Delhi Court January 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
S. Kumar Leatherites Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT521TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture textile fabrics, impregnated coated covered or laminated with PVC, falling under chapter sub-heading 5903.10. They are also availing Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Their premises were visited by the Officers of Anti-Evasion, Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur-I on 6-10-97.On verification of the records and on taking the stock of the raw materials and the end products, it was found that a total 1,977 meters of PVC coated fabric were short as against the recorded balance in RG-1 register. These goods were valued at Rs. 88,965/- involving the Central Excise duty of Rs. 20,462/-. Similarly, on stock verification of modvatable inputs, a shortage of 3360 kgs PVC resin, 400 kgs of DOP and 2025 kgs of Benzoplast were noticed as against the recorded balance of these items in their RG-23A Part I account. All these inputs found short were valued at Rs. 3,57,798/- involving credit of Rs. 72,310/-.The statement of Shri Lallan Singh...
Kawatra Papers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT211TriDel
1. Through these four stay applications, the above captioned appellants have sought waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts as confirmed against them through the order-in-original dated 9-7-2001 by the Commissioner. On appellant No. 1 (M/s. Kawatra Papers Ltd.) duty demand of Rs. 25,78,1071- and penalty amount of Rs. 25,15,000/- had been confirmed, while on appellant No. 2 (M/s. Himgiri Paper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.) penalty amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- and on appellant Nos. 3 and 4 (Sh. Joginder Kawatra and Sh. Yash Pal Kawatra) penalty amount of Rs. 5 lakhs each had been imposed by the Commissioner on account of clandestine manufacture and removal without payment of duty on paper and paper board of different types by appellant No. 1 through appellant No. 2, with the active assistance of appellant Nos. 3 and 4 during the period 1-7-1994 to 31-3-1997 and June, 1997.2. The learned Counsel has contended that there was no evidence to prove the clandestine manufacture and removal ...
C.C.E. Vs. Ratlam Petro Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC235
1. None appeared for the respondents in spite of service of notice.Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of respondents.2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that option for availing the benefit of Notification 9/99-CE in the classification list is sufficient compliance to the conditions of the notification.4. In this case, the proceedings were initiated for recovery of Rs. 7,997.00 on the ground that the respondents had not complied with the conditions specified in the Notification No. 9/99 whereby they are required to file a specific declaration. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceeding on the ground that the declaration, filed under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, contains all the information as prescribed under the Notification No. 9/99. The revenue filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the same.5. No...
Relaxo International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT430TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of leather footwear. In this appeal, they are aggrieved by the rejection of their refund claim under Rule 173L by the authorities below.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had cleared 6360 pairs of footwear on payment of duty to their customers during the period June to September 1998; that the customers rejected and returned the goods; that the appellants filed D-3 declaration declaring the receipt of the goods; that after re-processing, the appellants exported the goods without payment of duty under bond in accordance with the provisions of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that they filed a refund claim under Rule 173L for an amount of Rs. 4,83,139/- and that both the authorities below held that the refund was inadmissible in view of the provisions of Clause (iv) of the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 173L.4. Ld. Advocate Sh. Ramesh Krishnan for the appellants submits that, in the appellants' own earlier case, this Ben...
Dhanuka Pesticides Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT217TriDel
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pesticides. While patrolling Central Excise Officers intercepted a tempo loaded with pesticides. On an enquiry, the driver of the tempo produced two invoices. As there were certain corrections in the documents, the Officers brought back the tempo into the factory premises from where the goods were loaded. Checking of the records of the factory revealed that no debit entry was made in RG 23A Part II. The goods were, therefore, seized alongwith the tempo.2. On physical verification of the stocks, an excise of goods valued at Rs. 17,77,205/- to the recorded balance was found. The excess goods were seized as they were not accounted in Central Excise records.Statements were recorded. Shri K.B. Kejarjwal, Director of the appellant's firm in his statement stated that the goods were cleared from their factory and actually no duty was debited in RG 23A Pt. II.It was stated that the person who prepared the invoices had to rush back to look aft...
Atma Tube Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT210TriDel
1. Through the present stay application, the appellants have sought waiver of pre-deppsit of the duty amount of Rs. 14,72,885/- and penalty amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- as confirmed against them by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order-in-appeal dated 13-8-2001 Which has been challenged by them in Appeal No. E/2595/2001-No. The duty and the penalty had been confirmed against the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of cold foiled strips and steel tubes on the ground that they wrongly availed the Modvat credit of Rs. 14,72,884/- during the months 4/94, 5/94 and 6/94 on the strength of inadmissible documents which were not even in their name. They also took Mod-vat credit on the basis of GP-1 up to 31-3-1994 for the duty paid goods lying in stock illegally and in violation of the Notification No.21-C.E. (N.T.) 94, dated 12-3-1994. They were issued show cause notice for the recovery of the amount, but they did not respond. The Astt.Commissioned confirmed the duty and...
Oswal Woollen Mills Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT420TriDel
1. The Tribunal vide its final order No. A/2213-00/NB(SM), dated 23-11-2000 had remanded the matter to Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal had observed in its order that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had allowed appeal filed by M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills but had not discussed their prayer with regard to the payment of interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants were claiming the interest from 3-5-95 and were making reference to some other earlier order dated 3-2-95 passed by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal observed that in the absence of any discussion by the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to this prayer, it was not possible for them to come to any findings whether the interest was permissible or not, as per the law. The Tribunal therefore, on this limited point whether the interest was admissible or not remanded back the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction to pass speaking appealable order as per law on the prayer of the appell...
B.H.E.L. vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC314
1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the applicants in spite of notice. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in absence of the applicants.2. On the last date of hearing, the appellants produced necessary clearance from the Committee on Dispute to pursue the appeal.4. the applicants filed this application for waiver of duty and penalty.5. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants for demanding duty on the parts of electric generators. Before the adjudicating authority, the contention of the appellants was that they were clearing the generators. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The application for waiver of duty and penalty was decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the applicants. On receipt of the order, passed by the Commissioner ...
Satya Shree Cement Udyog Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC236
1. The applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 52,866.53 and penalty of Rs. 5,000.00.2. The appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred.4. The contention of the appellants is that they received the adjudication orders dated 23.12.96 and 26.2.97 only on 23.4.99 and the appeals were filed on 21.5.99. Their submission is that on receipt of letter from the Supdt. of Central Excise for recovery of arrears, the applicants immediately wrote to the concerned authorities for supply of copy of adjudication order. The applicants also produced copies of letter written to the concerned authorities dated 14.7.97 and 23.4.99 asking for copy of the adjudication orders. The adjudication order, subsequently, was supplied to the applicants on 23.4.99. The contention of the applicants is that their appeals were within time.5. The contention of the revenue is that the adjudication order was dispatched to the appell...
Hans Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT490TriDel
1. Through the present stay application, the appellants have sought waiver of pre-deposit of the entire duty amount of Rs. 10,32,307/- and equal amount of penalty as confirmed against them through the Order-in-Original dated 25-9-2001 by the Commissioner of Central Excise which has been challenged by them in Appeal No. E/2603/2001-NB.2. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the duty and penalty, detailed above, had been confirmed against the appellants on account of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods i.e. M.S. Ingots during the period June, 1989 to August, 1990. The details of the goods manufactured and removed by them and their value had been given in Para 13 of the impugned order by the Commissioner.3. The learned Counsel has contended while arguing the stay application, that the result of the experiment carried out regarding consumption of electricity in the production of one MT of MS Ingots on three different dates in the factory premises of the appellants, co...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »