Delhi Court February 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.
Enforcement Directorate Vs. Ravi Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(156)ELT180(Del)
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, dated 10-4-1995, whereby the Appellate Board has set aside Order No. SDE(R)III/219/90, dated 22-8-1990 of the Special Director of Enforcement and has left the question of further proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act open.2. The facts of the case as have been noted by the Appellate Board are:'on the basis of information gathered from the documents seized after search of one Baligur Rehman of Hong Kong at Delhi Airport on 14-11-1984, the premises of Shyam Kishan Sharma (S.K. Sharma) were searched by the officers of DRI. The search resulted in the recovery and seizure of incriminating documents, contraband gold and Indian currency. The statements of Baligur Rehman, S.K. Sharma and Ravi Sharma, son of S.K. Sharma who also resided with his father, were also recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. It would also appear that S.K. Sharma and the appellant we...
D.D. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC217
1. The appellants are manufacturers of Motor Vehicle Parts. They were availing Modvat facility on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 during the material period, during which they used to send rough forgings for machining to their job workers under Rule 57F(4).Officers of Central Excise, who visited the appellants' factory on 16-1-98, found that the scrap of steel generated from the process of machining of roughly forged articles at the job workers' premises during the period 1-4-97 to 12-1-98 had not been returned to the appellants' factory nor cleared on payment of duty in terms of Rule 57F(5). The quantity of scrap so generated was worked out at 243.888 MTs valued at Rs. 9,99,940.80 involving duty of Excise of Rs. 1,49,991.12. This amount of duty has already been deposited by the party in two instalments, on 16-1-98 and 19-1-98. The department, however, framed a case for imposing penalty on the party and accordingly issued a show cause notice to them. This was c...
Anilama Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC592
1. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common impugned order-in-original dated 2-2-2001 vide which the Commissioner had confirmed the duty demand of Rs 63,50,509/- against M/s. Anilama Associates (hereinafter referred to as 'Firm') with equal amount of penalty, and further imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakhs, Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs respectively on appellant Nos. 2 to 5.2. The appellants have got two units. They were engaged in the manufacture of Insulated Wires and Cables. On receipt of intelligence that they were indulging in the clandestine removal of wires and cables, search was conducted on 11-9-19% of both their units and certain incriminating documents were found which were taken into possession through Panchnarna dated 11-9-1996. As a result of physical stock taking of the finished goods, some goods were found unaccounted for and the same were seized for which separate proceedings were initiated. On scrutiny of the resumed reco...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Bhilwara Processors Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC582
1. These are the Revenue appeals against the orders dated 31-8-2001 and 1-6-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur.2. The brief facts in all these cases are that the respondents are processing woollen fabrics falling under Chapter 51 and man-made fabrics falling under Chapter 55. They are processing the fabrics received from various parties on job work basis. The assessable value of the processed fabrics is determined on the basis of cost construction method taking into account the landed cost of the raw material of (grey fabrics) and the processing charges. For this purpose the processors (respondents) filed a declaration in which the cost of raw material is taken as per the declarations filed by the principal suppliers. The respondents paid the duty on the processed fabrics as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints etc. v. Union of India and Ors. - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.). The assessable value declared by the ...
Globe Sales Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT818TriDel
2. The appellants through the present Misc. Application have sought direction to the competent authority for awarding them interest on the penalty amount which had been refunded to them in pursuance to the Tribunal's Final Order Nos. A/743-744/1997-NB, dated 13-5-1997.3. The appellants filed two appeals against the order-in-appeal dated 28-7-1995 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs in one case, and in another case from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs but upheld the imposition of penalty of Rs. 46,000/- and 34,000/- respectively, on them on account of illegal import of acrylic plastic scrap without obtaining licence, before the Tribunal, and that order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, admissible under the law to the appellants.4. The learned Counsel has not been able to cite any provision of the law under which interest can be claimed by the ap...
Bharat Explosives Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC340
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal, filed by the Appellants, was dismissed as time barred.3. The contention of the appellants was that Adjudication Order was received by them on 11-6-2001 and in the Adjudication Order the Asstt.Commissioner wrongly mentioned the brand name "Bharat Shakti" which belongs to some other manufacturer. The Commissioner also mentioned the fact that none appeared on behalf of the appellants at the time of personal hearing. The appellants filed an Application for clarification before the Adjudication Authority and the Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 14-6-2001 issued the corrigendum to the Order-in-Original after making necessary corrections and this corrigendum was received by the appellants on 3-7-2001 and the appeal was filed on 28-8-2001 before the Commissioner (Appeals). The contention of the appellants is that in these circumstances the appeal was filed within the...
Aar Kay Concast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT643TriDel
1. This appeal is against rejection, by the Commissioner of Central Excise, of abatement claims made by the appellants for the period 2-12-97 to 9-12-97 and 3-2-98 to 10-2-98.3. The appellants, who were engaged in the manufacture of Steel Ingots and working under the Compounded Levy Scheme of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, had submitted two claims for abatement of duty on the ground that their furnace had remained closed for continuous periods 2-12-97 to 9-12-97 and 3-2-98 to 10-2-98. Both the claims have been rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that the conditions stipulated under clauses (b), (d) & (e) of Rule 96ZO(2) had not been fulfilled by the claimant. The Commissioner held that the said conditions were mandatory and hence required to be satisfied by the assessee for the purpose of claiming abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO(2). The Commissioner took this view by relying on the decision of the Supreme ...
Gautam Cables Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT139TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common Order-in-Original dated 15-1-2001 vide which the Commissioner had confirmed the duty of Rs. 1,39,49,680/-with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC and further imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on appellants Nos. 2 & 3, of Rs. 2,00,000/- on ap-pllent No. 4 and of Rs. 5,00,000/- each on appellants Nos. 5 & 6 under Rule 209A of the Rules.2. The appellant No. 1 is firm, while other appellants except appellant No. 3 are its partners. The appellant No. 3 is an authorized signatory of the firm. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables. Their factory premises were searched by the officers of the Anti-evasion branch of central excise on 10-9-1996 and 11-9-1996 and as a result thereof several incriminating documents were recovered. The scrutiny of the documents/record revealed that they were using two set of G.P.Is./invoices i.e. one set was being used for removing consignment with...
Urja Plast and Cables Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT122TriDel
1. The three applicants have filed three stay petitions praying for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 6,97,01,016/- (Rupees six crore ninety seven lac one thousand sixteen) and penalties of equal amount of duty of Rs. 1.0 crore (Rupees one crore), Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) and Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand).2. Arguing the stay petitions Shri V.K. Madan, Managing Partner of M/s.Urja Plast & Cables and others submits that the Department has confirmed the demand of duty of the above amount relying on the statement submitted to the Bank. He submits that the banker had allowed them overdraft limits and since they needed more money they were hypothecating the goods with the bank and getting higher over-draft limits. He submits that in the statement submitted to the bank it was not only the value of the finished goods but the value of the raw materials as also the value of the goods in the pipeline was included.He submits that for purpose of getting hi...
Cross Country Hotels Ltd. Vs. Tourism Finance Corporation of
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC66
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.209/2001 in which Orders dated 25.5.2001 and 12.10.2001 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi in O.A. No. 26/2000 have been challenged. Since this appeal was filed on 7.11.2001, this application for condonation of delay in filing appeal against order dated 25.5.2001 has been moved. The ground, inter alia, taken in this application is that after order dated 25.5.2001 was passed, an application for review of that order was made and the same was disposed of only on 12.10.2001.Hence the prayer is that the delay in filing appeal against order dated 25.5.2001 may be condoned.2. Reply to this application has been filed. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.3. Though appeal against order dated 25.5.2001 ought to have been filed in lime but in view of the fact that, under advice, the appellant had moved an application for review of order dated 25.5.2001 and that application was disposed of only on 12.10.2001. I c...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »