Delhi Court June 2002 Judgments

Cannon Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC745

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 2/2000 Commr.SIB, dated 13-1-2001 of Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. That order related to a consignment of 2500 pieces of woollen leggings tendered for export to Russia by the appellant. The FOB value of the consignment was declared around Rs. 19 Lakhs (Rs. 763 per piece). Further, the market value of the goods was declared at Rs. 400 per piece. The declaration of market value was significant as the export was under DEPB Scheme. Under that scheme the exporter would be entitled to credit at the rate of 15% of the export price of the goods. However, that credit was subject to the cap that it could not exceed 50% of the market value of the goods. This is how the market value assumes significance.2. The Customs Authorities doubted the market value declared, made their own enquiries and initiated proceedings against the appellant for misdeclaration of market value. Those proceedings culminated in the impugned order. Based on the ev...

Sphere Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT559TriDel

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Sphere Engineers Pvt. Ltd. for restoration of their appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. E/981/97-B1, dated 26-6-1997.2. Shri B.L. Narashimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that due to ill health of the Director it was very difficult to visit New Delhi from Mumbai for attending the personal hearing fixed on 26-6-97; that they had submitted their written submissions under their letter dated 16-6-97 with a request to take the same on record before passing the Final Order; that these written submissions were sent through Ell Bee Express Services and had obtained the necessary acknowledgement. He, further, submitted that they had received letter reference No.E/3189/89-B, dated 3-7-97 from the Appellate Tribunal without certified copy of the Final Order in question; that only the covering letter was received by them without Order itself; that immediately they had sent a letter dated 24-7-97 to the Asstt. Registrar, Appellate...

Kusum Kemicals Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Raipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC365Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the value of goods cleared by the appellant which are rejected by the customers and brought back to the factory under Rule 173L should be included in the value of clearances for determining the value under Notification 38/97, dated 27-6-1997. It was held by the adjudication authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) that there are certain specific exclusions provided under Para 3 of the notification which does not take in exclusion of the value of returned goods. Therefore, the value of returned goods should also be taken into consideration in computation of the value of the goods cleared from appellant's factory.2. We heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Departmental Representative. The first consignment was cleared on 26-4-97. It was returned by the customers on 26-5-97. After further processing it was again cleared on 29-5-97 and the appellant paid duty at the rate of 18%. There is no case for the Re...

National Telecom of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC25Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in these two appeals, arising out of a common order, is whether M/s. National Telecom of India Ltd, Appellant No. 1, were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods.2. Shri R. Parthasarathy, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants stated a manufacturing unit at Nasik in May, 1989; that prior to May, 1989, they were engaged in trading activities at F-16, Commerce Center, Tardeo, Mumbai for which they also obtained a Registration under Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 and a Sales Tax Registration as dealer; that they also hired premises at 214, Creative Industrial Estate, Byculla, Mumbai for storing of the goods from M/s. Fulchand & Sons; that the present matter pertains to the case made out by the Central Excise Officers after vesting the Creative Industrial Estate on 15-3-90 and subsequent search of their premises of Appellant No. 1 on 17-3-90 at Commerce Center; that at the time of visit of the godown, no activity was going on there; that ...

Jindal Brothers India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC490Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants are manufacturers of Voltmeter and Ampere Meters and they were availing of Small-scale Exemption under Notification No.1/93. A condition of that exemption is that the exemption is not available if the goods are produced under the brand name of another person.2. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging that they had availed themselves of Small-scale Exemption in respect of goods manufactured under brand names like "LOGICSTATE", "ARKAYLITE", "KIRTI", "ARCEE", "ARPE", "MEMORY" and "III". It was also alleged that these brand names belonged to the various traders who bought the goods manufactured under those brand names from the appellants. During the adjudication, the traders disowned the brand names, except for M/s.Gupta Traders who admitted that brand name "UJALA" belonged to him. The appellants also contended that they marked the goods "ARPE" etc. to indicate the trader to whom those goods were to go.3. The impugned order confirmed the allegation in th...

ishwar Industries Ltd. Through Vs. Bank of India

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed against order dated 16.5.2002 passed by learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi in O.A. No. 318/95.2. By the impugned order, the application of the CDs (who are appellants here) for direction to its debtors to pay the amount due to them so that they can liquidate and pay the debt of the Bank (Certificate-holder) as per the final order has been rejected with the observation that the application was misconceived because any dispute regarding recovery of amount due to the CDs from third parties could not be adjudicated in the concerned proceedings, more so, when the case has finally been disposed in Lok Adalat on 20.4.2002.3. Mr. H.L. Tikku, Counsel for the appellants contended before me that the loan in question was taken from certificate-holder/respondent Bank for development of aparticular piece of land, which was to be allotted to various persons in consideration of money to be paid to the appellants, and the appellants were to...

Oil India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC21

The above appeals at the instance of the assessee Mis. Oil India Ltd. are directed against orders dated 29.11.91, 9.5.94 and 15.1.92 passed by Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Shillong, Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta and Collector of Customs & Central Excise. Shillong respectively. While in Appeal No. E/2238/92-C and E/474/95-C the issue arising for consideration is classification of condensate in Appeal No. E/2629/92-C the dispute relates to classification of Lean Gas. We will, therefore, consider Appeal Nos.E/2238/92 and E/474/95-C together and Appeals No. E/2629/92-C separately.2. M/s. Oil India Ltd. Dullajan, a Public Sector Undertaking set up an LPG plant for recovery of LPG from natural gas. The LPG plant is treated as part of mine under Clause 2(j) of Section 26 of the Mines Act, 1952. Natural gas associated with crude oil, is separated from crude oil at the oil collecting stations for supply to LPG recovery plant. The natural gas as obtained from...

Saraswati Devi Gupta Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2003)BC86

1. This appeal is against order dated 31.8.2001 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O. A. No. 40/2000. The appellant is defendant No. 6 in the said O. A. against whom an order was passed on 22.9.2000 under which the aforesaid O.A. was directed to be proceeded ex parte. The appellant moved an application under Order IX Rule 7, CPC on 29.8.2001 for recall of the said order dated 22.9.2000. That application has been rejected by the impugned order.2. In the application for setting aside the said order dated 22.9.2000 the appellant had averred that she was never served; that she was a lady of religious bent and used to go on pilgrimage; that valuation of the said O.A. was about a crore and, therefore, she wanted to contest the O.A. on merits; that she came to know about the O.A. only five days back when she had come to Jaipur for her medical check-up; and that it was only defendant No. 2, Neeraj Mittal who informed her about the O.A.The application was resisted on several grou...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Smt. Sudha Burman

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)83ITD327(Delhi)

1. These two appeals are filed by the revenue against the order dated 28-4-1997 passed by CIT(A) for the assessment year 1994-95 and 9-9-1996 passed by CIT(A) for the assessment year 1993-94. Since they involve common question of law and fact they are being taken up and disposed of together. The only challenge in these appeals is to the order of CIT(A) who had ordered deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 2(24)(iv) of the Income-tax Act on account of expenses incurred on the foreign tours of the wife of the director.2. The common facts as they emerge out of the record is that the assessee is the wife of Shri A.C. Burman, Chairman of M/s Dabur India Ltd. and has income from house property, business and other sources. It is stated that the husband of the assessee had undertaken several trips abroad during the relevant period and his wife accompanied him on these trips. The company had undertaken the expenses on tickets for her visit to abroad. The Assessin...

Tejpal Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 101(2002)DLT99b

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.4.1998 of the learned Additional Sessions Judgein Sessions Case No. 95/96 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 376 and451 IPC and vide a separate order dated 6.4.1998 sentenced theappellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 84 months with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine tofurther undergo R.I. for a period of 12 months under Section 376IPC and further to undergo R.I. for 24 months with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I.for 4 months under Section 451 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. When the matter called out for hearing, nobody appeared for the appellant. The Court cannot plead with Advocates to come and attend to their cases. It is for the appellant to ensure that his counsel is present in the Court if he wants the case to be represented by him. Since ...