Delhi Court October 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.
Safex Chemical India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC192
1. Today the matter is posted for hearing the application for staying the recovery of penalty. Shri V.K. Metha, learned Advocated submitted that out of the penalty of Rs. 51,504,50 imposed on M/s. Sefex Chemical India Ltd., the amount of Rs. 12,880 had already been deposited by them. In view of this fact and also in view of the fact that the issue involved is in very narrow compass, I stay the recovery of remaining amount of penalty and take up the Appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. Learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants manufacture pesticides and insecticides; that the Central Excise officers on visit of their unit on 20.6.2000 found shortage of the finished goods in comparison to the balance recorded in the RGI register; that the duty involved on the shortage amounting to Rs. 51,505 was paid by them voluntarily on the same day; that subsequently the Additional Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 8/2002 dated 30.3.2002 confirmed the demand ...
Cce Vs. Shaw Wallace Gelatine Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC802
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the order of review was passed after one year from the date of the adjudication order. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the adjudicating authority signed the order on 29.10.97. Therefore, the date of order is 29.10.97, whereas in the impugned order held that the date of order is 28.10.97, The contention of the Revenue is also that as per provisions of Limitation Act, the period for obtaining copy of the order is to be excluded from the period of limitation. The contention of the Revenue is that while construing a statute, plain meaning of the language is to be looked into and two reasonably possible view can be taken that one which would promote its constitutionality should be preferred. The respondents relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise...
Ferrous Forgings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC129
1. In this case M/s. Ferrous Forgings Ltd. have only challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,87,424/- which is equivalent to the amount of duty confirmed against them.2. Shri S.K. Pahwa, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture steel forgings which were sent by them for machining outside their factory premises to job workers under the provision of Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 at the relevant time; that the Central Excise officers on visit of their factory on 28-8-97 found from the scrutiny of 57F(4) challans and register that the scrap generated at the premises of job workers was not received back by them; that the officers worked out that the quantity of 440.496 M.T. of scrap involving central excise duty Rs. 2,87,424/- was not received back during the period from January, 1997 to June, 1997; that they discharged the duty liability on the said quantity of scrap in September, 1997. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Appellants a...
Caryaire Equipment India Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT113TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Caryaire Equipment India Pvt. Ltd., is whether the 'Aluminium Grills' made out of extruded aluminium sections are eligible for the benefit of Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB).2. Shri R.K. Goel, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture and sale aluminium grills made out from extruded aluminium section; that the processes of manufacture involve cutting of aluminium extruded sections into different required sizes and joining them mechanically with the help of extruded pipe and powder coating the grills in required colour, that they filed Shipping Bill dated 8-6-2002 for exporting the impugned grilled claiming DEPB benefits under Item No. 7 of Product Group : Engineering - Product Code : 61 which reads as "Extruded aluminium products including pipe and tubes"; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order, confiscated the impugned grills with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine and imposed penalty...
Kalra Impex Vs. Cc (Sea)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC856
1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Kalra Impex is whether the goods namely pullover, cardigan/long coat, being exported by them are covered by Schedule of Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB).2. Ms. Reena Khair, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants filed four shipping bills for export of goods described as "articles of hosiery/knitwears made of woollen blended yarn (synthetic content in the blended yarn 65% or less than 65% by weight, but more than 50% by weight); that a show cause notice was issued to them for denying the DEPB Credit on the ground, inter alia, that the goods were not made of woollen blended yarn since the test report mentioned that the sample was a knitwear made of core spun yarns composed of polyester filament yarns with acrylic fibres and animal hair; that the Chemical Examiner also clarified that the animal hair present in sample was other than wool; that samples were got tested by Central Revenue Laboratory, Delhi and report mentio...
Ranjeev Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC536
1. When the application for stay came up for hearing it is agreed that the appeal itself can be disposed of. We, therefore, waive pre-deposit and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself.2. The only issue raised in this appeal is whether scrap originated as a result of broken mould was exempted from payment of duty at the hands of a manufacturer of iron and steel products working under Section 3A.It is the contention of the appellant that scrap originated as a result of broken mould is not liable for any excise duty as there is no manufacturing process involved. In support of the above contention, the appellant placed reliance on a decision of this Tribunal in Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 339. The above decision of the Tribunal has taken a view that waste and scrap arising from the manufacture or mechanical working of iron or steel is liable to duty; but not the metal scrap arising from dismantling of buildings, repair of machinery, etc.3. The above ra...
P.G. Foils Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT637TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed shipping bills for export of aluminium foils under DEPB Scheme. In the shipping bills, appellants declared the goods as aluminium foil paper backed and claimed DEPB benefit under group head 61 Sr. No. 503. During the time of processing of the shipping bills and examination of the goods, it was found that the goods, in question, were not aluminium foil paper backed but, in fact, are aluminium foils interleaved with paper. The DEPB benefit on the laminated/lacquered aluminium foils is available under DEPB group head 61 Sr. No. 505. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods on the ground that the appellants intentionally mis-declared the goods to avail more DEPB benefit and ordered release of the goods on redemption fine of Rs. one lakh and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed. Appellants filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)79TTJ(Delhi)249
1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order dt. 22nd March, 1996, of CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi, pertaining to 1991-92 and 1992-93 assessment years.2. Ground No. 1 in both the appeals is general in nature requiring no adjudication and ground No. 2 in both the appeals reads as under : "2. The assessing/appellate authority has erred in reducing depreciation of Rs. 820.05 lacs for godowns owned by the assessee used by it for the purposes of its business, wrongly construing that godowns were constructed by the Food Corporation of India through Central Warehousing Corporation from the funds made available by the IDA (channelised through the Government of India) as being godowns owned by the CWC." (Although for 1991-92 asst. yr., the depreciation reduced is Rs. 142.03 lakhs).3. In 1991-92 assessment year, the assessee has raised another ground which reads as under : "3. The assessing/appellate authority has erred in reducing the amount of depreciation claimed und...
Mohan Dairy Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2002
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)403
ORDERKESHAW PRASAD, A.M.:The appeal has been directed by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29-12-1997, pertaining to assessment year 1993-94.2. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessed relates to the disallowance of deduction under sections 80-I and 80-IA of the Act.3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessed is a firm. In the past, it was trading in milk. In the year under consideration, apart from trading in milk, the assessed also started the business of manufacture of ghee and skimmed milk under the name and style of M/s. Mohan Industries. In addition, the assessed also took over the business of M/s. Mohan Cold Storage which was separately assessed firm up to assessment year 1992-93. When the assessed was asked as to why the business of the cold storage has been taken over by the assessed, it was stated that all the partners of the assessed-firm were partners in M/s. Mohan Cold Storage and their shareholding was the same. It was thereforee, t...
international Airports Authority of India Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Del)663
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of assessed following question has been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench E (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) .'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 19.89 lakhs was a capital expenditure as it gave the assessed an advantage of enduring nature ?'Dispute relates to assessment year 1977-78.2. Factual background in nutshell is as follows.assessed, a government corporation was formed on 1-4-1972, under the Act of Parliament to take over the airports in metropolitan towns, including Palam Airport at Delhi. During the relevant assessment year assessed paid Rs. 19.89 lakhs to Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the DDA') for development of an alternative site for the residence of Mangolpuri villagers who were to be evicted as their...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »