Delhi Court June 2002 Judgments

Paramount Cable Corpn. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(105)LC447Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Paramount Cable Corporation have filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 144-CE/DLH/2001 dated 24.12.2001 under which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,32,378.86 paise against them and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on them.2. Shri Harbans Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture electric wires & cables and avail of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs: that the Additional Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 71/99 dated 26.2.1999 confirmed the demand and imposed penalty on the ground that the MODVAT Credit was taken by them without receipt of the inputs and only on the basis of gate passes issued by M/s. Kijriwal Enterprises and M/s. Priyanka Metals. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the copies of the statements of Shri K.C. Kejriwal and Sunil Kejriwal were not supplied to them which tantamounts to violation of principles of natural justice; that Sanjay Aggarwal, partner of the firm retrac...

Alaska Tyres (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC832

1. The above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 6-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide which he has upheld the order-in-original of the Addl. Commissioner dated 26-2-1999.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Rice Rubber Rolls and Rice Polishers falling under Chapter Heading 4016 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. After visiting their factory premises on 27-7-1999 the Central Excise Officers found that they were manufacturing the goods in the brand name of "ALASKA' which belonged to M/s. Vinko Auto Indus. Ltd. and also did not disclose in their declaration regarding the use of this brand name belonging to another person. They were not eligible for the SSI exemption on that account, but still, they illegally availed it. Shri Ravi Gupta, Director of the firm, appellants No. 1 even admitted in his statement regarding the use of the brand name "ALASKA" belonging to another person i...

Bhopal Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT643TriDel

1. Shri P.N. Kaul, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Bhopal Wires Pvt. Ltd. manufacture Electric Transformer and Conductors and avail of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs; that on 12-11-97 they inadvertently took credit of Rs. 93,000/- instead of Rs. 16,740/-; that thus an amount of Rs. 76,260/- was taken in excess by them; that the Appellants after detecting the mistake themselves reversed the excess amount on 28-11-97 by entry No. 346 in RG 23A, Part II. He, further, submitted that on 25-11-97 the RG 23A showed a balance of Rs. 1,49,553/- which, in fact, should be only Rs. 73,293/- (by deducting excess credit taken by them); that in addition the Appellants had taken a credit of Rs. 22,976/- on 25-11-97 bringing the credit amount in balance to Rs. 96,269/-; that they had debited Rs. 1,17,418/- in RG 23A, Part II whereby they paid duty short by Rs. 21,149/- and not Rs. 44,125/- as held by the Asstt. Commissioner; that again on realizing their own mistake they deposited suo motu...

Siddhartha Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT364TriDel

1. Today the Appeal filed by M/s. Siddhartha Asia Ltd. is posted for admission. For the reasons recorded below I admit the Appeal and take up the same for hearing with the consent of both the sides.2. Shri Piyush Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the business of import and trading of various merchandise; that they imported 14.4 M.T. Polycarbonate sheets under Bill of Entry No. 253209, dated 25-9-2001 which was assessed to duty at enhanced value of US $ 1040 per MT, though the transaction value was US $ 950 per MT and the goods were cleared on execution of Bond for provisional assessment; that the DRI Officers seized document and 3 computers from their premises on 5-10-2001 and 37 rolls of Polycarbonate sheet (approx. 3500 Kg) lying in godown on 6-10-2001; that DRI Officers searched the premises of their dealers at Delhi and Mumbai and seized stocks of polycarbonate sheets which were duly imported, duty paid and sold to the dealers under proper docum...

Kajalwala Process Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC798

1. The appellants manufacture man-made fabrics falling under Chapter Heading Nos. 54 & 55. A team of preventive officers of Central Excise Commissionerate, Ahmedabad visited their factory premises on 24-2-98 and examined their statutory Central Excise records in the presence of Shri Farooqbhai Iqbalbhai Surti, partner of the said firm. On scrutiny of their statutory records and verification of stocks, it was found that processed man-made fabrics bearing lot Nos. 117, 119, 121 & 125 totally measuring 45,064 L. Mtrs. valued at Rs. 6,77,467/- and involving a central excise duty of Rs. 1,35,494/- were found short as against the balance reflected in their RG 1 Register. A statement was recorded from Shri Farooqbhai Iqbalbhai Surti, partner of the firm who in his statement of even date admitted that the said fabrics were removed clandestinely without accounting them in their RG 1 Register and without paying duty of excise. Consequently, they debited the aforesaid amount of duty with...

thermotech and Pardeep Khanna Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC542

1. Both these appeals have arisen out of common Order No. 6/99 (Adj) dated 11.8.99 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise under which Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 58,39,070 has been demanded from M/s. Thermotech, besides imposing penalty of equivalent amount. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has also been imposed on Shri Pardeep Khanna.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant No. 1, a proprietorship unit of Mrs. Neera Khanna, manufactured air conditioners, coolers, heat convertors, transformers and washing machines; that the manufacturing activities were started in 1990 and the Appellant No. 1 was availing of the SSI exemption Notification; that they were also undertaking the trading activities in similar goods from the different premises; that till 31.3.1994, they had been manufacturing their goods under the brand name 'Thermotech' and Thermoking'; that they stopped manufacturing activities since March 1995 but the trading activities remained continue...

Satpal JaIn Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)79TTJ(Delhi)444

1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi, dt. 17th April, 1996, for the asst. yr. 1992-93. "1. That the order of the learned Asstt. CIT as well as CIT(A) is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned Asstt. CIT as well as learned CIT(A)-XH, New Delhi, acted arbitrarily, illegally in making an addition of Rs. 89,023 under Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. 3. That the assessee craves right to add, delete, modify, substitute any one or more of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 3. Ground Nos. 1 and 3 are general, hence they do not require adjudication.4. Ground No. 2 relates to the alleged error of the CIT(A) in sustaining addition of Rs. 89,023 made by the Asstt. CIT under Section 40A(3) of the Act. It has been observed by the AO that during the course of examination of the books of the assessee it was found that the assessee had made payments for the purchase of fuel in tankers and had made cash payments, excess ...

Neeta Gupta Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited

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, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 18.3.2002, passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 818/2000 entitled - Mrs. Neeta Gupta v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Mrs. Neeta Gupta, a subscriber of telephone connection bearing No. 2611721, installed at A/888, Gharoli Diary Colony, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi, had filed a complaint before the District Forum assailing the validity of a notice bearing number TR (TY)-Legal-2252660/2000-01 dated the 29.9.2000/17.10.2000 on the ground that vide above mentioned notice the respondents had raised a demand from the appellant in respect of two telephones bearing numbers 2252660 and 2472660 which were in the name of her husband Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta and...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Raj Cement

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC730Tri(Delhi)

1. Revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) holding "I hold that the appellant is entitled to 100% credit in respect of CVD paid by it in the instant case, and therefore, the disallowance of credit of Rs. 24,45,287/- is hereby set aside".2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondent herein is a manufacturer of cement. In the year 1996, they imported capital goods under Project Import Scheme. Goods imported under Project Import Scheme are classifiable under Chapter Heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff Chapter Heading 98.01 was not specified under Rule 57Q. The installation of capital goods was completed after 1-3-97 and the respondent took credit thereafter.3. W.e.f. 1-3-97 chapter heading 98.01 was specified under Rule 57Q. A SCN was issued to the respondent herein asking them to explain as to why Modvat credit should not be restricted to 75% only. The Asstt.Commissioner allowed them Modvat credit onl...

Fabworth (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC945Tri(Delhi)

1. These appeals are at the instance of two assessees. M/s. Fabworth (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fabworth) are engaged in the manufacture of all-wool worsted fabrics, wool-silk fabrics and poly-wool fabrics in its 100% export-oriented units. The processed fabrics are exported. M/s, Woolworth (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Woolworth) is also having 100% EOUs where various kinds of yarns are manufactured and exported. Under the EXIM Policy they are entitled to numerous concessions. They are permitted to sell 25% of their production in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) i.e., within India, with prior permission of the Development Commissioner, and subject to payment of duty of excise under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with any Exemption Notification issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act. These facts are not in dispute.2. The issue that has come up for consideration in these appeals is whether the appellants are liable to ...