Delhi Court April 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.
Protech Engg. Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC246Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant manufactures printed aluminium foils which is liable to Central Excise duty as applicable to goods falling under Heading 7607 of the Central Excise Tariff. These aluminium foils are sold to pharmaceutical companies who use them to pack medicine (tablets). The foils are printed with the name of the drug, the name of its manufacturer and other particulars, as ordered to be printed by the pharmaceutical company. For the purpose of printing such particulars, the appellant procures printing cylinders/rollers. Each such cylinder/roller is separately designed as per requirement of the customer. A cylinder can be used for printing a large quantity (10,000 kg.) of aluminium foils. The cost of a cylinder varied from Rs. 800 to Rs. 1500 in the appenant's case. The appellant recovered the cost of the cylinder separately from their customers, and not as a part of the invoice value of the aluminium foils. Consequently, the cost of the cylinders used in the printing of the aluminium...
Cce Vs. Bhabani Pigments Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(103)LC897Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31.3.2000.3. On a careful scrutiny of the records, I find that the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, in his authorisation issued to the Supdt. of Central Excise for filing this appeal, has neither examined the question whether the impugned order is proper or not, nor disclosed the grounds for holding the said order to be "not correct and legal." A Larger Bench of this Tribunal has, in CCE, Mumbai v. Bombay Switchgear , held that formation of opinion by the Collector/Commissioner that the order against which appeal is to be filed is not legal or proper should be reflected in the order authorising the filing of such appeal under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act 1944. If the grounds for formation of such opinion by the Collector/ Commissioner are not reflected in the order authorising filing of the appeal, the Larger Bench held, such grounds should at least be contained...
S. Kumar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC902Tri(Delhi)
The appellants were job workers for M/s. Dhvani Terrifabs Export Pvt. Ltd. (for short, M/s. DTE). They received raw material (grey fabrics of cotton) from M/s. DTE, processed the same and supplied the processed fabrics (falling under Chapter 60 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985) to them. During the period 5-3-1997 to 30-8-1997, they cleared processed fabrics (CSH 6001.21) to M/s. DTE on payment of Additional Excise Duty (AED) in lieu of Sale Tax @ 8% adv. under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The total duty so paid was Rs. 8,43,041/-. Later they found that, under Notification No. 9/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996, the goods were exempt from such duty. Upon realizing the mistake, the appellants sent to M/s. DTE a cheque dated 3-9-1997 for Rs. 7,08,520/-(which amount of duty the appellants had collected from M/s. DTE at the time of clearance of the goods) as refund of duty wrongly collected. They had not collected the differential a...
Aditya Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT389TriDel
1. The appellants are cement manufacturers. One of their raw materials is limestone. They have their own limestone mines situate away from the factory. They have crushers also which crush big boulders of the mined limestone into smaller ones. Dumpers are used for transferring the big boulders from the mines to the crushers. During March, 1996, the appellants took Modvat credit of Rs. 56,100/- on the dumper tyres under Rule 57Q. The department, by show cause notice, proposed to disallow this credit on the ground that the dumper tyres were not eligible capital goods under the said rule. The proposal was contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute, the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner denied the above credit to the as-sessee and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, after recording a finding that the dumpers were not used in the factory of production of cement and, for that reason, the dumper tyres did not qualify to be capital goods under Rule 57Q. This decision of ...
Taneja Toners Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cc (General)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(103)LC937Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals are directed against order in original No. 55A Adj/RKG/2001 dated 28.6.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, New Delhi. The impugned order confiscated CD Roms valued about Rs. 1.7 lakhs and gave the appellant an opportunity to redeem them against a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. It also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- each on the appellant company and its Director Shri Ajay Taneja. The order also released back to the appellant the Halogen Lamps which had been seized from them.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.9.2000 the Customs authorities seized Halogen Lamps and CD Roms of foreign origin in stock with the appellant as they "failed to produce any legal evidence/ documents in support of the leg?! possession/importation of the recovered goods of foreign origin". During the investigation, appellants explained that they were traders and had purchased these goods from other people. During adjudication, the learned Commissioner ac...
Sunder Singh and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT687TriDel
1. This is an application for dispensing with pre-deposit of the amount demanded under the order impugned.2. Challenge in this appeal is against Order-in-Original No. 13/2001 dated 24-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi. Under the above order the Commissioner has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 22,71,697 from the appellant and had imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs. Appellant is engaged in manufacture and clearance of parts of refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances, namely, Ammonia Compressors, Condensers and Cooling Cells. Allegation against the appellant was that they had been undervaluing Ammonia Compressors and showing excess value of its accessories by way of issuing two sets of invoices. While they kept the value of the Compressors on the lower side, the value for accessories was being enhanced in order to avoid the actual payment of duty. According to the Revenue the party had been diverting the value of the compressor towards the value of acce...
Bharat Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC505Tri(Delhi)
1. The brief facts of this case are that Ludhiana Steels Ltd., Ludhiana inter alia manufactured oxygen gas falling under sub-heading No.2804.11 in a part of their factory. The unit of the factory which manufactured oxygen gas, was taken over by the appellants - Bharat Steel Rolling Mills in February, 1995 on lease. The lessor, Ludhiana Steels Ltd. were themselves registered with the Central Excise Department for the manufacture of excisable goods, namely iron & steel products falling under Chapter 72. Prior to February, 1995, the duty was being paid at full rates by them on the clearances of their goods, as their clearances of all excisable goods had exceeded Rs. 3 crores during the preceding financial year. Bharat Steel Rolling Mills after taking over the unit manufacturing of oxygen gas in February, 1995 (financial year 1094-95), started clearing the gas at 'NIL' rate of duty claiming the exemptions under Notfn. No. 1/93-CE., dated 28-2-1993. The Excise Authorities however felt ...
Om Prakash JaIn Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC650
1. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Pune vide his order dated 31.12.97 has confirmed the customs duty and CVD amounting to Rs. 7,67,525.86 on Shri Samir Parikh of Mumbai under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and further imposed a penalty of an equal amount on him under Section 114A of the Act. He also ordered that the interest @ 20% may be recovered from Shri Samir Parikh under Section 28AB of the Act. He has further imposed penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs each on Shri Samir Parikh, Shri Mithubhai Ganatra and Shri Om Prakash Jain under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Shri Om Prakash Jain has filed the present appeal against the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on him in the impugned order. This matter had come up for hearing earlier on 27.7.2000, 29.8.2000, 11.10.2000, 6.11.2000, 24.1.2001, 3.4.2001, 26.6.2001, 17.9.2001, 28.11.2001 and 13.12.2001. It is observed from the record that on each occasions Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for the appellants had been plea...
Simpex Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC909Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal is at instance of the assessee challenging the Order-in-Original No. SSK/CC/ICD/ TKD/40/2001, dated 8-3-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, New Delhi. The assessee has filed Bill of Entry dated 8-1-2001 for clearance of 104.24 MT of "Brass Scrap Drink". The assessing authority took the view that the Brass Scrap was having the grade of 'Honey' and not the declared grade of 'Drink'. On the above basis, value of the goods was enhanced and fixed @ US$ 959.12 PMT as against the declared value of US $.825 PMT. The duty demand came to Rs. 24,67,854/-. The adjudicating authority further directed payment of redemption fine of Rs. 4,50,000 - and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-.2. On going through the impugned order, we find that admittedly the imported goods contained 5% impurity of iron. As per Scrap Specifications Circular 1997 read with Guidelines for Non-ferrous Scrap : NF-97 "Drinks - Refinery Brass - shall contain a minimum of 61.3% copper and maximum 5% iro...
Dr. R.P. Tiwari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(65)DRJ502
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. As this writ petition involves only a short legal question, the writ petition is taken up for disposal, with the consent of the parties.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ commanding the respondents to consider and accept the major research project proposals of the petitioner with the honorarium as per guide-lines of 9th plan scheme and to assign the Major Research Project to the petitioner without delay.3. Petitioner claims to be a highly qualified and recognised scholar of English Language and literature being the former Principal and Head of Department of English of Raja Balwant Singh College (Post Graduate) Agra. Petitioner is stated to have attended a good number of academic conferences and a number of candidate complete the Ph.D. under his supervision. Petitions has to his credit a number of academic achievements.4. petitioner is state to be a recipient of a project of UGC from July 1994 t...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »