Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Sh. Chander Kant Modi and ors. Vs. C.C., Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT375TriDel

1. In the reference applications the applicants framed numerous questions of law. But at the time of arguments, both the applicants only pressed for the following question of law for reference to the Hon'ble High Court : "Whether the Tribunal was correct in law to have held the applicants guilty of alleged offence under the Customs Act in absence of any other independent corroborative evidence against the applicants".3. The contention of the applicants is that in the final order, passed by the Tribunal, only reliance was placed on the statements made by the applicants under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act or the statements made by their co-noticees. Their submission is that in absence of any independent coroboration to the statements made by the applicants or by their co-noticees, cannot be relied upon.4. Ld. son, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh J. Sukhwani vs U.O.I. reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T.258 (SC) and in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra v...

M/S. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Vadodara

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing these two appeals, the appellants, M/s Indian Oil Corpn.Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking, are required to pre-deposit Rs 5,10,038/-. It is seen from their appeal memo that they had already pre-deposited a sum of Rs 2,55,000/- in compliance with the stay order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Vadodara.2. After hearing both the sides, we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance duty amount and stay its recovery till the disposal of the appeals. The appeals to come up in its own turn....

M/S Vimal Alloys Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT318TriDel

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing to the appellants modvat credit of Rs. 12,750- on rejected metal rolls and imposing on them a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-.2. I have examined the records and heard both side. Ld. Advocate She.K.K. Anand submits that the issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the assessees by tow decisions of Larger Bench of this Tribunal, which he has cited as under :- ii) CCE, Meerut Vs. Bhushan Steels and Strips Ltd. [2000 (39) RLT 200].ld. Advocate, therefore, prays for allowing the appeal by following the Larger Bench decisions.3. The above submission of ld. Counsel is not contested before me. I find that, in both the cited cases, the Larger Bench held that defective final products of any manufacture, when returned by any buyer on payment of duty under cover of proper invoice, become eligible inputs in the hands of the manufacturer for the purpose of availment of modvat credit subject to the condition that such defec...

M/S Shree Krishna Paper Mills and Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 31st August, 2000 of the Commissioner (Appeals), the dispute relates to their refund claim for the period 1.3.1983 to 13.9.1983. The Commissioner had upheld the order of the Asstt.Commissioner rejecting the refund claim of the appellants for this period on the ground that that they had failed to produce in spite of asking, proof that the incidence of duty was never passed on to the customers.2. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the invoices were produced before the Commissioner to substantiate that the incidence of duty was never passed on to the customers, and the same was not taken in the price pattern, but she had failed to consider the same. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. On the other hand, the learned SER has argued that since the GP-1 no. 103 dated 31st May, 1983 produced by the appellants showed the charging of duty by them from the buyers, they had ...

M/S. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this reference application, the applicants, M/s. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. with reference to the Tribunal's Final Order dated 17.7.98 has prayed that the following questions of law be referred to the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh:- (i) Whether the appeal could be decided on merits in the absence of the counsel on 1.7.98 for the applicant/appellant and without giving notice of hearing to the appellant? (ii) Whether the applicant has evaded the payment of excise duty on account of shortages worked out by the officers of Central Excise (Prev.), Chandigarh on their visit on 2.12.91 and subsequently ignoring the submissions putforth by the appellant? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the findings given by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh to the extent of shortages of the assemblies? (iv) Whether the findings of the Hon'ble Tribunal without considering the explanation and evidence produced can be the valid basis ...

M/S. Simplex Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the applicants, in spite of notice. Therefore, the stay application, filed by the applicants, is being taken up in the absence of applicants.2. The applicants filed this stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.4. The contention of the applicant is that against the adjudication order, the applicant filed an appeal alongwith the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and the Commissioner (Appeals), without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, directed the applicant to deposit the duty and penalty for hearing of the appeal and thereafter, without issuing notice, the appeal filed by the appellant, was dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of Sec. 35F of the Act.5. In this situation, the contention of the applicants,in their appeal memo, is that the interim order as well as the impugned order, is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice.Suraksha Flexo Packs vs...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Bhusan Alloys and Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the present reference application, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh had prayed that the following questions of law be referred to the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court:- 1. Machine, Machinery, Plant, Apparatus, Tools or Appliances etc. used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, are ineligible for Modvat Credit under the exclusion clause of Explanation to Rule 57 A(1). Foundary Flux, IRL Mix, Refractories and Mortar be covered in the excluded category of items in the explanation to Rule 57 A(1)? 2. The items Machine, machinery, plant, etc. have been used in the exclusion clause made Rule 57 A(1) in a general sense. If their constituents are taken as inclusive inputs when the plant or machines are not, will not the exclusion become superfluous and meaningsless.2. I have heard Shri Swatanter Kumar, JDR and Shri J.S.Agarwal, Advocate. I find that the Tribu...

M/S Vishal Printing Press Vs. Cc, Amritsar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellants, engaged in the activity of printing, imported a consignment of second hand offset printing machinery and claimed customs clearance of the goods by filing Bill of Entry No. 92/99 dated 24.6.99 through their CHA. Import of second hand capital goods was permitted up to 31.3.99 subject to actual user condition under the provisions of para 5.4 of the EXIM Policy, 1997-2002. Import of such goods, with effect from 1.4.99, was permissible only under specific import licence. Neither any valid import licence was produced by the importer, nor could they produce any evidence to show that the shipment had taken place before 1.4.99. Therefore, the Joint Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act with option to the party to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs.2,10,000/- as well as payment of customs duty leviable on the goods. The Joint Commissioner also stipulated that, on redemption of the goods, the importer shall ...

M/S. Rajasthan Synthetic Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT781TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of fabric bags and they were availing the benefit of MODVAT Credit. On 5.3.97, the factory of appellants was visited by the officers of the revenue. On scrutiny of record and verification of the inputs, certain inputs were found in excess to their recorded balance.A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscating the inputs found in excess to their statutory record under Rule 173 Q of the Rules 226 of the Rules. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods under Rule 173 Q of the Rules and gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed under Rule 173 Q of Rules. The appellants filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), vide impugned order, held that the goods are not liable to confiscation un...

Kamal Kishore Saboo Vs. Nawabzada Humayun Kamal Hasan Khan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)635; AIR2001Delhi220; 90(2001)DLT45; 2000(57)DRJ617

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Arguments in this case were heard on 10th January, 2001 and judgment was reserved. However, at that stage counsel for both the parties had requested that the judgment be held over for at least two weeks in order to give an opportunity to the parties to reach an amicable settlement regarding the controversy in the suit. More than two weeks have passed. However, there is no information about any settlement having been reached between the parties. We accordingly proceed to pronounce the judgment.2. An Agreement to Sell dated 5th January, 1991 in respect of properties bearing nos.636, 637-1/2, 641-1/2 and 642 situated at Chandni Chowk was alleged to have been executed between the appellant and respondent. As per that Agreement, respondent had agreed to sell the aforesaid properties to the appellant for a total consideration of Rs.3.80 lakhs. Rs.50,000/- was paid by the appellant to the respondent as earnest money. Respondent was to obtain income tax clearance from the...