Delhi Court July 2001 Judgments

Shri Arvind Tomar and Shri Rajveer Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellants filed these two appels against the order in original passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The brief facts of the case are that on 9.1.98, the truck which is registered in the name of appellants was intercepted by the Customs authority and the goods valued at Rs. 54,85,000/- of third Country origin was recovered from the truck. Show case notice as issued to the appellants for confiscation of the truck as well as imposing penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, confiscated the goods in question and also confiscated the truck with the option to the appellants to redeem the truck on payment of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant.3. Learned Counsel submits that there is no evidence to show that appellants were concerned with the smuggled goods. The appellants are not claiming the gods. The appellants are poor persons and they were owner of the truck and they employed one Shri Ra...

Shri N.R. Handa, Partner, M/S. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT304TriDel

1. This application arises out of the order of Commissioner of Customs, Bombay by which he, inter alia, confirmed the duty demand amounting to Rs.96.71 lakhs on other noticees and confirmed the duty demand of Rs.2,13,848/- against the present applicant. In addition, he has also imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- upon the applicant under Section 112 (a) of the Act.2. The case of the Department is that Shri Vinod Kumar Chawla had an understanding with M/s. Pearl Industrial Company, HongKong who sent along with the consignment of VCR kits, manipulated invoices in which correct value of goods had been understated when compared with the value of the goods declared by them before the Customs Authorities in HongKong. It was found that there was gross variation between the prices declared by M/s. Wing Electronics & M/s. Life Electronics (Sh.Vinod Kumar Chawla is partner of Life Electronics) and these noticees had been paying the difference in cash on the additional invoices raised by the supp...

M/S. Media Video Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate submits that for hearing of the present application the applicants are required to pre-deposit (sic) of about Rs. 9 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 8.5 lakhs. He, further submits that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs has earlier been deposited by the applicant when the matter had come up before the Tribunal before it was remanded.He refers to the remand order passed by the Tribunal and particularly referred to the observations of the Bench at Page-144 of the Paper Book. Shri Ashok Kumar, Departmental Representative agrees with the factual position as submitted by the Advocate.2. After hearing both sides and after going through the facts on record, we direct that amount of Rs. 5 lakhs which had already been deposited, will remain with the Department till the final hearing of the case. Subject to the above pre-deposit of amount, the balance duty and penalty amount is waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. To come up on its own turn....

M/S. National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1.The appellant vide letter dated 17.5.2001 made a request of withdrawal of the appeals. In view of the request made, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn....

M/S. Kohli Auto Centre Vs. C.C., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Arguing the application for waiving pre-deposit of penalty, Shri G.L. Rawal, ld. Advocate submits that in the instant case, the goods in question on account of which a penalty has been imposed though allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine Rs. 4 lakhs are still lying in the custody of the Customs and their control after confiscation under the impugned order. He submits that since the goods are still lying in the control of the Customs authorities, therefore there is no question of any pre-deposit of penalty. He , therefore prays that pre-deposit of penalty may be waived and the case may be listed for early hearing as it is a question of export and earning of foreign exchange for the country.2. Shri S. Kumar, ld. JDR opposes the request and reads the last para of the impugned order stating that the appellants can redeem the goods any time even without payment of penalty. He, therefore prays that pre-deposit of penalty may be directed to the appellants.3. I have heard the rival sub...

M/S. Govind Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT1106TriDel

1. Shri Amit Awasthi Advocate submits that against the demand of Rs. 1,04,79,221.00 the applicants had already deposited a sum of Rs. 73,73,334.00 on the basis of manufacturer invoice and he produces a statement dated 28.5.2001 verified by the Supdt. of Central Excise, Gorakhpur. Although, it is not clear from this statement that this amount of Rs. 73,73,334.00 is out of the total demand made as per impugned order, taking note of the submissions of the learned Advocate for the purposes of hearing of the appeal, we direct the applicants to further deposit Rs. 10 lakhs within a period of 12 weeks from today. On pre-depositing of the above amount within a period of 12 weeks from today, the pre-deposit of balance amount will be waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. To come up for reporting compliance and further orders on 11th October, 2001....

M/S. Bundelkhan Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order in original passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order the abetment claim of the appellant for the period 1.8.97 to 7.8.97, 22.12.97 to 8.1.98 and 12.3.98 to 31.3.98 was rejected.2. Learned Counsel fairly submits that now in the present appeal they are not pressing the abetment claim of 1.8.97 to 7.8.97.3. In respect of the claim for the period 22.12.97 to 8.1.98, he submits that the claim was rejected only on the ground that necessary intimation of inclosure of the factory was received in the office of the Assistant Commissioner on 26.12.97. Learned Counsel submits that in this situation the claim for the period 26.12.97 to 8.1.98 should have been considered. Regarding this period, the Commissioner has not considered their claim. He fairly submits that now he is pressing for the period 26.12.97 to 8.1.98.4. In respect of the claim for the period 12.3.98 to 31.3.98, his submission is that the claim was rejected on t...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Tirupati Fabrics and Industrie ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in the dyeing of fabrics falling under Chapter 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were receiving polyester staple fibre for processing (dyeing) on job work basis from M/s Kamadgiri Synthetics Ltd., Gijarat under Rule 57F(4) challans since July, 1999. They utilised certain own modvatable inputs such as dyes and chemicals for processing of the goods, on which the assessee availed Modvat credit. The said goods after processing were cleared on payment of duty on the value equivalent to the job charges under cover of invoices issued under Rule 52A. In terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 6(b) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 the duty of excise is chargeable on the value of goods including the cost of goods plus job charges etc., or on the value of comparable goods. The assessee discharged the duty liability only on the value of job charges and not on t...

M/S. Associated Strips Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants seek waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 11,15,651/- confirmed as duty by inclusion of the elements of freight and transit insurance in the price of steel tubular poles, pipes etc., manufactured by them on the ground that the buyers' premise and not the factory gate, is the place of removal and, therefore, the price at the buyers' premises will be relevant for determining the assessable value of the goods in question. It is the finding of the Commissioner that the goods remain at the sellers risk until the point of destination where the goods are finally delivered to the buyer and hence ownership of the goods or title to the goods remains with seller (the applicants) until the point of destination. It is also the finding of the Commissioner that the transit insurance has been taken out in the name of the applicants and hence title to the goods has not passed to the buyer until the goods are delivered at the buyers' premises.2. On hearing both sides, we are of the view the a...

M/S. Mehar Printers Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT502TriDel

1. In this case M/s. Mehar Printers have come in appeal being aggrieved with the Order dated 11.1.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (ICD), under which machines imported by the Appellants were confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and penalty of Rs.1 lakhs was also imposed on them.2. Shri Akshay Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported one used Heidelberg Fourt Colur Press, Model 72V, with all standard accessories and one used Adast Dominant Single Colour Press, Model 715; that they filed Bill of Entry on 11.8.2000 for the clearance of the same along with a Chartered Engineer's certificate dated 4.8.2000 issued by M/s. Midland Engineering, Northamptoshire, according to which the impugned machine was over 10 years old; that they declared value at Rs. 13,78,650/-; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order has held that as the machines are more than 10 years old they had been imported against the prohibition ...