Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S. Maiden Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)LC51Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order in appeal dt.15.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order in original dt.27.6.2000 of the Dy.Commissioner and allowed the benefit of Notifications Nos.5/98-CE dt.2.6.98 and 5/99-CE dt.28.2.99, to the respondents.3. The respondents an 100% EOU, were engaged in the manufacture of recycled LDPE plastic granules and recycled LDPE plastic Agglomerates falling under sub-heading 3901.10 of the CETA. They had been clearing the goods manufactured bythem into Dometic Tariff Area(DTA) against payment in foreign exchange in terms of para 9.10(6) of EXIM Policy 1997-2002. The said clearances were effected by them without payment of additional duty of Customs(CVD) by claiming exemption other from in terms of Notifications no.5/98-CE dt. 2.6.98 and 5/99-CE dt.28.2.99.But they were in fact not eligible to avail the benefit of these notifications being not applicable to the clearances effect...

M/S. Cenlub Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC178

1. Appellant herein filed a Bill of Entry dated 8.2.99 for clearance of goods declared to be OV-100 Caller ID against invoice issued by M/s.Onvaco International Ltd. Taiwan. The value of the goods declared was Us$ 7.5 per piece FOB. Goods were found to bear the Name "CENLUB" without indicating the country of manufacture. It therefore appeared that the goods were prohibited in terms of Notification 1/64-Cus dated 18.1.64 and hence liable to confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the appellant also appeared to be liable to penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act. There was also a proposal to load the value to US$ 9 per piece CIF on the basis of contemporary import of similar goods. Vide letter dated 11.2.99.appellant stated that they had asked the manufacturer to incorporate their logo for the purpose of identification. They also requested for personal hearing and after granting hearing the adjudicating authority (Additional Commissioner) confiscated the ...

M/S. Upper India Steel Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Learned Counsel submits that applicants had deposited the penalty of Rs. 1,69,000/-. He also relies upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Piaggio Greaves Vehicles Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Pune-1, reported in 2001 (42) RLT 315 (CEGAT-L.B.) where the Tribunal held that when the MODVAT credit was not utilised and reversed on asking of the Revenue the penalty is not sustainable.Learned Counsel submits that in this case the dispute is regarding the capital goods and the appellants are claiming the goods as part of the Mill. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.3. In this case the dispute is regarding the availability of credit in respect of capital goods the appellant had already reversed the credit.Therefore, in this situation, the deposit of penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. Registry is directed to list the appeal on 11.9.2001....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Atul Fastners

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT632TriDel

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents inspite of notice.3. In this case the appeal is to be filed on or before 12.4.2001 and appeal was filed by the Revenue on 16.4.2001. The contention of the Revenue is that 13th, 14th and 15th April, 2001 were the holidays.Therefore, the appeal was filed on 16.4.2001. The Revenue is also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani, reported in (1998) 3, S.C.C. 132. In view of the explanation given by the Revenue and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned....

M/S. Bombay Bangalore Freigh Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT1366TriDel

1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common order in original dated 31.8.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs vide which he had ordered the confiscation of the goods and imposed penalty of Rs.5 lakhs each on them, besides imposing penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on consignors/consignees of the goods also.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under: 3. On 8.3.99 acting on specific information the officers of the Headquarter of Preventive Branch of the New Custom House searched the office-cum-godown of the company M/s. Bombay Bangalore Freight Carrier Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as company(appellant no.1) in the presence of their Manager, Ashwani Kumar(appellant no.2) which resulted in the recovery of bearings of foreign origin valued at Rs.36,74,000/-.On demand Ashwani Kumar (appellant no.2) produced GRs and invoices accompanying the goods. In those documents the names of the consignors and consignees were recorded which had been...

iqpal Quraishi Vs. Cc, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On matter being called nobody is present on behalf of the appellant.Accordingly, we have heard Shri Rajeev Tandon, SDR and have gone throught the Condonation of Delay Application. The appllants were required to file the appeal on 1st of April 2001, whereas the same has been filed on 16th of April 2001. Thereby causing a delay of about 15 days. As per the appellant, he came to the Tribunal to file the appeal on 1st of April 2001 with a Draft of Rs.200/-, when he was advised by the Registry that a Draft of Rs.1,000/- is required. He went back and prepared the Draft of Rs.1000/- on 4.4.2001. Thereafter 5th 6th April, 2001 were holidays and the appellant had to move to Lucknow as his sister met with an accident. Affidavit could also be prepared only on 16.4.2001. In these circumstances the prayer for condoning the delay.After going through the above overments made by the applicant/appellant in the condonation of delay application, we observe that there was a sufficient cause in the app...

M/S. Somaiya Organics (India) Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC185

1. By this appeal, the Department confirmed three demands of duty and imposition of penalty of Rs. 14,89,61,104.00. Along with the appeals, the appellants have filed a stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demanded and penalty imposed.2. Arguing the case for the applicants Shri V.Lakshmikumaran, Ld.Counsel submits that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of Ethy1 Alcohol-Denatured. They have two units, one at Captainganj and the other at Barabanki. In their Captainganj unit, the appellants manufactured Denatured Spirit whereas at the Barabanki factory they manufactured chemicals. Since the applicants were using De-natured Spirit captively a dispute arose as to whether the value should be computed under Rule 6(b) (ii) as claimed by the manufacturers or under Rule 6(b) (i) as held by the Department. He submits that the appellants were getting molasses of manufacturers of de-natured spirit at controlled prices. He submits that the Department held that since comparable...

M/S. Rajendra Brothers 2 Shri Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC180

1. These are two appeals. The appellants have challenged the impugned order No. BKG/CC/ICD/TKD/26/2000 dated 31.3.2000. The Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi by this impugned order demanded customs duty of Rs. 30,37,436/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs on M//s.Rajendra Brothers and Rs. 1 lakh on Shri Ravinder Rastogi, partner of the firm.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants presentea shipping bill dated 19.8.89 for 1,800 bags declared to contain 90,000 kgs Zinc Oxide. The goods were examined by the Examiner, the officer recorded the examination report at the back of the shipping bill reading as "Inspected a lot of 1800 bags. Selected, opened 10% at random for examination and found to contain Zinc Oxide as per invoice, P/L and GR attached. Samples drawn from the bag." This examination report was also signed by the superintendent. The sample was taken and sent for laboratory test to Central Revenue Control Laboratory. The Chemical test of the sample confirmed...

M/S. Vikas Rubber Roll Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. Learned Counsel submits that the duty amount of Rs. 57,786/- has already been deposited by the applicant through PLA account. He submits that at the time of visit of the Revenue officer they have sufficient amount in their RG-23 Part II account. In spite of this, Revenue compelled them to pay the duty through the PLA account. He submits that in these circumstances the application be allowed.3. Since the duty amount has already been deposited at the time of visit of the Revenue Officer, the deposit of penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. To come up for arguments on 11.9.2001....

income-tax Officer Vs. New Winner Raw Hide Co., Smt. Priti

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)255ITR12(Delhi)

1. All these appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) taking the ground that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271B of the Act.2. The facts of all these appeals are that the assessee was required to obtain tax audit report under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act within the prescribed period. The prescribed period for all these assessees was October 31st of the respective assessment years. It is also revealed from the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that in all these cases, the assessee obtained the tax audit report on or before October 31st of the respective years though the same was filed along with the return of income which was, however, belated. The Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated the penalty proceedings and imposed the same. The assessee preferred appeal against thes...