Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Govind Mills Ltd., Shri C.P. Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing their appeal, M/s Govind Mills Ltd. are required to pre-deposit the duty amount of Rs 42,38,392/- and Shri C.P. Agarwal, Managing Director, is required to pre-deposit the penalty amount of Rs 10 lakh and Shri Deepak Gupta, Partner of M/s Steadfast Engineers,Faridabad, is required to pre-deposit Rs 10 lakh imposed by way or penalty.2. Shri Amit Awasthi, advocate, submits that M/s Govind Mills Ltd. had already deposited a sum of Rs 20 lakh vide TR-6 Challan No. 1 dated 17.8.1988 and invites attention to serial no. 5 of the order portion of the order-in-original at page 55 of the paper book.3. As a sum of Rs 20 lakh has already been deposited by M/s Govind Mills Ltd., we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance duty amount and full penalty amount in their case.4. As regards Shri C.P. Agarwal, Managing Director, it was his submission that as the penalty has already been imposed on the appellants, for hearing the appeal a lenient view may be taken. After hearing S...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Oswal Overseas

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT232TriDel

1. According to the ld. SDR, the Tribunal has erred in relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Chander Kapoor vs. Amar Bose reported in 1990 (1) Supreme court Cases 234, in holding that the demand of duty connot be enforced against the appellants. Since the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has distinguished the above judgement of the Apex Court vide its judgement in the case of M/s. Wilson And Company vs. CCE, Madras 2. On hearing both the sides, we see no substance in the contention of the Revenue in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deeksha Suri vs. ITAT [1998 (102)ELT524 (Del) in the case of Deeksha Suri cited (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that merely because the Tribunal overlooked its own order while deciding an appeal finally, it will not render a judgement void or a nullity and such an order cannot be recalled (para 33 of the High Court Order). Further in the case of Ester Industries Ltd. vs.CCE,...

M/S. Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. and Vs. Cce, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application is in respect of our Final Order No. 353-356/2000-D dated 20.10.2000. The application submits that even though appeals were allowed on the ground of time bar no decision had been given on the issue of classification. The application points out that in a subsequent order, viz., Jyoti Overseas Ltd. & Anr. Vs. CCE, Indore & Anr. 2001 (44) RLT 37, the Tribunal had passed orders on the classification of the goods. The present application prays that our Final Order datd 20.10.2000 may be recalled and order passed on the question of classification also.2. When the application came up for hearing today, none appeared for the applicant. They, however, sent a letter dated 14.5.2001 requesting that the application may be decided in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in Jyoti Overseas Ltd. case. We have heard Learned D.R. who submitted that there is no apparent error in our Final Order 353-356/2000-D dated 20.10.2000. That order has disposed of the appeal on the...

M/S. R.S. Industries (Rm)ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter has come up today for reporting compliance with the direction dated 22.3.2001 for deposit of the duty amounts of Rs. 1,11,115/- and Rs. 50,842/-. Ld. Advocate, Sh. K.K. Anand for the appellants has today brought on record a certified extract of the relevant portion of the RG 23-A Part-II register evidencing payment of the aforesaid amounts by way of appropriate debit entries. It is, however, noted that the payment has been made "UNDER PROTEST". When an appellant-assessee is directed by the Tribunal to make a deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, such a deposit is not governed by any of the provisions of the Act or of the Rules thereunder which govern payment of duty under protest. In view of this position, the above conduct of the present appellant is reprehensible. The appellant is, therefore, directed to delete from the above register the endorsement "UNDER PROTEST" and report compliance to the Bench.However, the compliance with the direction for deposit...

M/S. Oswal Agro Mills Vs. Cc, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called. Shri J.S. Sinha, Advocate appeared for the appellants, M/s. Oswal Agro Mills. He submitted that the Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise had rejected their refund claims without affording proper opportunity.2. While the date of personal hearing was communicated, the appellants have some genuine difficulties and have sought adjournment. The adjournment was not given and ex-parte order was passed. He prays for remand of the matter.3. We have heard Shri Mewa Singh, SDR and have gone through the facts on record.4. The matter relates to the levy sugar in respect of which the duty has been paid originally as free sale sugar. Subsequently, the appellants filed tow refund claims. Both the refund claims were rejected on the ground of time bar.5. We find that the adjudicating authority had noted that the appellants have not filed any reply to the show cause notice.6. Shri J.S. Sinha, Advocate submitted that the reply was filed but was not considered. He submitted that ...

M/S. Vikram Cement Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. As per Order dated 26.3.2001 passed in the stay application, this Tribunal found that the issue in the appeal was squarely covered against the appellants by a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal and, therefore, in the absence of prima facie case, directed the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,26,651/- towards duty on or before 8.5.2001 for purpose of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Bench, however, granted waiver of deposit of penalty. Today the matter has come up for reporting compliance with the direction for deposit.There is neither any report of compliance nor representation for the appellants inspite of notice of the above order. The respondents is represented by ld. JDR, Sh. J. Singh.2. It appears from the proceedings on record that the appellants are not interested in pursuing this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution as well as for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F ibid....

M/S S.S. Enterprises and M/S S.K. Vs. Cce, Bangalore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are tow applications for rectification of mistake filed by M/s S.S. Enterprises and M/s S.K. Electronics with reference to the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the group of appeals in the name of M/s Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. & Others Vs. Collector of Central Excise.2. Sh. Jawahar Lal, Advocate appearing for the applicants prayed for withdrawal of the ROM application with liberty to file appropriate applications before the concerned Bench/Benches.3. Sh. M.M. Dubey JDR has no objection. Both the ROM applications are dismissed as withdrawn....

M/S. Agfa Gavaert A.G. Vs. Designated Authority and Addl.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT741TriDel

1. Notification No. 149/2000 -Customs dated 21.12.2000 imposed Anti-dumping duty on black and white Photographic Paper, both resin coated and fibre based, falling under sub-heading No.3703.10 and 3703.90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, originating in, or exported from the U.K. France and Hungary and imported into India. The rate of duty imposed was the difference between the amount mentioned in the corresponding entry in column 5 of the table annexed to the notification and the landed value of imported photographic paper. The amount mentioned in column 5 was the Reference Landed Value of the imported Black and White Photo graphic paper per sq. mtr. Thus, the Reference Landed Value mentioned in column No.5 constituted the reference price for determining whether there was dumping and where the Landed Value of an imported consignment was less than the Reference Landed Value, the difference between Reference Landed Value and the landed value of the imported consignment be...

M/S. Ashok Kr. Gupta Vs. Cc, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC542

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow confiscating 101 pieces of bearings of foreign origin valued at over Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 111(d) of the Customs Acts. That order was passed in adjudication of a show-cause notice issued to the present appellant, among others, alleging, inter alia, that the aforesaid goods which were seized from a truck intercepted by the officers of Customs on 16.2.99 at Gorakhpur on its way from Bagaha (in Bihar, near the Indo-Nepal border) to Ghaziabad (in U.P.) were smuggled goods dealt with by the appellants and liable to be confiscated under the above provisions of the Customs act. The show-cause notice relied upon a number o documents which were mentioned in the notice itself. The appellant's case is that none of those documents were delivered to them along with the notice. The appellant, therefore, by way of reply to the notice, requested the Commissioner to furnish copies of those documents. The Commissioner main...

M/S. Lily Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT91TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order the benefit of Notification No. 63/87-CE dated 1.3.87 was denied to the appellants.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Coated Fabrics falling under Chapter 59.03.19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were claiming the benefit of Notification No. 63/87-CE dated 1.3.87. Notification No. 63/87-CE dated 1.3.87 provides the rate of duty for the goods falling under Chapter 59.03.19 at the rate of Rs. 6.50 per square meter plus the duty for the time being leviable on the base fabrics under Chapter 52, if not already paid. The benefit of the Notification was denied on the ground that the appellant were using knitted fabrics falling under Chapter 60 of the Central Excise Tariff in the manufacture of coated fabrics.4. We find that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissi...