Delhi Court May 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.
Monnet Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT649TriDel
1. Arguing the five stay petitions Shri L.P. Asthana along with Shri Rajesh Chibber, ld. Counsels submit that in these cases duty amounting to Rs. 1,09,73,000/- has been demanded and a penalty of an equal amount has been imposed on the company and of Rs. one crore on M/s. Baba Vishwakarma Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri J.P, Lath, Whole Time Director of M/s. Monnet Industries Ltd., Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri B.B.Thapar, Asstt. General Manager of M/s. Monnet Industries and Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri Jugal Kamboj. They submit that out of the amount of duty, the applicants have already deposited a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. They, therefore, prayed that further pro-deposit of duty and penalty may be waived.2. We have heard Shri L.P. Asthana and Shri Rajesh Chibber, ld.Counsels for the appellant and Shri Mewa Singh, ld. DR for the Revenue.Since an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs has already been deposited by the applicant, further pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived. With the consent of both the part...
Dr. K.C. Verma Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)84ITD33(Delhi)
1. These appeals pertain to assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96 involving common legal question as to whether the assessments framed under Section 144 were bad in law. Since common question is involved, the same are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience.2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are these. The assessee is a dermatologist, who served as Head of the Department at Government Medical College, Rohtak up to 1980 when he left India and returned on 14-11-1991. The returns for the years under consideration were sent by registered post on 2-12-1997 waiving his right to receive the notices under Section 148. However, notices under Section 148 dated 23-3-1998 were issued and sent to the assessee by registered post. The assessee vide letter dated 24-4-1998 requested the Assessing Officer to treat the returns already filed as returns filed in response to notices under Section 148. Subsequently, as per Assessing Officer, notices under Section 142(1) ...
Vandana Ispat P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC593
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Vandana Ispat P.Ltd. is whether the benefit of exemption provided under Notification No. 50/97-C.E., dated 1-8-97, as amended by Notification No. 57/97-CE., dated 30-8-1997 is available to the excisable goods, manufactured by them.2. Shri R. Swaminathan, learned Consultant submitted that the Appellants manufacture hot-rolled products falling under sub-heading 7216.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that a Scheme of Compounded Levy for specified hot-rolled products has to come into effect from 1-8-1997 but was postponed; that the said scheme came into effect from 1-9-1997; that initially they were covered under the said scheme to be effective from 1-8-97; that however, under the revised scheme effective from 1-9-97, they were not covered under the scheme.He, further, submitted that under Notification No. 50/97-C.E., dated 1-8-97, goods manufactured prior to 1-8-97, and cleared on or after that date, duty was leviable ...
Ganesh Overseas and ors. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC630
1. These three appeals arise from and are directed against a common order in original No. 30/Commr/99-APP dated 31.12.99 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Gujarat, Ahmedabad.2. The impugned order was passed in respect of the consignment (476753 pcs.) of different sub-models of Condenser Microphone WM-034. Upon a finding that the value of the Microphones had been mis-declared, the impugned order confiscated the goods for violation of the provisions of Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act. However, an option was given to the importer to redeem the microphones on payment of fine of Rs. 15 lakhs.The order also enhanced the assessable value of the goods from Japanese Yen 0.75 per piece to US $ 0.1230 per piece for purpose of levy of customs duty and confirmed differential duty demand of Rs. 12,19,341.Penalties were also imposed on the importing firm M/s. Shri Ganesh Overseas, its Proprietor Shri Tarak S. Shukla, Sh. Bhagavatiprasad Anil Kumar Vasant alias Ketan Vasant, Shri Harsh Anil K...
Magna Inks Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT619TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture 'Inked Ribbon' in cassettes, spools etc.falling under Chapter Heading No. 9612.00. During the period from February, 97 to September, 97, the departmental authorities called upon them to pay duty on this item. Accordingly, the party paid the duty on them but contested such levy. They filed appeal and finally, the CEGAT vide its Final Order No. 791-799/99-C dt. 2-9-99 held that the process of putting inked ribbon in spools/cassettes/cartridges undertaken by them would not amount to manufacture and allowed their appeal.Consequently, they filed a refund claim for Rs. 1,06,349/- on 26-11-99 with the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise Dn. II, Indore for the duty paid by them during the period from 14-2-97 to 10-3-97. The appellants in their refund claim asserted that the duty was paid by them under protest. The Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise Dn. II, Indore however vide his Order dated 18-8-2000 rejected the claim of the party on the grounds of time bar unde...
Asian Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT702TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugned order-in-original dated 9-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs vide which he had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 28,17,072/- with penalty of Rs. 28 lakhs on appellant No. 1, M/s. Asian Exports, and imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on appellant No. 2, the Director of the firm, Shri Rajeev Khandelwal.2. The appellants are engaged in the export of the goods. They imported brass scrap duty free against two advance licences through ICD, TKD., New Delhi, by availing benefit of exemption from payment of customs duty under Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992. The customs duty leviable on the goods, but for this, exemption, was of Rs. 28,17,072/-. The appellants disposed of the imported goods without discharging the export obligation. They instead of utilising the imported goods for the manufacture of the resultant export product, cleared the material in the domestic market. They were accordingly served with a sho...
Sony India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC436
1. In this appeal at the instance of M/s. Sony India Ltd. the challenge is against the order-in-original No. KK/CC/ICD/TKD/6/99, dated 30-1-99 (issued on 1-2-99) passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. Under the above order the Commissioner has confirmed differential duty demand of Rs. 42,89,75,196/- under proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,19,92,183/- under Section 112(a) read with Section 114(a) and levied interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act. The import of several parts of Colour Television made by the appellant for the period from April, 1995 to 1997 were treated as import of complete Colour Television Set for the purpose of assessment by the Commissioner.2. When the appeal filed by the assessee came up for hearing before a two Member Bench difference of opinion arose between the Members on the application of Rule 2(a) of General Rules for interpretation under First Schedule of Imp...
Orient Cable Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC820
1. The appellants manufacture insulated wires and cables classifiable under sub-heading 8544.90. They are also availing Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs including copper wires used in the manufacture of their final products. During the period from 26-6-1992 to 20-1-1993, they availed Modvat credit of Rs. 3,50,342.87 on the copper wires received by them from M/s. Kejrivval Enterprises, Nangloi, Delhi and from M/s. Pri-yanka Metals, Delhi under the GP-1s issued by these parries. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi however issued them a show cause notice dt. 20-3-1996 and also to Shri G.D. Arora, their partner in which it was alleged that M/s. Geeta Metal Industries and M/s. Ajanta Metal Industries were two fictitious units and they were issuing only Modvatable documents to M/s. Kejriwal Enterprises and M/s.Priyanka Metals in respect of copper bars, whereas no copper bars were physically issued and actually received by them; that these documents were sold by them in the ope...
Sony India Ltd. Vs. Cc, Icd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(103)LC288Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal at the instance of M/s. Sony India Ltd. the challenge is against the order-in-original No. KK/CC/ICD/TKD/6/99 dated 30.1.1999 (issued on 1.2.1999) passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. Under the above order the Commissioner has confirmed differential duty demand of Rs. 42,89,75,196/- under proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,19,92,183/-under Section 112(a) read with Section 114(a) and levied interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act. The import of several parts of Colour Television made by the appellant for the period from April 1995 to 1997 were treated as import of complete Colour Television Set for the purpose of assessment by the Commissioner.2. When the appeal filed by the assessee came up for hearing before a two Member Bench difference of opinion arose between the Members on the application of Rule 2(a) of General Rules for interpretation under first Schedule of Im...
Superior Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC651
1. All these appeals are directed against a common order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) in order in Appeal No. 585-587-CE/DLH/2001, dated 10-7-2001. The appeals of the as-sessees contest demand of duty and interest and imposition of penalty while the revenue appeal contests the exclusion of cost of packing from the assessable value and reduction of penalty in the case of M/s. Superior Products.2. The basic issue for consideration in these cases is whether value of the manufacture of both the appellant manufacturers, namely, M/s.Superior Pet Pvt. Limited and M/s. Superior Products are to be clubbed together for determining the eligibility of each of the units to small scale exemption as available under Notification No. 9/98, dated 2-6-98.4. The exemption under Notification No. 9/98 is value based, is to a manufacturer and is in respect of a manufacturer's production from one or more factories or from a factory by one or more manufacturers. The impugned order has held that the product...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »