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.
Saketh India Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)464; 97(2002)DLT391; 2002(82)ECC257; 2002(143)ELT274(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The appellant herein has filed this appealagainst the impugned order dated 21st September, 2001 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. By the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order dated 3rd August, 1999 of theAppellate Committee, Ministry of Commerce passed in an appeal against an order dated 6th April, 1998 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade(for short`Addl.DGFT'). It would be appropriate to scan through the relevant facts, in the first instance, which led to passing of the aforesaid orders.2. The appellant has a marble processing unit at Makrana and three independent 100 per cent export oriented units, processing and exporting cut and polished granite tiles and slabs at Bangalore, Hosur and Nalgonda. In respect of its Nalgonda unit at Andhra Pradesh a show cause notice dated 25th March, 1996 was issued by the Addl.DGFT based on the report ofthe Development Commissioner,...
Trade Connection Vs. International Building Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)344; 96(2002)DLT214; 2002(61)DRJ833
R.C. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 26-07-2001 by which the prayer of the petitioner-defendant to amend its written statement has been partly declined.2. The petitioner is facing a suit for recovery or Rs. 4,99,000/- filed by the respondent-plaintiff and filed its written statement. Thereafter the respondent has filed its replication. The petitioner made an application praying for amendment of the written statement and wanted to raise preliminary objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi to entertain and try the suit in question besides seeking other amendments. Vide the impugned order the learned trial court has partly allowed the application of the petitioner and permitted him to amend the written statement so as to incorporation preliminary objections 1 and 3 in regard to the suit having not been filed by a duly authorised person and the plaintiff having no right ...
U.S. Sitani Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2005(184)ELT28(Del)
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 23rd October, 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. E/1306/2001-NB whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 crores towards duty and penalty within 12 weeks from the date of passing of the order. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has, inter alia, urged that apart from the fact that there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice committed by Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the said amount. Our attention in this connection has been drawn to the certificate granted by the Chartered Accountants on 18th October, 2001 from a perusal whereof it would appear that for the assessment year 1998-99, the petitioner suffered a loss of Rs. 2,24,838/- and for the assessment year 1999-2000 he suffered a loss of...
Khabros Steel (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC472
1. The appellants, M/s. Khab-ros Steel India Ltd., Bhiwadi were granted Industrial Licence dated 11-6-86 by the Government of India, Ministry of Industries to establish a 100% EOU for the manufacture of Stainless Steel Cutlery (Spoons and Forks) within the installed capacity on the basis of maximum utilisation of plant and machinery of five million dozen pieces. The licence was granted subject to the condition that the entire production shall be exported excluding the rejects not exceeding 5% for a period of 10 years. The appellants imported plant and machinery, components, equipment, spares, etc., valued at Rs. 1,84,94,243/-without payment of duty of Rs. 2,11,08,034/- by availing the exemption under Notfn. No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-81 read with Notfn. No. 123/81-C.E., dated 2-6-81 as amended. They also procured indigenous capital goods/raw material without payment of Central Excise, duty of Rs. 2,84,390/- and Rs. 15,86,663.40 respectively.2. They were issued a show cause notice dated...
Raghuvar (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT280TriDel
1. This is an appeal at the instance of assessee from the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 180 (KDT)CE/JPR-I (103)/2001, dated 3-4-2001 confirming a differential duty demand of Rs. 7,07,445/- against the appellant and imposing an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and also interest.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of vegetable products falling under sub-heading 1504.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act. It was availing Modvat credit of the duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of said vegetable products under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. By Notification No. 16/96, dated 23-7-96 vegetable products classifiable under the above sub-heading were exempted from Central Excise duty. A show cause notice dated 25-8-99 was issued to the appellant alleging that consequent upon withdrawal of duty on vegetable products, the appellant ought to have reversed the Modvat credit taken on the inputs which were still to be c...
Ashu Bajaj Vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT241TriDel
1. The appeals filed by Mr. Ashu Bajaj, M/s. Kabul Trading Co. and Mr.Mukesh Sindwani were taken up together as the issue involved in these cases was the same. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the cases in brief are that the appellants imported onions from Pakistan during September and October, 1998. They filed Bill of Entry at Customs Rail Cargo Complex, Amritsar claiming exemption from payment of Special Additional Duty of Customs in terms of Notification No. 34/98-Cus., dated 13-6-98 as amended by Notification No. 56/98-Cus., dated 1-8-98. One of the conditions of the aforesaid notifications was that the goods were exempt from payment of Special Additional Duty only if the same were not sold from a place where no tax is chargeable on sale or purchase of the goods. The appellants had declared that the sale of imported onions would not be effected from a place located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale or purchase of g...
Oswal Knit India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT213TriDel
2. It has not been disputed before us that the case of the appellants on the question of limitation is fully covered by the two judgments of the Tribunal rendered in Pee Jay Apparels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh (Final Order No. 134/2001-D, dated 27-4-2001) [2001 (135) E.L.T. 842 (T)] and R.N. Oswal Hosiery Factory v. CCE, Chandigarh (Final Order No.179/2001-D, dated 10-9-2001) [2001 (138) E.L.T. 1092 (T)]. Therefore, we allow the total waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amount, as detailed in the impugned order of the Commissioner, under appeal, to the appellants.2. With the consent of both the sides, we proceed to decide the appeal of the appellants on merit.3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may briefly be stated as under :- The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of woollen hosiery knitwears. On 14-5-96 the preventive staff of Central Excise visited their factory premises. They recorded the statement of Dinesh Gupta, Director of the appellants com...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT277TriDel
1. This appeal is placed before the Larger Bench by a reference under Order No. C-I/2077-79/WZB/2001, dated 1-8-2001 by the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal 2. The reference was necessitated in view of conflicting decisions of two High Courts, namely Super Cassettes Industries v. Union of India - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 302 of the Allahabad High Court and Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Cochin v. Premier Tyres Ltd. - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 417 of Kerala High Court. Since the decision of the Kerala High Court was rendered following a decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.), it was felt that the matter need not go before 7 Member Bench in spite of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Khanbhai Esoofbhai v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 557 (Tribunal-LB).3. The issue that arises for consideration is whether credit availed and utilised under the Modvat Scheme dur...
Munna Lal Khandelwal Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT168TriDel
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common adjudication order whereby penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 8-8-91 officers of the Customs Department intercepted a car driven by one Shri Ajay Kumar Goel. On search of the car 190 gold biscuits of foreign origin valued at Rs. 89,08,9637-were recovered from the car. The gold biscuits and car were taken into possession. Shri Ajay Goel made a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 that he received gold on the direction of one Asif and he was selling the smuggled goods through his brother Dinesh Kumar Goel and one Munna Lal Khandelwal who is owner of shop in Kucha Mahajani, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. He was receiving Rs. 100/- per Tola as commission for sale of the smuggled goods and this commission was equally distributed between three of them. The adjudicating authority confiscated the gold and imposed penalty on the appellants.3. Learne...
Sapa Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs, Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC351
1. The applicants filed these ap- plications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 2,96,888.00 and penalty of Rs. 20,000.00.3. In this case, the applicants made import of electrical steel sheets and availed the benefit of Notification No. 20/99-Cus., which provides concessional rate of duty if the electrical steel sheets are to be used in the manufacture of electrical transformers. During the manufacture of electrical transformers, some waste and scrap was generated. Show cause notices were issued to the applicants for recovery of customs duty in respect of waste and scrap on the ground that the electrical steel sheets, which turn into waste and scrap, are not used in the manufacture of electrical transformer, hence the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of notification in respect of waste and scrap.4. Notification No. 20/99-Cus. provides concessional rate of customs duty in respect of electrical steel sheets required for the manufacture of electrical transformer...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »