Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

Biogenics India Ltd. Vs. B.i.F.R. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2004]122CompCas736(Delhi); [2004]52SCL320(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the propriety and legality of the two orders, dated 14 May 2003 and 21 August 2003, passed by the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (for short 'the BIFR'). By the latter order, while observing that despite a lapse of more than 10 years the petitioner company/promoters had not come forward with any other proposal, with fully tied-up means of finance, for their consideration for revival of the petitioner-company, the BIFR has confirmed its earlier prima facie opinion, recorded in its order dated 14 May 2003. By the said order, the BIFR has opined that the petitioner sick company is not likely to make its net-worth exceed the accumulated losses within a reasonable period of time and, thereforee, it would be just, equitable and in public interest to wind up the company.2. Briefly stated, the material facts on the basis whereof the afore-noted opinion has been formed by the BIFR are as follows:The petitioner-company is a m...

ioc Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC46

1. Shri S. Ganesh, learned Sr. Advocate, submitted that the Committee on Disputes in its meeting held on 14.5.2003 has permitted the applicants M/s. IOC Ltd. to pursue the Appeals in CEGAT in view of substantive question of fact and law involved in the matter. In view of this, we recall our Final Order No. 101-10/2001-C dated 16.7.2001 and restore the appeals to their original Numbers.2. Arguing on the stay applications, the learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the issue involved in all these appeals is whether low sulphur heavy stock captively consumed by them, is eligible for exemption from Central Excise duty; that on this aspect, the Appellate Tribunal in their own case has granted the stay vide Stay Order No.86/2000-C dated 18.10.2000 and Stay Order No. 50/2001-C dated 3.8.2001; that further, the benefit of Notification from payment of duty has also been extended to them by the Tribunal in their own case vide Final Order No. 197/06/2000-C dated 11.9.2002 relying upon the Board...

S.R. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT232TriDel

1. In this appeal, M/s. S.R. Industries Ltd. are challenging the penalty imposed on, and redemption fine demanded from them.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants are 100% Export-Oriented Undertaking; that the Central Excise Officers, on their visit to the factory premises on 11-10-1999, found goods valued at Rs. 39,32,836/-in excess in comparison to the goods recorded in R.G.I register; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order, has confiscated the goods under the provisions of Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 8,16,000/-; that the Commissioner has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which is not challenged by them; that the Commissioner has, further, imposed a penalty of Rs. 28 lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Learned Advocate emphasised that the provisions of Customs Act are inapplicable as the goods, man...

Hindon River Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC618

1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the main ground raised is violation of principles of natural justice. The appellant has also raised contentions on merits. The relevant facts are as follows: 2. The period involved is from 1.4.94 to 31.8.97. No show cause notice was issued. Under the order in original dated 28.2.2001 and amount of Rs. 21,97,26,743/- is confirmed against the appellant. Appeal filed was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 31.3.2003.3. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cotton and man-made yarn. 15% of the yarn produced is sold ex-factory. 38% to consignment agents for onward sale. 47% is consumed captively in the manufacture of fabrics. It is claimed that fabrics are sold by the appellant directly from factory gate.4. The appellant had filed price declarations declaring the assessable value of the yarn being stock transferred to depots/consignment agents for onward...

Daya Engg. Works (Sleeper) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT819TriDel

1. Heard both sides. When the stay petition came up for hearing it is submitted by both sides that in view of the nature of the issue involved in this appeal, the appeal itself can be disposed of. We, therefore, exempt the condition for pre-deposit and proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. The issue raised in this appeal is whether the amount received under the head 'carting' has to be included in the assessable value. It is submitted that the appellant had entered into two agreements, one for manufacture and supply of the goods and the other for transportation of the same. The ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 31 (SC) = 2002 (53) RLT 1 is directly applicable in the present case in favour of the assessee. We noted that in the impugned order, Commissioner has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 650, which is no longer good law in the light of the...

Harinder Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT423TriDel

1. This application, which says that there are apparent mistakes in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of Final Order No. 112-115/99-B2, dated 28-5-1999 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal Nos. C/930-933/93-B2 [1999 (112) E.L.T. 314 (Tri.)], has been submitted by the Consultant for Shri Harinder Singh, one of the appellants.3. Learned Consultant referred to the relevant paragraphs of the Final Order and submitted that it was a mistake to direct the goods to be redeemed on payment of fine to be determined by the adjudicating authority. When it was held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 258/90 and not liable to be penalized under Section 112 of the Customs Act, there was no warrant for a remand to the departmental authorities at all. Learned SDR defended the Final Order and submitted that there was no "mistake apparent from the record" to be rectified under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act in this case. If aggrieved by the above order, the appellant should have taken...

Daya Engg. Works (Sleeper) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. When the stay petition came up for hearing it is submitted by both sides that in view of the nature of the issue involved in this appeal, the appeal itself can be disposed of. We, Therefore, exempt the condition for pre-deposit and proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. The issue raised in this appeal is whether the amount received under the head 'carting' has to be included in the assessable value. It is submitted that the appellant had entered into agreements one, for manufacture and supply of the goods and the other for transportation of the same. The ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escort JCB Ltd. reported in 2002(53) RLT. 1 is directly applicable in the present case in favour of the assessee. We noted that in the impugned order, commissioner has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Escort JCB Ltd. reported in 2000 (118) ELT.650, is no longer goods law in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to...

Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT299TriDel

1. In this appeal, M/s. Dhillon Kool Drinks & Beverages Ltd., are challenging the penalty imposed on them and the redemption fine demanded from them.2. Shri Deepak Rai Walia, Executive Director of the appellants, submitted that they manufacture aerated water; that their facility of depositing duty on fortnightly basis was forfeited by the Deputy Commissioner under Order dated 18.7.2000 for a period of two months as they had defaulted in making full payment of duty during April to July, 2000; that during the period, the facility of fortnight payment was suspended; that they had made payment of duty partly from PLA and partly from CENVAT Credit Account; that the Central Excise Officers searched their depot at Chandigarh and seized the goods; the subsequently, the Joint Commissioner under order-in-original no.42/2002 dated 30.9.02, confisted the good seized from their depot with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. one lakh and imposed a penalty of Rs. 4 lakh; tha...

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC750

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Ranbaxy Lab. Ltd. the issue involved is whether the process undertaken by the appellants on duty paid bulk drugs received back by them amounts to manufacture in terms of provisions of Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Commissioner under the impugned Order, has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 22,02,829; that out of the total amount of duty confirmed, they are not challenging confirmation of demand of duty amounting to Rs. 7.2 lakhs relating to Lovastatin.Learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Appellants manufacture various bulk drugs which are cleared by them on payment of duty to their various units. They are also selling the bulk drugs to various other drugs medicine manufacturer; that whenever the bulk drug is found to be defective in nature, the same is returned back to their factory either under the provisions of Rule...

Pace Marketing Specialties Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondent M/s. Pace Marketing Specialities Ltd. manufacture adhesives, which are liable to central excise duty under Chapter Sub-Heading 3506 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The duty is on ad-valorem basis. The appellants give a cash discount of 4% to buyers who make prompt payment i.e. within 5 to 7 days of delivery.This discount was not given to buyers who fail to make payment within the stipulated time. All the same deduction of the cash discount was claimed while making payment of duty in all cases. Similarly, appellants claimed coin discount on the ground that the value of the coin kept inside each consignment was required to be deducted to determine the assessable value of the goods. The central excise authorities issued show cause notice holding that the deductions claimed by the appellants in respect of cash discount and coin discount were not eligible deductions from sale price and that these amounts should also form part of the value of the goods fo...