Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Vijay Engg. Corpn. and M/S. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT290TriDel

1. These two appeals have been filed by M/s. Vijay engg. Corporation and M/s. Vijay Tractors Corporation, being aggrieved with the demand of duty and imposition of penalty by Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut under the impugned Order No. 12-Collr.De Novo/1991-92 dated 13.11.91.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate for both the appellants, submitted that M/s. Vijay Engg. Corporation, a partnership concern consisting of 3 partners came into existance in 1967; that M/s. Vijay Tractors Cropn. is also a partnership concern consisting of 3 partnership and it came into existence in 1957; that Vijay Engg.Corporation (V.E.C.) besides dealing in Petroleum products, Batteries and other items,manufacture fuel tank, base frame, and control panels for diesel generating sets; that Vijay Tractors Corpn. (V.T.C.) were buying six components of D.G. sets, namely I.C. Engines, Alternator, Control Panel, Battery, Fuel Tank, Base Frame besides trading on other goods; that they were also assembling D....

M/S Atma Tube Products Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing the present appeal, M/s Atma Tube Products Ltd. are required to deposit an amount of Rs 10,14,146.22 and further amount of Rs 10 lakhs as penalty. The facts of the case has been dealt with in the order-in-original. Shri Gagan Kohli, advocate, appearing for the appellants, submits that the appellants had written to the Department before taking the credit in respect of their inputs Cold Rolled Strips lying on stock on 1.3.1994 when the duty was levied on stainless steel tubes, their final product. Prior to that, as the final products were exempted goods, modvat credit was not allowed to be taken. He refers to the communication addressed to the Asstt. Collector at page 18 of the paper book. He also refers to the details given in that letter at page 20 of the paper book. Shri M.M. Dubey, JDR, submits that the modvat credit had been disallowed and the appellants have not challenged that order.2. After hearing both the sides and after going through the facts on record, we con...

M/S. Freezair India (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing their appeals, M/s Freezair India (P) Ltd. are required to deposit duty amount of Rs 45,62,325/-, penalty amount of Rs 45,62,325/- and Shri Kuldeep Singh Punn Rs 3 lakh imposed by way of penalty and Shri Narender Singh Punn Rs 2 lakh by way of penalty.2. Shri K.K. Anand, advocate, submits that M/s Freezair India (P) Ltd. had already deposited a sum of Rs 5 lakh even before the adjudication and this amount has been appropriated as will be clear from para 44 of the impugned order-in-original. He further submits that the proceedings relate to the period when the company was a sole proprietory concern of Shri Kuldeep Singh Punn, but the duty has been demanded in the impugned order from the private limited company which came into force subsequently. He submits that the company is in financial difficulties and they have a arguable case in their favour.3. Shri M.M. Dubey, JDR, refers to the detailed discussion in the impugned order and reiterates the grounds taken by the adjud...

M/S Sip Industries Ltd. Vs. the Designated Authority Joint

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC120

1. There is no appearance on behalf of the appellant. They filed written arguments. A contention raised therein is that since M/s First Intercontinental Corporation has stopped export of Bishphenol-A to India since 1997, after imposition of Anti-dumping for the first time on a provisional basis, no Anti-dumping duty should have been imposed on them. On this ground they challenged the Anti-dumping duty imposed as per Notification No. 40/97 dated 29th April, 1997.2. Appellant sought a review of Anti-dumping duty imposed on them as Per Notification No. 40/97 dated 29th April, 1997 by filing a new shipper review. That application for review was rejected by the Designated Authority. Against the said rejectection they have come us to appeal.3. Government of India by Notification dated 3rd November, 2000 rescinded Notification imposing Anti-dumping duty on the products exported by the appellant. In other words, by this notification dated 3rd November, 2000, Government of India Notification N...

M/S. Ess Ess Metals and Electricals Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri J.P. Kaushik, advocate, appearing for the appellants refers to paras 5 & 6 of the order-in-original and submits that the messages said to have been sent to the proprietor on 4.5.1998, 5.5.1998, 8.5.1998 and 13.5.1998 had not been received by him. The demand of duty was about Rs 50 lakh and he was keen to get the opportunity to explain the case. The order has been passed ex-parte without hearing the appellants. He prays for remand of the matter. Shri M.M. Dubey, JDR, submits that while he has no objection for remand of the matter, but in the facts and circumstances of the case the amount pre-deposited be ordered to remain with the Department till the final disposal on re-adjudication.2. We find that the matter has been decided without hearing the appellants. Although the adjudicating authority has explained the circumstances in which the ex-parte order has been resorted to, we consider that in the interest of justice and keeping in view the amount of duty involved, the matt...

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S. Bhilwara Processors Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filled by the Revenue, the order-in-appeal under challenge is of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, in which he has set aside the penalty on M/s Bhilwara Processors Ltd. Both the sides agreed that the period involved in these proceedings is from April 1994 to March 1995 and that the provisions of Section 11-AC came into force subsequently. The Tribunal in a number of decisions has taken a view that the mandatory penalty under Section 11-AC of the Act was not to be levied when the period involved was prior to the enactment of the law relating to the mandatory penalty under Section 11-AC of the Act.2. Keeping in view the above position, insofar as this aspect is concerned, we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected. The cross-objection filed by the respondents is also disposed of accordingly....

M/S. Telc0 Vs. Cce, Patna

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC579

1. In this appeal filed by M/s Tata Engg. & Locomotive Co. Ltd., the issue involved is whether the Collector was competent to adjudicate the matter without issuing the shown cause notices and whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 217/86 dt. 2-4-86 and 281/86 dt.22-4-86 was available to material handling equipments and measuring and checking instruments manufacture by them.2. Shri R. Swaminathan, 1d. Consultant, submitted, that the Appellants manufacture Motor Vehicle and parts thereof; that they also manufacture material handling equipments like lifting tackes, trolleys, conveyors, carriers, loading-unloading equipments etc., and measuring and checking equipments for captive use; that before the introduction of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985, all these items were exempt under Notification 118/75-CE; that after introduction of new Tariff these were exempt under notification no. 217/86 as these were captively used in or in relation to the manufacture of the fin...

M/S. J.R. Sharma Overseas Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Atul Jha, advocate, prays for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable in the Tribunal. Shri M.M.Dubey, JDR, has no objection.2. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The relevant papers, on getting the proper application from the appellants, be returned to them against the receipt, if permissible under the Rules....

M/S Til Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri S.C. Chakraborty, advocate, submits that the show cause notice dated 4.5.2000 has since been adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division II, Ghaziabad, under his order dated 27.4.2001. The order has been received only recently by the appellants and they intent to seek legal remedies with regard to such order.2. In view of the above, the misc. application of the appellant has become infructuous and the same is dismissed. Ordered accordingly....

Lundup Tamang Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)1066; 2001CriLJ3086; 92(2001)DLT278; 2001(60)DRJ115

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by Lundup Tamang, (hereinafter referred to as detenu) challenging the order of detention passed by Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the L.G.) in purported exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( in short, the Act) with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, and also preventing him from transporting and selling smuggled goods, in future. At the relevant point of time, the detenu was lodged in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.2. Case of the detenu in a nutshell is as follows:Petitioner-detenu is a foreign national residing in Nepal. he had come to India in connection with his business. he was arrested by the DRI officials on the allegations on being in illicit possession of US$ 35900, equivalent Rs.15,40,110/- in Indian currency found in the checked in package when he w...