Delhi Court January 2002 Judgments

Mahendra Metal Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex., Bombay-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT480TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Mahendra Metal works is whether the value of clearances of excisable goods affected by M/s.N.G. Industries is to be included in the value of clearances of excisable goods manufactured and cleared by the Appellants.2. Shri A.C. Jain, Id. Advocate submitted that the Appellants are a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel utensils falling under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and availing the benefit of Small Scale Exemption under Notification Nos. 77/83, 77/85; that they purchased duty paid stainless steel flats which are sent by them to M/s. N.G. Industries for manufacture of Pattas; that SS Pattas are sent by M/s. N.G. Industries on payment of duty to them; that major portion of these pattas are sold by them to different buyers and the remaining are used by them in manufacture of stainless steel utensils; that the Collector under the impugned Order has held that the value of SS Patta a...

Rajiv Gupta and Ajay Gupta Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC610

1. These are two appeals filed by the appellants viz. Shri Rajiv Gupta and Ajay Gupta against the Order-in-Original dated 2.9.93 passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000 on Ajay Gupta and Rs. 25,000 on Shri Rajiv Gupta under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that there is no provision in the Customs Act for punishing the attempt to commit an offence; that by release of the currency, the independent corroboration has gone; he has drawn our attention to paras 3,4 and para 13(v) of the show cause notice and submitted that after reading of the said paras one can easily make out that the offence wishing to receive is not punishable under the Customs Act though it may be punishable under other provisions of Law like FERA and NDPS. In this regard he relied upon the decision in the case of Punit Kumar Sakhuja and Anr. 2001 (73) ECC 213 (Tri). He also contended that assuming but not admitting if on the bas...

Airport Authority of India Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC359

1. The appellants filed the three bills of entry as per particulars below claiming the benefit under Notification No. 36/96-Cus., dated 23-7-96 and Notification No. 11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-97; - 2. As per above notifications, the benefit was extended to navigational, communication, air traffic control and landing equipments. Further the condition attached to entry No. 143 and 146 of Notfn. Nos. 36/96-Cus. and No. 11/9/-Cus. respectively required the importer at the time of clearance to produce a certificate of Director of Civil Aviation that Navigational, Communication, Air Traffic Control and Landing Equipments are required to be used for the modernization of Air Port facilities and the said authority recommended the grant of exemption.3. The above said Bills of entry were assessed and cleared with the exemption as claimed.4. Subsequently a show cause notice, dated 20-10-97 was issued to the appellants demanding Rs. 2,76,03,995/-, Rs. 50,949/- and Rs. 2,98,867/-respectively from the im...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hanut Industries and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC552

1. In these five appeals preferred by Revenue, the issue involved is whether powder of LLDPE/LDPE/HDPE coming into existence as an intermediate product in the manufacture of water storage tanks by the respondents is chargeable to excise duty.2. Shri B.C. Mahay, Ld. DR, submitted that all the respondents manufacture water storage tanks, in the manufacture of which, they get the impugned powder, which falls under Heading 39.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the respondents were availing of benefit of Notification No. 217/86-CE, dated 2.4.86 and subsequently Notification No. 67/95-CE, dated 16.3.95 in respect of impugned powder; that as the water storage tanks up to 300 Lt. is subjected to nil rate of duty, show cause notices were issued for disallowing the benefit of Notification No. 217/86/67/95-CE; that the Assistant Commissioner, however, withdrew the proceedings for demand on the ground that the process carried out on converting polymers granules into powder ...

National Winder Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC338

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 24-3-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the Order-in Original dated 30-7-1998 of the A.C. disallowing the refund claim of the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of electric fans. They are exporting the fans besides clearing in the local market. They availed benefit of Duty Entitlement Certificate Scheme (DEEC Scheme).They imported raw material under the value based and quantity based advance licences issued to them under the said scheme. The Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-92 exempted the materials imported against that licence from the payment of whole of customs duty and additional duty, subject to the conditions specified therein. The appellants were initially not aware of the notification and on realisation their mistake, they decided to reverse the credit. However, they vide letter dated 30-1-95 intimated to the department that reversal of Modv...

Harbans Lal Malhotra and Sons Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kolkata

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC580

1. When the application for stay came up for hearing it was agreed by both sides that the appeal itself can be disposed of.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of razor and razor blades falling under Heading 82.12 of the Tariff and the excise duty is paid on the same. The appellant manufactures wax paper also which falls under sub-heading 4811.40. Wax paper is captively consumed for the manufacture of blades. Though the wax paper captively consumed was exempt under Notification Nos. 217/86-CE. and 67/95-C.E. during the relevant period, the appellant paid excise duty on the wax paper and took Modvat credit of the duty so paid. During the relevant period the appellant had also purchased duty paid wax paper from other manufacturers and used the same in the manufacture of blades.Therefore, for the purpose of valuation of the wax paper manufactured and captively consumed, appellant took the price at which it purchased the wax paper from the market as the basis being price of comparable goods...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pasupati Acrylon Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT597TriDel

1. This is an application filed by the Revenue for condonation of delay of 9 days in filing the appeal against Order-in-Original No. 27/99, dated 8-2-99.2. Shri Jagdish Singh, learned D.R., submitted that though the application has been filed for condonation of delay, in fact, there is no delay in filing the appeal; that the Board reviewed the impugned Order in exercise of the power under Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act vide Order 21-R/2000, dated 7-2-2000; that the Review Order was passed within one year from the date of the impugned Order; that the Review Order was sent to the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi and subsequently the corrigendum was issued to the effect that in the Review Order for the word "The Commissioner (Adjudication), Central Excise, New Delhi," "the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II" be read; that the Review Order was received by the applicants on 1-5-2001 and the appeal has been filed on 17-5-2001 which is within the period specified under Sec...

Corporation Bank Vs. Galaxy Health Care Pvt. Ltd. and

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2003)BC59

1. This appeal is against final order dated 20.1.1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A.No. 493/98.2. The aforesaid order is an ex parte order as the defendants in the O.A. did not appear before the Tribunal. In this appeal as well, the respondents, who were defendants in the O.A. have not appeared despite notice.3. Under the impugned order, the appellants have been given a decree of Rs. 5,09,422.60 only as against the claim of Rs. 12,60,588.75 by granting interest @ 13.5% per annum only till date of the O.A. pendente lite and future interest @ 13.5% per annum only with quarterly rests has been granted as against the prayer @ 19.38%.4. The appellant Bank is aggrieved with the amount awarded as well as with the rate of interest awarded pendents lite and future.5. Learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below has rejected the claim of the appellant for charging interest at a rate higher than 13.5% by observing as follows : (6) Ex. A-5 pr...

Guptajee Tent and Decorators Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi, on the ground that he has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1.50,000 against the facts and circumstances of this case.2. The facts of this case are that assessee derives income as let out electrical and decorative items during the marriage ceremonies and other festivals. Survey under Section 133A was carried out at the business premises of the appellant on 4th Feb., 1992. At the time of survey, Gupta, partner of the assessee-firm, surrendered Rs. 15 lacs which were not reflected in the books of account and actually utilised for purchase. This surrender was, however, retracted by a letter dt.13th Feb., 1992. The AO was, however, not impressed by the submissions made by the assessee in this letter and added Rs. 1,50,000 besides he also made ah addition of Rs. 10,000 on account of profits might have earned by the assessee on the sale of goods.3. In appeal, the CIT(A) has deleted the a...

State Bank of India Vs. Airports Authority of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)176; 96(2002)DLT299

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. 1. Petitioner, State Bank of India, by this writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing respondent No. 1's Thomas Cook (India) Limited (for the facility of reference hereinafter referred to as Thomas Cook) and respondent No. 3, M/s. American Express Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as AEB), in respect of money exchange counters to be allotted to them at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus, directing Airports Authority of India not to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the counters held by it or from taking any coercive measures, including disconnection of electricity supply or blocking of access etc. Further, petitioner seeks a writ for quashing of the notice inviting tenders, assailing condition No. 4, as arbitrary, discriminatory and un-constitutional. 2. The facts, as relevant for disposal of the writ petition are:- Respondent No. 1, Airports Authority of India, had published a notice invi...