Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

M/S Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT596TriDel

1. This is an application filed by M/s Punjab Tractors Ltd. for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 27,98,535/- and penalty Rs. 5,06,00/- imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi.2. Sh. M.P. Devnath, ld. advocate, submitted that the applicants manufacture Harvester Combine and parts thereof; that they have been classifying the parts under Sub-heading 84.33.00 applicable to the Harvester Combine since these parts were suitable for use solely or principally with the Harvester Combine; that the Commissioner under the impugned order has classified the parts/components under Sub-heading 8483.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, relying upon Note 2(a) to Section XVI. The ld. advocate further submitted that a conjoint reading of the various notes to Section XVI would indicate that if an item is suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, then the parts are to be classified with machines of ...

M/S. Escorts Ltd., F.E.D. Vs. Cce, Delhi-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Escorts Ltd. (F.E.D.), the issue involved is whether Hydraulic pump manufactured by them are classifiable under Heading 8413.80 as claimed by them or under Heading 87.08 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as decided by the Commissioner under the impugned Order.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture Hydraulic Gear Pump which is basically designed to move liquids; that since gear pump belongs to the positive displacement category of pumps the pressure in the hydraulic system fed by such a pump is developed by forcing hydraulic fluid into a constrained space; that the system pressure is governed by a relief or a safety in the system; that they use the gear pump in the tractors; that during 1995-96 they classified the product under heading 8413.10 which was not disputed by the department; that due to budgetary changes in 1996 they classified the impugned product under heading 8479.10 which was c...

M/S. Inter Plastics Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this stay application for waiver of penalty of Rs.50,000/-.2. Heard both sides. The contention of the applicant is that they had already deposited duty of Rs.86,483/-. The contention of the Revenue is that the duty and penalty imposed on the appellant for the shortage in the raw materials and the finished goods the their authorised signatory admitted the fact the goods in question were short. The case of the applicants was arguable and it requires detailed appreciation of the facts. It is not fit case for total waiver of penalty. Taking into the facts of the case, the applicant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- within four weeks. On deposit of the amount, remaining amount of penalty is waived. To come up for hearing on 24.7.2001.(dictated in court)...

M/S Insultek Engineers (P) Ltd., Vs. Cce, New Delhi Ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application filed by M/s Insultek Engineers (P) Ltd., for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,00,862.00 and penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order. Shri A.K. Roy, Managing Director of the applicants appeared for hearing and submitted that they manufacture Air Dryers and avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules; that the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand on the ground that they had removed the inputs as such under Rule 57F(1)(ii). He further submitted that they have not cleared the inputs as such; that what they had cleared was parts of Air Dryer; that Air Dryer is generally a huge equipment and it is impossible to transport the same in one truck and the equipment had to be transported piecemeal in different trucks; that the Air Dryer is finally assembled and installed at the customers' premises; that accordingly they had paid the du...

M/S Tarsem Singh Multani and Sons, Vs. Commissioner, Customs, Amritsar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC396

1. These are five applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the following amounts of duty confirmed and penalty imposed by the Commissioner Customs, Amritsar.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Name of the Duty PenaltyAppellants------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M/s Tarsem Singh 52,184/- 52,184/-& Sons.M/s Bee Bee Interna- 1,51,296/- 1,51,296/-tional.M/s Gaurav Arora. 67,775/- 67,775/-M/s Gurdas & Co. 52,400/- 52,400/-M/s Jagdish Chander 1,21,541/- 1,21,541/-Sharma.----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- 2. Shri G.S. Bhangoo, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Commissioner, Customs under different impugned orders has disallowed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 56 of 1998 CUS dated 01.08.1998 in respect of garlic imported by them holding that no evidence had been produced by the applicants to show that they ...

M/S. Climate Systems India Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Climate Systems India Ltd., the matter relates to the imposition of penalty of Rs. 4,36,000/- under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The allegations against the appellants were that when they supplied their goods to the customers, there was a Price Escalation Clause. The goods involved were mechanically assembled aluminum radiators and their customers were M/s.Maruti Udyog. In consequence of the Price Escalation Clause, they got extra amounts but did not declare the same to the department. They deposited the amount on varying dates from September, 1994 to March, 1995. The major portion of the amount was deposited on 23.12.94 while the goods were supplied during the period April, 1993 to October, 1994.2. Shri V.M. Verma, Advocate submits that the appellants were not required to disclose the details of the Price Escalation Clause. There was no malafide and the amount was deposited when the requirement was made by the Department. The amount ha...

M/S. Asian Alloys Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has come present on behalf of the appellants on the call of the matter. A notice of hearing was issued to the appellants as well as to their Advocate on record on 4.5.2001, but no response has been received. Therefore, we proceed to deal with the matter after hearing Shri Rajeev Tandon, SDR, on merits.2. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the order-in-original No.IV(16)CL/IF/70/T/99/PT/12398 dated 30.11.99 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, which has been passed on the basis of the interim order made by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on 29.09.99 in W.P. No. 13782 of the appellants. The extract of that order of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced below:- " We, therefore, direct the Commissioner, Central Excise to dispose of the application of the assessee afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and determine its Actual Production and thereafter compute excise duty on that basis. The Department will also...

M/S. Uttam Bharat Electricals Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Heard the 1d.JDR and none appeared on behalf of the appellants. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed vide Final Order No.A/135/01-NB dt.11.1.2001 for non compliance with the Stay order. Now the applicants have produced the evidence for deposit of Rs.20,000/- as per Stay Order dt.7.12.2000. As the appellants had complied with Stay Order, the Final Order dismissing the appeal for non compliance of Section 35F is recalled and the appeal is retored to its original number. Registry is directed to list the case on 11.9.2001. (dictated in court)....

Shri Ashwani Kumar Jain, M/S. Vs. Cce, Meerut - Ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT29TriDel

1. These three stay applications arise out of appeals bearing Nos.E/17-19/2001-NB which have been preferred by the appellants against the common order in original dated 5.10.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs vide which he had imposed penalties of different amounts, as detailed therein on them besides ordering confiscation of the goods.2. Stay application No.C/57/2001-NB has been filed by appellant no.1, Shri Ashwani Kumar in A.No.C/17/2001-NB vide which he had prayed for waiver of penalty of Rs.5 crores imposed on him under Section 114 read with Section 113 of the Customs Act. While stay application No.C/58/2001-NB has been moved by the appellant no.2, M/s.Agemo Leather Components (P) Ltd. in A.No.E/18/2001-NB and they have sought waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.1.75 crores and of Rs.75 lakhs imposed on them under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The third stay application No.C/59/2001-NB has been filed by appellant no.3, M/s.Sukumar Chemicals (P) Ltd. in A.No.E/19/2001...

income Tax Officer Vs. Subhash Chandra Wadhwa

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)80ITD366(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal by Department against the order of the CIT(A), dt.27th June, 1994, relating to asst. yr. 1993-94. The following grounds of appeal have been taken by the Department : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that only the net income as computable in the hands of the minors has got to be clubbed in the hands of the assessee under Section 64(1A) of the IT Act, 1961. The learned CTT(A), thus, has wrongly directed the AO to allow deduction of Rs. 35,000 under Section 80-I of the IT Act, 1961 @ Rs. 7,000 in respect of each child separately. 2. That the order of the CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts be set aside and the order of the ITO be restored." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee shown income from plying of truck, capital gains, and interest/dividend. The assessee had also included income of five minor children from interest/dividend under Section 64(1A) of the IT Act. While computing the incom...