Delhi Court July 2002 Judgments

Cce Vs. Eternit Everest Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC334

1. The respondents manufacture Asbestos Cement Products falling under Chapter 68. The Central Excise duty was levied on these products vide Notf. No. 4/97-CE dated 1.3.97. Consequently, the assessee started paying duty on the end products and availed the modvat credit on the inputs under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. They filed a declaration under Rule 57H on 6.3.97 declaring the stock of finished goods, semi-finished goods and cement as on 1.3.97. Subsequently, they filed another declaration on 9.6.97 on the items Felt and Open ended S.S. Wire in respect of which they availed the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 45,462 on 30.6.97. They were, however, put on notice and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jabalpur, vide his order dated 29.10.98 disallowed the modvat credit of Rs. 45,462 on the ground that the modvat credit had been taken under Rule 57H prior to submission of declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944.The party filed an appeal and the Com...

Sunder Singh and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC18

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-Original dated 24.8.2001 vide which the Commissioner had confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty as detailed in the order itself against the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of compressors, its accessories and other items such as refrigeration equipment, ice cans, condensers etc. They were liable to pay duty only on the compressors, condensers and cooling coils in view of the Notification No. 80/62-CE dated 24.4.1962 exempting the parts of the refrigeration and air-conditioning machinery and appliances from duty They were, however, issued show cause notice dated 16.4.1986 for indulging in the under-valuation of the compressors and diverting its price towards the price of the accessories with the intention to evade payment of duty.Since the dispute related to the correct determination of the value of the compressors, a Cost Accountant was appointed with the consent of the appe...

Sunder Singh and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT319TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 24-8-2001 vide which the Commissioner had confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty as detailed in the order itself against the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of compressors, its accessories and other items such as refrigeration equipment, ice cans, condensers etc. They were liable to pay duty only on the compressors, condensers and cooling coils in view of the Notification No. 80/62-CE dated 24-4-1962 exempting the parts of the refrigeration and air conditioning machinery and appliances from duty. They were, however, issued show cause notice dated 16-4-1986 for indulging in the under valuation of the compressors and diverting its price towards the price of the accessories with the intention to evade payment of duty. Since the dispute related to the correct determination of the value of the compressors, a Cost Accountant was appointed with the consent of the ap...

Sigma Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT702TriDel

1. The appellants imported Metal Bezels and Metal Strips and cleared them under 35 Bills of Entry dated 10-3-92 to 27-8-92. On examination of the imported goods, the same were considered to be consumer goods, the import of which was not authorised without production of valid import licence. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur passed an order dated 31-7-99 in which he ordered for the confiscation of the goods but however gave an option to the party to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 4,61,800/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 46,480/- on the party. The party cleared the goods on payment of aforesaid redemption fine and the penalty. However, they subsequently, filed a refund claim on 12-7-99 for the amount of Rs. 5,08,280/- representing the above amount paid by them. This refund claim is rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, Jaipur, vide his order dated 31-7-99. The Deputy Commissioner in his order observed that the amounts were ...

Tapash Kumar Mazumdar S/O Dr. T. Mazumdar, New Delhi Vs. Sumit Usha Ma ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]115CompCas611(Delhi); 99(2002)DLT627

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Tapash Kumar Mazumdar (for short the petitioner) is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 24th January, 2000. By virtue of the impugned order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had summoned the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Some of the relevant facts are that Sumit Martin Finance Ltd had filed a criminal complaint in which the petitioner had also been arrayed as a respondent accused. It had been pleaded that the petitioner is one of the Additional Directors of Pertch Computers Ltd. In the course of the business the complainant had been approached by Pertch Computers Ltd. (for short the company) through its Managing Director, Directors and Additional Director in the month of October 1996 for hire purchase of a large quantity of computers. The assurance had been given by the petitioner and others that they would...

Director of Income Tax Vs. Escorts Employees Welfare Trust

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN340(Delhi)

ORDERThis appeal under section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the consolidated order dated 27-9-2000 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F', in WT Appeal Nos. 3 to 5 (Delhi) of 1994 pertaining to the assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85.2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has upheld the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the assessing officer to allow to the assessed interest under section 34A(3A) of the Act on the refund from the date of payment of tax under section 15B of the Act.Since, in our view, the issue proposed to be raised by the revenue is no longer res integra, it is unnecessary to state the facts.3. In Modi Industries Ltd v. CIT : [1995]216ITR759(SC) the Supreme Court has held as under :'(ii) If any tax is paid pursuant to an assessment order after 31-3-1975 (which will include tax deducted at source and advance tax to the extent the same has been retained and treated by the Income Tax Officer a...

Rakesh Singhla Vs. M/S. Airphone Communications (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.P. Saberwal, Member: 1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 10.9.1998 passed by South District Forum (Janakpuri District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 1458/1997, entitled Rakesh Singhla v. M/s. Airphone Communications India Ltd. and Ors., whereby complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that he had purchased one Cellular phone Seimens S4 IEMI No. 4451 from Airphone Communications (I) Ltd. (respondent No. 1) who are authorised dealer of respondent No. 2 - M/s. Seimens Telecom Ltd. It was alleged that the battery of the said phone became unserviceable/unchargable within 4-5 days from the date of the purchase. He approached the respondent but they failed to give any satisfactory reply. He claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/- for the business loss, Rs. 6,000/- towards pr...

N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC36

1. In these two appeals arising out of two Orders-in-appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) the issue involved is whether Special Additional duty of Customs is leviable under Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act and if so at what rate? 2. Shri K.L Handa, learned Consultant, submitted that they had imported Styrene Monomer which was stored by them under bond in their tank; that in Appeal No. C/593/2000-C they filed 5 Bills of Entry on 25.5.98 and one Bill of Entry on 29.5.98 for a quantity of 72 M.T. which was assessed to duty by the proper officer, that the duty so worked out was deposited by them during the period from 27.5.98 to 30.5.98; that thus the goods were cleared for home consumption under Section 47 of the Customs Act; that however, owing to non-availability of tankers from their transporter the said quantity of 72 M.T. could not be transported which was placed in the tank itself; that this duty paid goods was allowed to be cleared on 6.6.98 that by that time Special Additiona...

Bwl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT552TriDel

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 29-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he upheld the order-in-original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise dated 13-3-2001 disallowing the deductions claimed by them from the assessable value of their goods.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of optical fibre cables. They supplied the goods to the Department of Telecommunication under purchase order on a consolidated price inclusive of packing charges, freight, insurance etc. They claimed deduction on account of excise duty, charges for freight, insurance, loading and unloading, liquidated damages, interest on receivables, and salaries of the marketing staff. These charges, according to them, incurred under the various heads were in the nature of post removal expenses. The adjudicating authority disallowed these charges and that order of the adjudicating authority was affirmed by the Commissio...

Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC592

1. In all these appeals the issue in respect of classification of Dant Manjan Lal (DML) was referred to the Larger Bench which vide Misc.Order No. 6/2002-C dated 6.1.2002 has answered the Reference by holding that Dant Manjan Lal has to be classified as Tooth Powder under heading 33.06 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Now the issues to be decided in all these connected appeals are whether the extended period for demanding duty under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act is invocable and whether even demand for past six months period can be demanded from the Appellants and whether penalties are imposable on all the Appellants.2. Shri Vivek Kohli, learned Advocate, mentioned that in Appeal No.E/547/98-C filed by Patna unit of the Appellants the period involved for demanding duty is from June 1991 to December 1993 and the show cause notice has been issued on 1.7.1996 and as such the entire period is beyond 6 months and is time barred. He also mentioned ...