Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. S.A.i.L. Vs. C.C.E., Raipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)LC89Tri(Delhi)

1. In these appeals, the common issue is involved and, therefore, these are being taken-up together for disposal.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products and in respect of mortars, they claimed the benefit of notification no. 217/86-CE and, alternatively, they also claimed under notification 281/86-CE.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, fairly concedes that in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of TISCO Ltd. vs C.C.E. reported in 2000 (38) RLT 139, they are not entitled for the benefit of notification 281/86-CE. In respect of the benefit of notification no. 217/86, the adjudicating authority held that the mortar is not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, therefore, the benefit of this notification was denied.Ld. Counsel submits that mortar was used in relation to production of final product and Tribunal in the case of Steel Ingots Limited vs C.C.E.Natraj Ceramic & Chemical ...

Shri Banwari Lal, M/S Hindustan Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC832

1. All these appeals are directed against order in original No.BKG/CC/ICD/TKD/29/2000 dated 27.4.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi-110020.Therefore, all the appeals were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the import of 10 containers of zinc. 5 bills of entry, Nos.174-178, all dated 26.3.99 were filed for their clearance in the name of M/s Hindustan Overseas with the Customs declaring the goods as 'zinc slab scull' i.e. zinc waste and scrap and the country of origin was shown as Netherland.Value at the rate of US $ 575 PMT was declared in the Bills of Entry; but the assessing officer rased the value to US $ 600 PMT and assessed the goods to customs duty. Duty so assessed was paid also. Before the goods were cleared, DRI officers examined the entire consignment. It was observed that six of the containers had not been opened and they had one ...

M/S. Triveni Engg. and Ind. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture V.P. Sugar and molasses falling under tariff Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985. During the period October,96 to November,96 they availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.1,11,902,50 on certain items under rule 57-T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The proceedings were initiated against them and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Muzaffarnagar vide his order dated 26.9.97 disallowed the credit of the aforesaid amount to the appellants apart from imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on them under rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The party filed an appeal but the Commissioner (appeals), Ghaziabad vide his order dated 18.5.1999 dismissed the appeal of the party upholding the order of the Original Authority in respect of the item welding electrodes, Butyl Diaphram and rubber star washer. The credit on other items is allowed to the party.3. The present appeal is against the above order of the Commissioner (appeals). ...

M/S Up State Sugar Corpn. Vs. Cce Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case authorities disallowed modvat credit of Rs. 34,334/- availed on Lubricating oil and Rs.1,260/- on Welding Electrodes holding lubricating oil is not inputs under Rule 57 and Welding Electrodes are not capital goods entitled to under Rule 57Q. That hearing both the sides, we agree with the appellants counsel Credit is available to them on both items, In view of the decision of the Tribunal(Larger Bench) in the case of Modi Rubber 2000(119) 197 in which lubricating oil has been held to be entitled to modvat credit and Larger Bench decision in the case of Jawahar Mills Vs CCE 1999 (108) ELT 47 which has been re-affirmed by the Larger Bench in the case of Surya Roshni 2001(128) ELT 293. in which credit has been held to be admissible on electrodes.2. Following the ratio of the above orders I set aside denial of the modvat credit and the entire amount and set aside penalty imposed....

M/S. Filament India Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture P.P. Yarn falling under Sub-heading 5402/5403 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.2,46,839/- on certain Capital goods under rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules,1944 during the period from 21.11.94 to 27.1.95. The proceedings were initiated against them and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur- Rural vide his order dated 30.3.97 disallowed the modvat credit of the aforesaid amount to the party under Rule 57U.2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (appeals), New Delhi vide his order dated 22.1.1998 remanded the matter to the Original Authority in respect of the items OTC, Condenser and Chiller. He allowed credit of duty paid on Pressure Controller, Oil, Switch & Contractor but disallowed the appeal in respect of the balance of six items.3.The present appeal is against the above order of the Commissioner(appeals). I have heard Shri M.P. Devnath, Advocate fo...

M/S. Margra Indus. Ltd. Vs. C.C., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC786

1. The appellants filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants made import of rough marble blocks and filed a bill of entry declaring the value as 90 US Dollars PMT. The adjudicating authority held that the goods, in question, require a license and also enhanced the value of goods from 90 US Dollars to 115 US Dollars PMT and conficasted the goods and allowed the redemption of the goods on payment of redemption fine and personal penalty was also imposed on the appellants. Against the adjudication order, the appellants filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, remanded the issue of valuation to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication with the direction to supply the copies of the documents on the basis of which the value of the goods was enhanced. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, however, upheld the order in respect of co...

M/S. Vegetable VitamIn Foods Co. Vs. Cce, Bombay

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. vegetable Vitamin Foods Company Ltd., relates to the valuation of 'Glycerine' manufactured by them out of raw material supplied by M/s. State Trading Corporation.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture 'Glycerine' from their own raw materials acquired from open market; that they also do splitting of imported tallow into "Tallow Fatty Acids" and "Glycerine" on behalf of State Trading Corporation (STC); that as per contract entered into with STC, they were giving delivery of tallow Fatty Acid to the customers of STC; that Glycerine, was sold by STC to the Appellants; that the price of Rs.14671.43 p. per M.T. was declared by them for such glycerine which includes the value of glycerine and the job charges; that, however, the Assistant Collector enhanced the value to Rs.18,000/- per M.T. under Adjudication Order dated 11/14.2.1985; that two more show cause notices were issued for demanding differ...

Sh. Arun Khanna, Sh. Tilak Raj and Vs. Cc, Icd, Tuglakabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Under Stay Order No. S/250-253/2000-NB(DB) dated 31.7.2000, the following order was recorded - 1. On a careful consideration of the submissions of both the sides, we are of the view that the issue regarding availability of the beneit of Notification No 133/94 to the appellant company is a contentious one and it can be considered in detail only when the appeals are taken up for final hearing. having regard to the prima facie plea that most of the demand is beyond the period of six months and that the proviso to Section 11-A has not been invoked, we direct pre-deposit of Rs. 1 lakh towards duty within a period of 8 weeks from to-day. On such deposit, pre-deposit of balance duty and the penalties of all the four applicants shall stand waived and their recovery stayed pending the appeals. Failure to comply with this direction shall result in dismissal of appeal of M/s Digiflex (India) Ltd without prior notice.Compliance to be reported on 18.10.2000.2. on pre-depositing Rs. 1 lakh towar...

Maj. Gen.(Retd.) F.D. Larkins, Avm (Retd.) K.H. Larkins and Lt. Col (R ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)1018; 92(2001)DLT5; 2001(60)DRJ833; 2001(2)JCC193

R. S. Sodhi. J 1. Criminal Appeals 185/85, 214/85, 202/85 and 175/85 seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 24.7.1985 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 33/84 whereby the learned Judge held the appellants guilty as under :2. Maj. Gen.(Retd.) F.D.Larkins (for short 'A-1'), AVM (Retd.) K.H.Larkins (for short 'A-2'), Jasbir Singh (for short 'A-3') and Jaspal Singh Gill (for short 'A-4'), all the accused were convicted under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. A-1, F.D.Larkins was further convicted under Sections 3(c) and 5(b) of the Official Secret Act (for short 'the Act'). A-1 was further convicted under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and under Section 61(i)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act A-2, K.H.Larkins was further convicted under Section 3(c) of the Act. A-3, Jasbir Singh, was further convicted under Section 3(c), 5(3) and 6(d) of the Act. A-4, Jaspal Singh Gill was convicted under Section 3(c) of the Act for having been found in possession of a ...

Union of India Vs. Shri SaIn Ditta Mal and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)677; 92(2001)DLT431

ORDERKhan, (J) 1. 120 round pieces of gold are at the centre of controversy in this appeal. Customs authorities seized this gold way back on 6.7.1996 from respondents residence. NO steps were, however, taken for its confiscation within the prescribed period under the Customs Act. On the contrary they issued a show cause notice to them for its proposed confiscation and levy of penalty under Rule 126. They replied to this, but collector passed order dated 13.9.1968 confiscating the gold in question and imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/- each on them. They took appeal against this wherein only penalty was reduced to Rs.4,000/-. They then filed two writ petitions (C.W.266 and 293/1971) and challenged the validity of the action for having been taken beyond prescribed statutory period.Appellants defended this by seeking shelter both under the Customs Act and the DIR. But, controversy still persisted as the Gold Control Ordinance/Act came into force meanwhile triggering the issue whether the s...