Delhi Court May 2002 Judgments

Pam Instruments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC722

Therefore, I find that the contention of appellants in the matter does not have any force in it and the 'Electric Control Panel' cleared by them after affixing sticker of 'Carrier' logo would be treated as 'Branded Goods' not eligible for SSI exemption in terms of para 4 of the Notification No. 9/99-CE dated 28 2.99 As regards the case law of 'Two Star v. A.C. Central Excise 1981 ELT 865 (Bom.) cited by the appellants, which held 'that a manufacturer will not be disentitled to the benefits of an exemption notification merely because the goods are manufactured by him under the customer's brand name provided he satisfies all the conditions of the notification'. I find, the above case law cited by the appellants is for a very old period when there were no specific conditions and Explanations laid down for clearance of 'Branded Goods' in the relevant SSI exemption Notification.2. The facts of the case in brief are that appellants are manufacturing and clearing Electric Control Panels afte...

Bentex Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC378Tri(Delhi)

1. Both the above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common order-in-original dated 28-9-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had confirmed the duty and penalty amounts against them.2. M/s. Bentex Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'BI')/ appellants No. 1, are manufacturer of electriocal motor starter, control panel and parts thereof, while appellants No. 2, M/s. Bentex Electricals (hereinafter referred to as 'BE') are engaged in the manufacture of MCB, metal sheet enclosure, KWH energy meters, distribution board etc. The company, appellants no. 1, was formerly known as M/s. National Electric Industries. This company was set up in the year 1984 and is a private limited company in which Shri R.L.Chopra, is M.D., while his wife Smt. Veena Chopra and daughter Smt.Rashi Khanna, are the Directors. Whereas the appellant No. 2, BE, is a Proprietorship concern of Shri R.L. Chopra, who started the same in the year 1987. Both the appellant...

Sunil Agarwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by assessee against the assessment order under Section 158BC of the IT Act relating to block period from 1st April, 1986, to 20th June, 1996, relevant to asst. yrs. 1987-88 to 1997-98.2. In first ground the assessee has objected the addition of Rs. 86 lakhs on account of cash seized. In ground No. 2 the assessee has objected the following additions : These additions were made on account of alleged commission on billing on job contract work in block period. In the third ground the assessee has objected the following additions made on account of billing commission on trading activities in the block period : In ground No. 4 the assessee has objected the addition of Rs. 1,36,41,971 made as unexplained cash credits. In ground No. 5 the assessee objected the following additions on account of jewellery as unexplained : In the sixth ground , the assessee has objected the addition of Rs. 1,15,000 on account various valuables as undisclosed, In last, the assessee has appeal...

Animesh Arora Vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-i and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated the 16th December, 1998, passed by District Forum I, Tis Hazari, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 734/1995 entitled Shri Animesh Arora v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant, for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi, on 7th July, 1994 (Complaint Case No. 134/1994), averring that the appellant, on 15th March, 1991, had booked a flat/space, measuring 100 sq. ft., in Jhandewalan Tower (Bau Makhan Singh House, E-1 Swami Ram Tirath Nagar), New Delhi. It was stated that along with the application, the appellant had also deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 15th March, 1991 and thereafter another sum of Rs. 27,000/- was deposited by the appellant be...

Kukanda Mal Ram Ditta Mal Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(106)LC173Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 7.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The issue relates to availment of deemed modvat credit.2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and he submitted that the period of dispute is 17.11.1994.The appellants are manufacturers of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants have been availing of the Small Scale exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 and also the deemed modvat credit on the inputs in terms of Government of India order No. TS/36/94-TRU dated 1.3.1994.During the financial year 1994-1995, the appellants reached the value limit of Rs. 75 lakhs for clearances in terms of Notification No.1/93-CE on 17.11.1994 and started paying full duty under protest. The appellants also stopped taking deemed credit on 17.11.1994 in terms of the Government order dated 1.3.1994. On 17.11.1994, the ...

Econ Antri Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC408Tri(Delhi)

1. When this stay petition came up for hearing it was agreed by both sides that the appeal itself could be disposed of.2. We heard both sides on merits. The learned Counsel for the appellant places reliance on the Board's Circular No. 2/94-CX,, dated 11-1-94 in support of the contention that the amount of set off received in respect of the inputs cannot be taken into consideration while granting deduction of the sales tax payable, from the sale price. The circular refers to the advice of the Attorney General of India on this issue in the following manner :- "2. Board has sought the advice of the Attorney General of India as to which of the following amounts is eligible for deduction from the cum-duty price of excisable goods for determining the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act: (i) Amount of sales tax payable at tariff rate, ignoring the effective rate of sales tax payable on finished goods as well as set off of taxes paid on inputs; (ii) Amount of sales tax ...

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT672TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. against adjudication Order No. 502/2001, dated 9-10-2001 under which the Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 74,16,207/- recovered by the appellants in excess from their " customers representing duty of excise under Section 11D(2) of the Central Excise Act. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has also been imposed on the appellants under the impugned order.2. Sh. A.R. Madhav Rao, ld. Advocate, submitted that when the petroleum products are cleared by the appellants from refinery or the installations Central excise duty is paid on the assessable value prevailing at the depot at the time of removal of the goods; that the prices of the petroleum products are fixed under the Administered Price Mechanism (APM) by the Oil Co-ordination Committee (OCC) and accordingly, the duty paid stocks of HSD at their depot was sold at the revised prices by the appellants; that the demand has been confirmed and penalty has been imposed by ...

Lalit Chordia, Director and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC824

1. These are the two appeals filed against the common order dated 15.5.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur.The period of dispute in both the appeals is April 1997. The duty demand of Rs. 1,17,436 has been confirmed and an equal amount of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has also been imposed. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 has been imposed on Shri Lalit Chordia, Director of the appellants under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules 1944 on the ground that the appellants had clandestinely removed the excisable goods without payment of Central Excise duty.2. Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of marble slabs/tiles classifiable under Chapter Heading 25 of the Schedule of the CETA, 1985. The officers of the respondent visited the factory of the appellants on 15.10.97 and checked various records being maintained by them. The RG-1 register of the appel...

Deep Shipbreaking Industrial Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC460Tri(Delhi)

1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No.1/Commr/Cus/1999, dated 29-4-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot. The impugned order confiscated a ship imported by the first appellants Deep Shipbreaking Industrial Co-Op.Society Ltd., Bhavnagar and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on them. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on appellants Shri Jiten A. Jogadia who is the Secretary of the first appellant Co-Operative Society. The order also gave appellant an opportunity to redeem the ship on payment of fine of Rs. 20 lakhs. The confiscation of the vessel has been done under Clause (j) of Section 111 of the Customs Act 1962. It may be noted at the outset that this Clause renders "any dutiable or prohibited goods removed or attempted to be removed from Customs area without the permission of the proper officer" liable to confiscation.2. Facts leading to the dispute are that appellants imported vessel M.V. Palanga for breaking. She was brought ...

Sunder Lal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT66TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 31-8-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The issue relates to seizure of goods. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellants were availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification and as per the small scale exemption, they were entitled for the clearance of goods up to the value of Rs. 30 lakhs without payment of duty. He submitted that the appellants had already cleared the goods up to 13-2-97 of the value of Rs. 27,20,000/- and the seized goods were of the value of Rs. 2,17,000/-. Therefore, even if this amount is added to the total clearance, it is below Rs. 30 lakhs. He, however, admitted that no proper record was maintained by the appellants. In respect of unaccounted goods seized from the factory, he submitted that the goods were not recorded in the RG 1. However, on account of non-accountal, the goods lying in the factor...