Delhi Court March 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
T.R.F. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC35Tri(Delhi)
1. Appeal No. E/2465/99-B filed by M/s. TRF Limited, [formerly known as Tata Robins - Fraser Limited] Jamshedpur is against a demand of duty of Rs. 44,61,122/- confirmed against them by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and is also against penalties of Rs, 44,61,122/- each imposed on them by the Commissioner under Section 11AC of the Act and Rule 173Q of the Rules. The seven appeals, Nos. 3271 to 3278/2000-B excluding No. 3274 (which was found to be a duplicate of No. 3271 and hence cancelled by the Registry), filed by the department are against grant, by the Commissioner, of the exemption under Notifications No. 61/90-C.E., dated 20-3-90 and No. 41/94-CE., dated 1-3-94 and of the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act to M/s. TRF Ltd. while quantifying the duty to be paid by them. The order challenged in these eight appeals is the Commissioner's Order-...
Shree Shyam Filaments Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC567
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Shree Shyam Filaments, is whether the refund claim filed by them is time barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant manufactured Synthetic filament yarn; that under intense pressure of the Department they paid the differential duty during the period 6.12.95 to 22.10.1997 in respect of additions to the assessable value made on account of transportation, insurance, handling and delivery charges for the clearances made during the period from 1.3.1994 to 30.11.1996; that they filed a refund claim on 25.6.1998 which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No.55-Refd/99 dated 18.11.1999 being time barred holding that letters dated 5.10.95 and 5.12.95 were not letters of protest as these were merely letters of disapproval with the Superintendent on various issues and that the procedure specified under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules wa...
State Bank of India Vs. Jagdamba Medicos and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC53
1. This appeal against order dated 1.8.2000 passed by Mr. S.N.P. Dave, Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No. 4/2000, State Bank of India v. Jagdamba Medicos and Ors. has been filed by State Bank of India, which had filed the O.A.2. The claim of the State Bank of India for a sum of Rs. 14.54.325/- along with costs and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of recovery proceedings, i.e. 13.12.1999 till relization from all the defendants jointly and severally has been decreed. It has further been directed that the Bank would also be entitled to recover this amount from the safe of hypothecated goods and mortgaged properties of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3.3. The challenge in this appeal is only on the point of award of lesser rate of pendente lite and future interest. The Bank in this appeal has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 16.32% with quarterly rests from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization, on the basis of ...
Asian Hotels Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)81ITD127(Delhi)
1. This appeal of the assesses is directed against the order dt. 16th Feb., 1994, recorded by CIT, Delhi-III, New Delhi, under Section 263 of IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act), by which the AO was directed to withdraw the deduction under Section 80HHD of the Act to the extent it relates to the amount of Rs. 4,03,09,863 representing the receipt in Indian rupees from the tour operator of foreign tourists and the amount of Rs. 5,27,22,837 being equivalent to foreign exchange converted by the assessee as restricted money changer.2. The relevant facts are that the assessee was found running a hotel in Delhi in the name of M/s Hyatt Regency during asst. yr. 1989-90, the year under consideration and the assessee filed return declaring income under Section 115J of the Act. It appears that assessment order purporting to be under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on 23rd March, 1992, in which income was assessed at Rs. 47,74,667 under Section 115J of the Act. The CIT Delhi-III, N...
Otto India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT367TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Otto India Pvt.Ltd., is whether the vacuum Arc Degassing (VAD) erected 'and installed by them is exigible to excise duty.2. Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that the Appellants have been engaged in the activity of setting up industrial plant on turnkey basis besides having a factory at Kalungal, Orissa, where they manufacture various equipments that they entered into an agreement with Bokaro Steel Plant for undertaking design, engineering, documentation, manufacturing and supplying of a plant and equipment, storage and handling at site, erection, testing, Commissioning, establishment of performance guarantee tests and final handing over of one number VAD installation in Steel Melting Shop II of the BSP, including civil and structural works. He, further, mentioned that the VAD system is a complete plant complex housed in several buildings spread over an area of merely 12,000 Sq meters; that it comprises 2...
Rakesh Kumar Bhagat Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC803
1. Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhagat has filed this appeal against the Adjudication Order No. 36/2000, dated 2-8-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) New Delhi.2. Briefly stated the facts are that Friendly Video Vision, proprietorship concern of Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhagat, a hundred per cent Export-Oriented Undertaking, imported a consignment of Videopan-cake from Singapore and filed Bill of Entry dated 9-10-1997. The consignment was put in the bonded warehouse of the appellant. The appellant despatched a consignment of video magnetic spools for export to Intexcon Pte. Ltd., Singapore under the supervision of Central Excise Officers. However, Customs Officers at Mumbai did not allow the consignment to be loaded on the vessel. The officers from New Delhi visited Mumbai and examined the consignment on 30-9-98. The tapes were found to be old and used and the length of tape was found to be 850 feet approximately. The officers drew samples from 12 Cartons.Subsequently the residential ...
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus., Nhava Sheva
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC47Tri(Delhi)
1. The brief facts in this case are that the appellants filed a Bill of Entry No. 1988, dt. 17-8-98 at the Nhava Sheva Port for the clearance of their imported consignment of spring pads and corrugated liners.Both of these items are components of Audio Cassettes. The appellants classified these items under Customs Tariff heading 7416.00 and 3920.62 respectively - as per the material of which the imported items are made- for payment of duty. The Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, however, classified the imported items under heading 8423.12 as parts of Audio Cassettes. The Asstt. Commissioner in his order observed that these goods are identifiable parts of audio cassettes only. He observed that as per Section Note 2(b) read with Note 5 to Section XVI of Customs Tariff, parts of goods falling under Chapters 84 or 85 if suitable for use solely or principally with particular type of goods shall be classified with that type of goods only. Hence, it is observed that even though parts of cassett...
A. Infrastructure Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT103TriDel
1. The Tribunal vide its order dated 9-11-2001 observed in this matter that the amount of duty and penalty had not been deposited by the appellants for the purpose of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944; that there was no proof of deposit of duty and penalty, nor the appellants had filed any application for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit. The appeal was therefore dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F. The Tribunal, however, gave the appellants a liberty to get the appeal revived on due compliance with the requirements of Section 35F.2. The present ROA petition is filed by Shri P.S. Chaudhary, Consultant of the appellants. In this petition, it is stated that the department had detained the goods to the extent of Rs. 83,950/- (Modvat credit and penalty) by the order dated 4-7-96 passed under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is contended that since the goods equivalent to the duty and penalty continued to be detained by the de...
Munch Food Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC42Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee challenges the rejection, by the lower authorities, of the refund claim of Rs. 3,22,560/- filed on 1-6-1995. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of chocolate confectionery (CSH 1803.00) and chocolate-covered biscuits (claimed to be under CSH 1905.90) during the material period 1993-1994. They had filed classification list effective from 1-4-93, claiming classification of the above products under CSH 1803.00 and CSH 1905.90 respectively. The assessee had also mentioned "chocolates in various converted forms" as non-manufactured items cleared by them. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner by Order No. 112/93-94, dated 14-12-1993 approved the classification of chocolate confectionery under CSH 1803.00 and classified chocolate-covered biscuits also under CSH 1803.00 instead of 1905.90 claimed by the party. The aggrieved assessee took up the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals), who classified the chocolate-covered biscuits under CSH 190...
Farrukhabad Investment (i) Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)85ITD230(Delhi)
1. The appeals directed by the assessee arise out of the order of the CIT(A) dt. 18th July, 2000, sustaining the penalty under Section 271D of the IT Act for asst. yrs. 1992-93 to 1995-96, 1997-98 and 1998-99 and against sustaining penalty under Section 271E of the Act pertaining asst. yrs. 1992-93 to 1995-96,1997-98 and 1998-99. As the issues in all the appeals are common, the same are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. Though various grounds have been raised, the assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeals : (1) Because, the impugned orders dt. 14th Dec., 1999 are wholly invalid, illegal and without jurisdiction as they have been passed in violation of Section 275 of the Act. (2) Because, satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings had to be recorded by the AO during the assessment proceedings. On or prior to 28th June, 1999, the AO has not recorded such satisfaction for initiation of the penalty proceedings. (3) Because, on 28th Oct., 1999, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »