Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Ved Prakash Goel Vs. Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics and anr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT729; 2002(79)ECC174

Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner who apprehended arrest by officers under the respondents, namely, the commissioner of Central Bureau of Narcotics, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh and the Assistant Commissioner (Customs), Inland Container Depot (ICD), Tughlakabad, New Delhi. 2. According to the averments in the petition, the respondents want to implicate the petitioner, Ved Prakash Goel in a case titled as ' Customs v. Daya Ram and Ors. ' filed in the Court of Ms.I.K. Kochar, Special Judge for NDPS cases, New Delhi. One Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal (S.K. Aggarwal) who is one of the accused in the above mentioned case had tendered as statement before the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics that he had procured Acetic-Anhydride from the petitioner. The said Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal retracted the said statement on the same day when he was produced before the magistrate. He categorica...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Nahar Fibres Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal where the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of Distribution Board and Panels are allowed. The respondents vide letter dated 13.3.2001 made a request to decide the appeal on merit.3.The contention of the Revenue is that Distribution Board and Panels are not used for producing or processing of any products or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order gave a specific finding that these are used to regulate the power supply to the machines. Hence these are essential accessories for running the machines and without these Distribution boards and panels, the manufacture of final product is not possible. This factual finding is not controverted by the Revenue in the appeal. At the relevant time Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules reads that capital goods means 'Machines, Plant, Equipment, Apparatus, tools, Applicances as well as their components...

C.C.E., Meerut Vs. M/S. Ester Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT234TriDel

1. The revenue filed this reference application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court for their valuable opinion: "(i) Whether the incidence of duty element paid on the inputs on which modvat has been availed which are used in the manufacture of final products and included in the price of the final product, would be deemed to have passed on to the customers. (ii) Whether sub-section (2) (d) of proviso of Section 11-B of Central Excise Act is applicable only to the duty of Excise paid on final products or it covers the duty paid on the goods captively consumed also." 3. The Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 99 & 99A/99-NB(DB) dated 28.12.98 held that the provisions of Sec. 11B are not applicable in case where the goods are captively consumed. The contention of the revenue is that now the issue is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd reported in 2000 (116) ELT 401(SC)wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the...

Gulab Chand Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of penalty of Rs. 1,000/- imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.2. The brief facts of the case are that some goods were found in the Tempo owned by the application the goods were not covered under any valid duty paying documents as per the Revenue. The Contention of the Applicant is that he is the owner of the Tempo and he is not concerned with any way in evasion of Central Excise duty. His tempo was only carrying the goods of some manufacturer and duty paying documents were also issued by the manufacturer. Whereas, on verification, it was found that only one of the invoice was not a valid invoice. Therefore, his contention is that he is not liable for any penal action.4. Taking into facts and circumstances of the case as the applicant is the owner of the tempo, he is not concerned with the goods in question, therefore, prima facie, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant. Hence the predeposit of whole o...

Shri M.P. Goenka Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. According to the applicant, there is an error in paragraph 3 os stay order No.S/72/2000/NB(DB) dated 7.2.01 in recording his submission that he delivered a total of 4 consignments of Chinese silk fabrics to Sanjay Msaheshwari on payment of a small commission as the applicant has throughout denied that he either new Sanjay Maheshwari or had any dealing with him.2. On hearing both sides, we are of the view that the ROM application is not maintainable as it arises out of an order passed in terms of Section 129 E of the Customs Act while the law (Section 129 B(2)) provides for filing of such application arising only out of an order passed in terms of Section 129 B(1) of the Customs Act....

M/S. Jay Pee Rewa Cement Vs. Cce, Raipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri M.P. Devnath, Advocate submits that in this appeal filed by M/s. Jay pee Rawa Cement Ltd., the matter relates to the modvat credit in respect of fuel oils used for generation of electricity and explosives. It is his submission that while the modvat credit in respect of fuel oils (furnace oil) is admissible in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaon - 2000 (36) RLT 537 (CEGAT-Larger Bench), the modvat credit is not admissible with regard to the explosives in view of the another Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jay pee Rewa Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2000 (38) RLT 1111 (Tribunal - Larger Bench).3. In view of the above two Larger Bench decisions of the Tribunal, part of the appeal which relates to the modvat credit on explosives is rejected while that part of the order which related to the modvat credit on furnace oil is allowed....

M/S. Prince Gutaka, Shri Haribhai Vs. Cce New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT109TriDel

1. This order will dispose of four appeals filed by the appellants bearing Nos.E/2181/98-NB, E/2178/98-NB, E/1927/98-NB and E/2022/98-NB.All these appeals arise out of common order in original dated 27th April 1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi as adjudicating authority. He through this impugned order had confirmed the duty demand of Rs.61,73,803/- on appellant No.1 the company, M/s.Prince Gutaka Ltd. (hereinafter referred as M/s. PGL Company)] and imposed penalty of Rs.30 lakhs on them. He had also imposed penalty of Rs.10 lakhs on the Managing Director of this company, Shri Hari Bhai Lalwani (Appellant No.2) and of Rs.5 lakhs on Sunil Kumar Khanna (Appellant No.3) under Rule 209-A of the Rules. The Commissioner had also ordered the confiscation of the vehicle with the option to the owner (Shri Om Prakash Tolani, Appellant No.4) to get the same redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs.50,000/-. He had further ordered the confiscation pan masala and raw mater...

M/S. Superior Steel Products Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT743TriDel

1. This is an application filed by M/s.Superior Steel Products stating that on going through the same the applicants find that the following points have not been taken into account by the Hon'ble Tribunal while passing its final order No.A/479/97-NB dated 17.4.97:- "a) Sales Tax Assessment Order No.49/Enf. dated 30th March, 1990 passed by Shri S.K.Jain, Assessing Authority (Enforcement). b) Judgement of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 21st March, 1991 passed in MCA No. 70/1990 in the case of the applicant themselves. c) Records of the inspections carried out at the factory of the applicants by the Enforcement cell of DESU on five occasions during the relevant period. d) Trade Notice No. 3/88-Customs issued by the Trichi Collectorate detailing thereunder the functions assigned to the Principal Collector. e) Functions of Principal Collector of Customs and Central Excise issued under C.B.E.C.s' letter No.MF/DR/A-11019/26/88-Ad.IV dated 13.6.1988. f) C.B.E.C's lett...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Madhumilan Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the benefit of MODVAT credit on the strength of original invoices was allowed on the ground that the duplicate invoice was lost in transit.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the invoice was misplaced by the respondents, therefore, it is lost after receipt of the goods, so, it is not lost in the transit. The respondents relies upon the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 (Tribunal) to say that loss in transit are also include the transit from supplier & inputs to the office of the concerned Excise officer and cannot mean only during transportation of the goods.4. In this case the appellant asked for permission to take credit on the strength of original copy of invoice as duplicate copy of invoice lost in transit. The only contention of the Reve...

Indian Regrigeration Industries Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture refrigerating and air conditioning machinery, appliances and parts thereof falling under Tariff item 29A of the then existing Central Excise Tariff. They filed classification list effective from 1.4.78 in respect of the goods manufactured by them. In this classification list, they claimed exemption under Notification No.71/78 dated 1.6.78. They declared that the value of the goods falling under item 29A during the year 1977-78 was Rs.42,03,147.46 (Rs.4,59,185.50 dutiable goods plus Rs.37,43,961.96 exempted goods). This classification list was approved on 17.12.79, rejecting the claim of the appellants for exemption under notification No.71/78.2. Immediately afterwords the appellants received a letter dated 26.12.79 from the Superintendent, Central Excise, demanding duty of Rs.5,91,400./- being the duty due from them as a result of finalisation of RT-12 returns.3. The party filed an appeal against the above communications dated 17.12.79 and dated 26.12.79,...