Delhi Court November 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.
P.D. Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT148TriDel
1. The common issue involved in these appeals is the Central Excise valuation of foot wear manufactured in the three factories of Liberty Shoes Group. The factories are located at Karnal in Haryana and Agra and Saharanpur in U.P. The foot wear was liable to duty on ad valorem basis and the appellants were clearing the foot wear from the factories after payment of duty on the basis of ex-factory sale price. The impugned order has held that there was undervaluation of the foot wear in question which led to short levy of Central Excise duty during the period 1991-96. the order has, accordingly, demanded the duties short levied as well as interest on the amounts short levied and has imposed penalties. The short levies have been held to be the result of suppression of facts which justified the duty demand for the extended period of five years permissible in such cases in terms of proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The appellants have challenged the order on merits as well as...
Jay Cee Coach Builders Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT297TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Jay Cee Coach Builders Ltd., is whether they are liable to pay duty on the fabrication of body on Motor Vehicle Chassis received from M/s. Swaraj Mazda Ltd. under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the fabrication of body on motor vehicle chassis; that they receive chassis from M/s. Swaraj Majda Ltd. under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and build the body on the chassis which is cleared back to M/s. Swaraj Majda without payment of duty; that M/s. Swaraj Majda, thereafter, sells the complete vehicles under Heading 87.02 or 87.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act on payment of appropriate Excise duty; that the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise under the Adjudication Order No. 113/2000, dated 18-12-2000 confirmed the demand of Central Excise Duty and imposed penalty holding that they had carried out the activity ...
S. Kumars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC642
1. The issue referred for consideration by the Larger Bench is as follows :- "Whether the processed knitted pile fabric at the hands of the processor would be classifiable under Chapter 63 as 'made-up article' i.e. towels or as processed fabric, under Chapter 60 of CETA." 2. In this case show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the basis that the goods in question are to be treated as 'made-up articles' as defined in Section Note 5(f) of Section XI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The above proposal was affirmed by the Assistant Collector. While doing so, he has taken the view that the assessee's case is based on the interpretation of Note 5(f) of Section XI and the case relied on by the party dealing with the interpretation based on Section Note 5(b) of Section XI, has no application. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.But it is not quite clear whether he has applied the provisions contained under Chapter Note 5(b) or 5(f). There ...
Xerox Modicorp. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC477
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Xerox Modicorp.Ltd., is whether the machines imported by them, performing the function of a printer, scanner and copier, based on Digital Technology, is classifiable under sub-heading 8471.60 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as claimed by them or under subheading 8479.89 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order. 2.1 Shri R. Parthasarthy, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants are engaged in the trading of High Technology Reproduction and Duplicating Machines, Facsimile machines, Printers and Multifunctional machines capable of discharging number of functions; that they imported the following machines - 2.2 He mentioned that as the machines were primarily printers, meant for use with an Automatic Data Processing Machine, they claimed classification under sub-heading 8471.60 of the Tariff; that the catalogue of Xerox Regal 5799 clearly shows that the said digital printer/copier provide...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Punj Brothers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT789TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the present Appeal.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of M/s.Punj Brothers, Respondents, nor there was any request for adjournment of the matter. I, therefore, heard Shri D.N. Chaudhary, learned Departmental Representative, and perused the records. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the impugned Order was received by the Commissioner, Central Excise on 2-3-2000 and as such the last date for filing Appeal was 26-6-2000; that the Appeal was, however, filed on 22-4-2002; that the delay has occurred unintentionally and because of difference of opinion in the issue; that the Chief Commissioner directed to file the Appeal under letter dated 8-1-2002; that the Supreme Court has observed in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 249 (S.C.) = (1996) 3 SCC 132 as under: "When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common kn...
A.S. Forgings Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT306TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. A.S. Forgings, the issue involved is whether they have furnished the proof of export of the goods exported by them.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants cleared 6 pieces of rolls under invoice No. 762, dated 10-3-1995 for export to and through M/s. AMI International, a registered exporter; that AMT International completed all the formalities including execution of B-1 bond for clearance of goods under bond procedure from their factory; that the goods were removed from their factory on 10-3-1995 and the AR-4 number was 6/94-95, dated 10-3-1995; that the goods were exported to Kenya and AR-4 was duly attested by the Customs officer, Ludhiana as proof of export and the same was filed before the Range Supdt. on 12-6-1995 i.e. within 6 months from the date of clearance; that the Asstt. Commissioner demanded the duty on the goods exported under bond on the ground that the appellants had not submitted proof regarding exportation ...
Bharat Indl. Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC835
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Bharat Industrial Works (P) Ltd., is whether the Modvat Credit of the duty is available to them on the strength of invoice marked as "duplicate for transporter" by hand.2. When the matter was called on one was present on behalf of the Appellants, nor was there any request for adjournment. I, therefore, heard Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned D.R. and perused the records. In this matter the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs has been disallowed as the words "duplicate for transporter" were written by hand. The Modvat Credit had been taken by the Appellants on the basis of invoices issued by the registered dealer during the period October 1994 and November 1994. The Appellants have submitted that the requirement of marking the invoice as duplicate for transporter came into operation only w.e.f. 2.11.94 in terms of Raipur Collectorate Trade Notice No. 41/94 dated 2,11.94. The Appellants have, further, submitted that the invoices dated ...
Commissioner Customs and Central Vs. Sita Saran Sharma
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC111
1. Examined the records and heard the learned DR. There is no representation for the respondent in spite of notice.2. Shri Sita Saran Sharma, the respondent herein, and his sister Smt.Shashibai Paliwal are legal heirs of their father late Shri Ram Lal Sharma. Certain quantities of gold ornaments had been seized from Ram Lal Sharma and confiscated under Section 71 of the Gold Control Act in the year 1975 on the ground of violation of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. The then collector had allowed redemption of the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000. Shri R.L. Sharma preferred appeal to the Gold Control Administrator who set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the matter to the lower authority for fresh adjudication. The Collector who re-adjudicated the matter allowed unconditional release of the goods. This order was passed in November 1982 but Shri R.L. Sharma was no more. He had passed away as early as in March 1977. Later on, in 1996, his son Dr. S.S. Sharma ...
Himachal Futuristic Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT628TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 8-7-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide which he has rejected the refund claim of the appellants as time barred.2. The appellants filed a refund claim for Rs. 3,02,917/- for the customs duty paid on the goods imported and cleared vide bill of entry dated 7-7-1997, while the refund claim was filed on 9-3-1998 after the expiry of the stipulated period of six months prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act. That order has been affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).3. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. They were sent notice of hearing on 17-9-02. No request for adjournment had also been received from them. Therefore, I do not find any sufficient ground to adjourn the matter.4. I have heard the learned JDR and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the record shows that the duty on the imported goods was paid by the appellants on 17-7-97 v...
Asia Satellite Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)85ITD478(Delhi)
1. These two appeals--one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue emanate from the order passed by the CIT(A) on 4th Dec., 2000, in relation to asst. yr. 1997-98. As both the appeals are emerging out of the same order, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of both these appeals by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.Briefly stated the facts of the case, as collected from the orders of the authorities below, statement of facts and other material before us, are that the assessee-company, incorporated in and a resident of Hongkong was deriving lease income from lease of transponder capacity.It was engaged in operating telecommunication satellites located in US stationary orbit of 36,000 kms above equator in accordance with the regulatory requirements of the International Telecommunication Union under the United Nations. In the year under consideration it operated two satellites available at its disposal, namely, Asiasat-I, taken by the assessee on lease located at 10...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »