Delhi Court June 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.
Cce Vs. Vishwanath Iron, S.R. Mills and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC622
1. The above applications are filed by the Revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals from a common order dated 26.4.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh in 80 appeals filed by the assessees. The issue involved in these appeals was whether Modvat credit taken on inputs which are lying unused is liable to be reversed on the commencement of compounded levy scheme introduced vide Notification No. 26/97-CE(NT) dated 25.7.97, as amended under Section 3A. Following an earlier decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal Nos. 636-637/CE/CHD/99 dated 26.4.99, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original at SI. Nos. 1 to 80 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Patiala directing reversal of credit on inputs lying in stock and allowed the appeals. It is the above order which is being challenged by the Revenue before this Tribunal under different appeals mentioned above.2. All the above appeals were filed beyond...
Shree Ambica Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT467TriDel
1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Shree Ambica Steel Industries, the issue involved is whether credit of deemed duty under Notification No.58/97-C.E., dated 30-8-97 is available to them.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the credit of deemed duty has been denied to them in respect of supplies of inputs by M/s. Bhawani Steel Rolling Mills as no Certificate of Jurisdictional Range Officer regarding deposit of duty has been produced by them; that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Shivay Industries v. CCE, Chandigarh, Final Order No. 326/2002, dated 11-3-2002 has held that the notification does not stipulate the submission of a Certificate from the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent. Learned Advocate further submitted that the goods have been received by them under the cover of invoice which mentions that the goods have been cleared under Rule 96 ZP(3) which presume that duty has been paid.3. On the other hand, Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned Departmental Representative ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Santhan Richard Mathias
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC337Tri(Delhi)
1. In these two appeals filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the conditions of the Notification No. 258/90-Cus., dated 23-10-90 has been violated making the imported car liable to confiscation and imposition of penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Appellants. In fact the notice sent to them has been received back from the postal authorities. I, therefore, proceed with the finalisation of the Appeal after hearing Shri S. C. Pushkarna, learned Departmental Representative, and perusing the records. In this matter, Shri Santhan Richard Mathias imported a car on 22-10-90 through Attari Road and sought clearance of the car free of duty under Notification No.258/98-Cus.; that the car was released conditionally on execution of general bond for the production of import licence/CCP and subject to fulfilment of the condition. The Assistant Commissioner confiscated the car with the option to redeem the same on paymen...
Anil Chemicals and Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT147TriDel
1. When this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty came up for hearing it was agreed by both sides that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Initially the show cause notice dated 7-2-98 was dropped by the adjudicating authority under his order dated 14-12-99 in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 365. Later Finance Act, 2000 validated Sub-clauses (xii) and (xvii) of Clause (d) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 which were declared ultra vires by the Apex Court. The amendment was made retrospectively and deemed to be in force at all material times. The Commissioner of Central Excise sought to review the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner and issued show cause notice dated 31-5-2001. By order in review dated 10-12-2001 Commissioner set aside the adjudication order. The appellant was directed to pay the amount due, as service tax for the relevant period.Apart from the above, an amount of ...
Davinder Sharma Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC46
1. This appeal has been filed by one Shri Davinder Sharma against order dated 15.5.1996 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No.86/96. By the impugned order, recovery application of Central Bank of India against the defendants in the said O.A. has been allowed and a sum of Rs. 27,64,468/- with interest @ 12.5% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the said O.A. till realization and a sum of Rs. 20,65,023.33 with interest @ 16.5.% per annum with quarterly rests from 15.6.1988 till relization has been decreed. The operative portion of the impugned order directs that the Bank is also entitled to recover the aforesaid sum by way of sale of hypothecated as well as mortgaged properties of the defendants.2. Since immovable properties had been mortgaged with the certificate holder, Central Bank of India, the property in question, being one of the mortgaged properties, was put to auction by the Recovery Officer in execution proceedings and the same has been sol...
Telemats India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: 2005(182)ELT458(Del)
ORDER1. The dispute is about the precise rate at which excise duty is payable on the supporting/transmission towers manufactured and supplied by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise raised a demand of Rs. 12,15,081/- on account of differential duty @ 15%, which according to him was livable on these goods and @ 13% which the petitioner had paid, with Rs. 25,000/- as penalty imposed on non-deposit of due duty. The petitioner says as per communication received from the respondent No. 2, the correct rate of duty was 13% which had been paid and that demand raised and penalty imposed are wrong and illegal. The petitioner filed appeal against the demand before the Commissioner (Appeals) who waived the penalty but upheld the decision of the department that the excise duty @ 15% was rightly levied on the goods. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (C.E.G.A.T.). By Order dated 5-2-2002 C.E.G.A....
Ravi Agricultural Indus. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC531Tri(Delhi)
1. The above captioned appeals have been filed against the common order-in-original dated 1-6-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he has confirmed the duty demand on appellant No. 1, M/s. Ravi Agricultural Indus, with penalty, and also imposed penalties on other two appellants as detailed in the order itself.2. The firm, appellants No. 1, was engaged in the manufacture and sale of I.C. Diesel Engines and Diesel Generating Sets. The factory premises of the firm, appellants No. 1, was visited on 15-11-1997 and the officers of the Central Excise resumed some records and also seized excess stock 63 of Brand Engines and 18 D.G. Sets. The statement of Shri Radha Raman Garg was also recorded. From the examination of the record, it revealed that the appellants had suppressed the production of the engine during the period 1-4-1997 to 14-11-1997. Some loose invoices were also seized vide which the goods were allegedly cleared and it also came to the notice of the Centra...
Simplex Global Impex Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC114Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Simplex Global Impex, the issue involved is whether rebate of Excise duty paid on the goods exported by them is admissible to them or not.2. Shri P.K. Sahu, Id. Advocate, submitted that the appellants are merchant exporter of HDPE/PP sacks; that during the period December, 1999 to February, 2000, they had purchased excisable goods on payment of duty from six different manufacturers and exported the same on 18-2-2000 and 7-3-2000; that they filed their claim towards rebate of duty on the excisable goods exported in terms of Rule 12(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the refund of the duty has been denied on the ground that the claim is hit by time- limit specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act; and that the Disclaimer Certificate was filed later at the time of personal hearing whereas it was required to be submitted with AR4 only. The ld. Advocate, further/ submitted that the claim is not time-barred as the period specified under...
Sunil Behl Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC788
2. The appellant was directed vide stay order dated 25.5.2001 for making the pre-deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs within a period of eight weeks.He failed to comply with this order and his appeal was ordered to be dismissed vide order dated 8.1.2002. However, he was given liberty to get the appeal revived in case he was able to show the compliance with the stay order on or before 13.5.2002, but he has still failed to comply with the stay order dated 25.5.2001. He has, however, filed the application seeking extension of time for making pre-deposit in order to get his appeal revived for hearing on merits. He has appeared in person and requested for extension of time on the ground that his entire money is blocked and the Income Tax Department is taking long time in finalizing his income tax liabilities. He has also produced a copy of the letter issued by the Director (ITCC), vide which he has been informed to get in touch with Director (V&L), Central Board of Direct Taxes. Therefore, keeping ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rubicon Steels
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT355TriDel
1. In this Appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether deemed credit is available to the respondents M/s. Rubicon Steels under Notification No. 58/97-Central Excise, dated 30-8-97.2. Shri H.C. Verma, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the respondents manufacture rail coach parts and availed of the Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs; that during the scrutiny of RT 12 returns during the period from 4/98 to 3/99, it was found that they had availed deemed Modvat credit on the strength of invoice in which it was mentioned that duty liability was to be discharged under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules; that in terms of Para 4 of Notification No. 58/97, the Deputy Commissioner under Adjudication Order Nos.286-88/99, dated 1-12-99 disallowed the Modvat credit; that on Appeal however, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Appeal partly by allowing the deemed Modvat credit in respect of the inputs where the Range Officer of the supplier had certifie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »