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.
Adhunik Food Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC324
1. M/s. Adhunik Food Products and Others had filed two ROMs as there was duplication on certain point, a consolidated ROM has been filed by the applicant now. It has been pointed out that some mistakes are there in the Final Order Nos. 215-219/2001-D, dated 9-11-2001 [2002 (149) E.L.T. 254 (T)]. Request has been made that the mistakes may be corrected. The claimed mistakes are as under: (i) In para 13 of the Tribunal's Order reference has been made to the declaration filed by the appellant on 13-4-1994 in which both the products as well as the processes involved have been clearly indicated leaving no doubt or ambiguity and this aspect was appreciated by the Bench in the course of the hearing as well and the subsequent declarations also contain the same details in regard to the products and the processes involved. However, the assessee's claim for exemption in respect of the products by claiming the Soya Nut as Soya textured protein with 'nil' rate of duty and/or as namkeens, such Bhuj...
Sh. Prakash P. Hinduja Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT448; 2002(64)DRJ34
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This is a petition by the petitioner who is one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 39/99 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi. The prayers of the petitioner are three fold, namely, (a) that the order dated 18.4.2002 of the learned Special Judge on the application dated 15.4.2002 be set aside; (b) cognizance taken and process issued pursuant thereto be revoked and (c) charge-sheet filed the rejected.2. Extensive arguments were addressed by learned counsel for both the sides. Both the sides relied upon and sought to interpret the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., 1988 (1) SCC 226. The petitioner has called for strict compliance of paragraph 58 of this judgment laying special stress on sub-para 3. He contended that the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI') after competing its investigation was bound to place the report before the Central Vigilance Commission (for short 'C...
Jeevan Kumar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT391
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred this petition in which they have prayed that order dated 29.5.2002 be quashed being arbitrary and contrary to the Scheme of Multi State Cooperative Society Act 1984 (for short 'MSCS Act, 1984').2. The order dated 29.5.2002 has been issued by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India. In this letter, it is mentioned that the Govt. has, thereforee, decided under Section 47 of the MSCS Act in order to prevent the possibility of accumulation of further losses in Super Bazar, all purchases in respect of trading activity should be discontinued with immediate effect, until further orders. The existing inventory of all stores available with the Super Bazar, at present may be sold through its existing outlets as before till the stocks last.3. The petitioners contended that the impugned letter dated 29.5.2002 suffers from total non-application of mind and is also malafide and arbitrary. The petitioners a...
Bombay Metal Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(105)LC733Tri(Delhi)
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of bare copper wire.On 24.7.1997, officers of the revenue department visited the factory of the appellants and during verification, it was found that certain final products were kept in the factory without entering in their R.G. I record. The goods were taken into possession and after issuing show cause notice, the goods were confiscated and redemption fine of Rs. one lakh was imposed. A penalty of Rs. three lakh was also imposed on the appellants. Appellants filed the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 75,000.00 and also reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 75,000.00.4. Appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000 (91) ECR 569. In this case, the Tribunal held that in absence of any mens rea, the manufacturer is liable under Rule 226 ...
Commr. of C. Ex., New Delhi Vs. L.M.L. Ltd. (Scooter Division)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC734
1. The Appeal No. E/1530/2001 is filed by the Revenue challenging order-in-original No. CCE (ADJ.) VLS/10/2000, dated 27-4-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi. Under the above order the Commissioner had dropped a demand of Rs. 8,45,84,484/- raised against the respondent herein under a show cause notice dated 30-12-91 in respect of a period from 1-12-86 to 31-3-91. While dropping the demand the Commissioner had imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the assessee under Rule 173Q for violation of the provisions of Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules. The assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal as appeal No. E/1836/2000-A challenging the imposition of penalty. The above appeal was allowed by this Tribunal under order dated 29-6-2000 holding that it is settled law that when there is no duty demand there could be no penalty. The Central Board of Excise & Customs in exercise of its power under sub-section (1) of Section 35E of the Central Exc...
G.D. International Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC24
1. Applicants filed this misc. application for modification of stay order dated 1.4.2002. The Tribunal, vide stay order dated 1.4.2002, directed the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. three lakh out of Rs. ten lakh as penalty imposed on the applicants.3. The contention of the applicants is that they had deposited only Rs. one lakh and as they were facing financial hardship, they were not able to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. two lakh. The contention of the applicants is that they approached the bank for raising loan and their request for raising the loan was rejected. Applicants relied upon the decision of the tribunal in the case of EON Polymers Ltd. v. CCE , where, on showing the financial hardship, the 4. The case of the revenue is that the applicants filed 9 shipping bills for export of ladies skirts, and, on verification, it was found that the applicants declared higher FOB value of the goods with the intention to claim higher drawback. On examination of the goods, it was f...
Alfa Ceramics Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC813
1. M/s. Alfa Ceramics Industries, Ghatabillod, Distt. Dhar, M.P. ('Alfa Ceramics' for short) and M/s. Globe Ceramics Industries, Indore ('Globe Ceramics' for short) are two partnership firms engaged in the manufacture of ceramic glazed tiles. These firms have common partners and a common management.2. Alfa Ceramics distribute the glazed tiles manufactured by them in the State of Madhya Pradesh through two distributors viz. M/s. Shah S.P. Chordia & Co. and Home Decor Marketing. Similarly, Globe Ceramics distribute the glazed tiles produced by them through Home Decor Marketing in Madhya Pradesh.3. Investigations undertaken by the central excise authorities in 1997 revealed that part of the price of the glazed tiles was being realised by the two manufacturing units in cash and that no central excise duty was being paid in respect of the cash component of the price.Accordingly, show cause notices were issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore to both the units proposing to rea...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Vs. Standard TapulIn Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC815Tri(Delhi)
1. Justice K.K. Usha, President. - This appeal was also posted for being heard by a Larger Bench along with Appeal No. E/1530/2001 on the question of merger.2. The present appeal at the instance of Revenue is directed against order-in-appeal No. 1281/CE., Chd/2K, dalcd 30-6-2000 in which the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the amount of duty as demanded by the Assistant Commissioner but set aside the penalty. Against the above order the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal challenging the demand of duty. The appeal No. E/3Q40/2000-D was disposed of by this Tribunal under Final Order No. 57/2001-D, dated 1-2-2001. It is reported as Standard Tarpaul Industries v. CC.E, Chandigarh [2001 (129) E.L.T. 736 (Tribunal) - 2001 (43) RLT 178 (CEGAT-Del.)] 3. The assessee is a manufacturer of sleeping bags. The challenge was against classification as well as computation of the assessable value.The Tribunal confirmed the classification as ordered in the impugned orders. But on the questi...
Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC338
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd., are whether the Polypropylene filament yarn of 500 denier (PPFY) manufactured by them is chargeable to Central Excise duty and whether the demand of duty is time barred.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture, inter alia, PPF Yarn of various deniers as well as PPFY draw twisted (DT) and flat twisted yarn of 210 deniers; that during the course of manufacture of yarn of 210 elongation in the range of 300-400% or more; that Northern India Textile Research Association (NITRA) has also opined in its Report dated 18.4.2001 that "This Polypropylene filament yarn sample is a LOY Yarn and its shelf life is very Low as compared to POY yarn."; that these Test Reports clearly show that they were manufacturing LOY which does not attract Central Excise duty; that these reports have been discarded merely on the ground that responsible persons of the Appellants have clearly admit...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Naptune Appliances Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC353Tri(Delhi)
1. Revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by Commissioner in which he held that affixing of ticklies on bought out taps did not amount to manufacture.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondent herein is engaged in procuring of taps, cocks and valves. The respondent procured ticklies separately from other units. The ticklies were embossed with brand 'NAL' which the respondent affixed on the taps. The Department alleged that affixing of ticklies on the taps amounted to manufacture and accordingly issued a SCN asking the respondent herein to explain as to why affixing of ticklies on the tap should not be treated as a process of manufacture and why they would not be asked to pay duty.3. The Commissioner after examining their pleas and the case law held that affixing of ticklies did not amount to manufacture and allowed the claim of the respondent herein.4. Arguing the case for Revenue Shri Atul Saxena, Id. DR submits that the Commis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »