in contravention of the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, since the goods have already been exp...

M/S Flex Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.1234-CE-MR(T) 97 dt 11.12.97 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Ghaziabad. The appeal is received in the Registry of CEGAT on 5th Nov.1999, i.e. about one year and nine months after the date of the Order-in-Appeal. In terms of sub-Section(3) of Section 35 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appeal should have been filed within 3 months from the date from which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the party.2. Consequently, there is a delay of 602 days in filing the appeal. The appellants have filed a petition for condonation of this delay, which is listed for disposal today. The appellants in their COD application/petition have stated that the order appealed against was received by them on 2.11.99. It is stated that during their visit to the office of Commissioner (Appeals) on 8.10.99 in connection with the pending orders, it came to their notice that in this appeal an order-in-appeal had already been passed...

M/S. Suraj Marbles (P) Ltd. and Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts in this case are that on 10.5.97, the Anti Evasion Party of Central Excise Division, Ajmer visited the factory premises of the appellants. The appellants are the manufacturers of marble slabs falling under Sub-heading 2504.21. On physical verification of the stock, it was found that a total quantity of 15725.124 sq. mtrs. of irregular marble slabs were found in the stock against the recorded balance of 38039.90 sq. mtrs. in their RG.1 Register. Thus, the quantity of 22314.776 sq. mtrs. was found short. It was further found that a quantity of 2184.3138 sq. mtrs. of marble tiles were found in excess as against the quantity reflected in their RG.1 Register. They were issued a show cause notice dt. 12.5.99 in which they were called upon to show cause why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.6,03,914/- should not be recovered from them for the irregular marble slabs found short and removed clandestinely under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the proviso t...

M/S. Flex Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT273TriDel

1. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.1234-CE-MR (T) 97 dt 11.12.97 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Ghaziabad. The appeal is received in the Registry of CEGAT on 5th Nov.1999, i.e. about one year and nine months after the date of the Order-in-Appeal. In terms of sub-Section (3) of Section 35 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appeal should have bene filed within 3 months from the date from which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the party.2. Consequently, there is a delay of 602 days in filing the appeal. The appellants have filed a petition for condonation of this delay, which is listed for disposal today. The appellants in thier COD application/petition have stated that the order appealed against was received by them on 2.11.99. It is stated that during their visit to the office of Commissioner (Appeals) on 8.10.99 in connection with the pending orders, it came to their notice that in this appeal an order-in-appeal had already been pass...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Maral Overseas Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue against the impugned order in appeal dated 27.4.2000 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), the issue relates to the applicability of the provisions of provisional Collection of Taxes Act, in respect of cotton waste which was cleared without payment of duty by the respondents during the period 16.3.95 to 23.3.95. The Additional Commissioner through Order-in-Original confirmed the duty demand of Rs.2,38,987/- on the respondents and also imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- under Rule 173 Q on them by holding that the cotton soft waste was chargeable to duty at the rate of 12.5% and valoram with reference to Customs Act. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) on filing of appeal against that order of the Additional Commissioner, by the respondents, reversed the order on the simple ground that the provisions of Provisional Collection of Taxes Act were not attracted and the duty on the soft cotton waste was chargeable only from the date of enactment i.e. 16.3.95 ...

M/S. Maschinen Fabrik Polygraph Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Machinen Fabrik Polygraph India Ltd. the period in dispute is from 1.3.86 to 11.3.88. The matter is very old. The Additional Collector Central Excise, Pune had passed the order-in-original on 10.8.89 and the order passed is extracted below. "The allegation in short is that, that assessee M/s. Machinen Fabrik Polygraph (I) Ltd. Kolhapur, had wrongly classified gears as parts of printing machinery under S.H. No. 8433.00 instead of 8483.00 with an intention to evade payment of duty for which the duty has been demanded on such gears, under Section 11 A of the Central Excise and Sale Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944." 2. As noted by the adjudicating authority, the assessee has pleaded before them the ommission in classifying the gears properly was due to human error in the context of New Central excise Tariff which to begin with created certain amount of confusion in the proper classification of the goods in question i.e. gears...

C.C.E., Kanpur Vs. M/S. Super Lamination Plastic

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this reference application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court : "1. Whether the permission for job work which was a statutory requirement under rule 57F (2) of CER 1944 can be overlooked. 2. Whether the defence reply of the party can be relied upon which stated that printing and stiching machines were out of order since March, 93, whereas at time of visit of officers on 26.10.93, no such plea was put-forth by the party. 3. Whether the failure to obtain job work permission is condonable without proper verification of records." 3. The contention of the revenue is that permission for job work is necessary requirement under Rule 57 F (2) of Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal in the final order over-looked this provision of law.4. The Tribunal in para six of the Final order, after taking into consideration the factual position in respect of goods sent to the job workers and regarding those goods, the manufacturers were maintaining registe...

M/S. Willard India Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants.The notice to the appellants was received back with the postal remarks 'factory closed'. Copy of the notice was also sent to the counsel of the appellants. As none appeared on behalf of the appellants nor there is any request for adjournment, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. (Dictated in Court)....

C.C.E., Raipur Vs. M/S. Beekay Engg. and Casting Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT543TriDel

1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Commissioner, after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. vs Mosanto Manufacturer (P) Ltd. reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 696 that the invoice, on which the credit had been taken, contain the particulars of duty payment which indicate that the dealers issued invoices, whenever they received the goods from the manufacturers. Therefore, they are the dealers of the manufacturers and fulfil the condition of the notification 15/94.4. The contention of the revenue is that notification 15/94 CE dated 30.3.94 prescribes that invoices should be issued by wholesale dealers of the manufacturers as valid duty-paying documents for the purpose of MODVAT credit. Therefore, the invoices issued by the dealers should be issued by the wholesale dealers and in the present case, the invoices were not issued by the whole...