Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Padmini Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC389
1. These two appeals, filed by M/s. Padmini Polymers Ltd. and the Revenue, are arising out of the same Order-in-Appeal No. 68/2003, dated 17-2-2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Briefly stated, the facts are that M/s. Padmini Polymers are having manufacturing units at Sahibabad and Patparganj with the registered office at Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-II, New Delhi. The officers of the Directorate General of Anti-Evasion searched their manufacturing units and other offices on 7-10-97. During the course of investigation, M/s. Padmini Polymers Ltd. deposited Rs. 50 lakhs in Punjab National Bank, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-II, New Delhi; that subsequently, a show cause notice, demanding duty of Rs. 7,69,90,751/-, was issued to them which was dropped by the Commissioner (Adjudication), Delhi as far as the demand of duty was concerned. Subsequently, the assessee filed a refund claim for Rs. 50 lakhs with the Deputy Commissioner, Division-II, Ghaziabad, within whose jurisdictio...
Up Twigs Fiberglass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC406
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue relates to the availability of modvat credit of the disputed amount to the appellants on the rejected goods, 2. The facts are not much in dispute, The appellants imported certain inputs vide Bill of Entry dated 16.4.97 after paying the requisite duty and additional duty of customs. They accordingly took the modvat credit of the disputed amount of Rs. 3,57,927. But later on, they thought of re-exporting part of the consignment to the foreign suppler, being defective. They reversed the modvat credit accordingly of the proportionate amount and issued invoices in terms of Rule 52A. But they did not re-export. They sought to take recredit of that very amount which they had earlier reversed. But that recredit has been disallowed though the impugned order.3. I have heard both sides. So far as non-re-export of the inputs is concerned that has not been disputed. In other...
Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC336
1. In these appeals at the instance of the assessee challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 17.4.2003.The issue to be considered is whether the modvat credit taken by the assessee was in contravention of Rules 57AA and 57BB of the Central Excise Rules, incidentally, the question, whether the piston ring set cleared by the assessee has undergone a manufacturing process.2. The appellants are, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of pistons, piston rings, pins and engines valves falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 8409.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. These items are supplied to various OE manufacturers who further make use of them in the manufacture of final products, namely, parts of motor vehicles etc.In is the case of the appellants that the piston rings manufactured by them is tailor made to specific requirements of the OE manufacturer-buyers. One particular set of rings can be made use of only for a particular vehicle model. For example piston ...
Two Brothers Filaments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT56TriDel
1. The appeals relate to duty demand on polypropylene yarn manufactured by the appellants, which was captively consumed in the manufacture of the polypropylene narrow woven fabrics. The appellants cleared the said fabrics on payment of duty. Therefore, the appellants did not pay any duty on the polypropylene yarn, claiming exemption available under Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95, whereby no duty is required to be paid on captively consumed goods when the finished goods are cleared on payment of duty. The authorities below held the classification of narrow woven fabrics under sub-heading No. 5806.32, as against the classification claimed by the appellants under sub-heading No. 5806.39. Consequence of the classification under sub-heading No. 5806.32 was that the said fabrics, got fully exempted from payment of Central Excise duty. As a result of full exemption to the finished goods, the captively consumed polypropylene yarn became ineligible to duty exemption, because the du...
Narayani Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC92
1. The appellants are an independent textile processor covered under the compounded Levy Scheme w.e.f. 16.12.1998. Prior to 16.12.98, they were availing the benefit of deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 29/96-CE (NT) dated 3.9.96 for the purpose of payment of central excise duty on their final products viz. processed fabrics when cleared for home consumption or for export under Bond. From the said date, under the Compounded Levy Scheme introduced under Scheme 3 A of the Central Excise Act, they were not in a position to utilize the deemed Modvat credits accumulated in their account, towards payment of duty of excise on any final product cleared for home consumption or for export under Bond. Under sub-rule (13) of Rule 57F of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944, they were entitled to cash refund of the amount equivalent to such unutilized credit, subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations as might be specified by the Central Government by Notification in the Of...
M.G. Capital Services Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)214
ORDERT.N. Chopra, A.M.:These two appeals have been filed by the assessed against separate orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. Since the issues involved are identical, both these appeals have been heard together and are disposed off by a single order.2. The Tribunal had earlier vide its order dated 4-12-2002, granted stay of the disputed demand and fixed the appeals for 29-1-2003, for disposal. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned on a number of occasions. On 26-6-2003, learned representatives on both sides were heard at length.3. In the appeal ITA 2825/Del/2002 for assessment year 1997-98, short time was allowed to the learned counsel with regard to addition of Rs. 11,26,265 on account of speculation loss, agitated vide ground No. 3 for filing contract notes and evidence regarding the share transactions in respect of Reliance Industries and State Bank of India allegedly in the account of M/s Suresh Kumar and Co. and the matter was...
Cce Vs. Surya Roshini Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC630
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue, the issue relates to the applicability of doctrine of unjust enrichment to the refund claim of the respondents.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents paid excess duty at the time of clearance of their goods to their another division (lighting division) where these were to be used for the production of final product. Later on, the credit of the duty, so taken by the said division, was reversed by them and a debit note was issued and sent to the respondents. The respondents lodged claim for the refund of the excess duty paid, but the Deputy Commissioner through the order-in-original rejected the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed that order by holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable.3. None has come present on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice on them for today's as hearing. No request for adjournment has been also received from them. Therefore, I proceed to de...
Airports Authority of India Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC671
1. These three appeals are directed against a common Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi vide which penalties of various amounts have been imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, as detailed thereunder.2.2 The facts are not much in dispute. Briefly stated the facts are as under :- Customs officials at Delhi examined cargo contained in two pallets on 17-6-98, which had arrived from Hong Kong by United Airlines Flight No. UA-001, dated 16-6-98, covered under Airway Bill Nos. 016-5775-2973 and 016-5775-2962. The examination was done in the presence of representative of United Airlines and two independent witnesses. On examination, it was revealed that the consignment contained several pieces of L.C.D. display modules for wrist watches as against the description of goods appearing on the airway bills "Automobile (Car) parts and metal fittings". The statements of officials of Airport Authority of India (who are the custodian of imported goods) and United Airlines (c...
Kores IndiA. Ltd., Econoprint Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT658TriDel
1. In these three appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No. 10/Comms/C.Ex./Ind/2002 dated 19.2.2002, the issue relates to denial of benefit of S.S.I. exemption to M/s. Econoprints Stencils Pvt.Ltd. (In short ESPL) on the ground that the excisable goods manufactured and cleared by them are bearing the brand name of M/s.Kores (India) Ltd. (In short) Kores).2. Shri M. Chandrashekharan, learned Senior Advocate, subsmitted that M/s. Econoprint Stencils Pvt. Ltd. manufacture duplicating stencil paper; that the Branch name "BCONOPRINT" registered in the name of M/s.Kores was lastly renewed with effect from 29.7.1988 for a period of seven years and thus the brand name was renewed upto 28.7.1995; that M/s. Kores did not apply for the renewal of the registration thereafter; that accordingly after 29.7.95, the ownership of M/s. Kores on the brand name "ECONOPRINT" stands ceased; the further M/s. Kores have not manufactured duplicating stencil since 1975 in "ECONOPRINT" brand; that t...
Touch Stone Mining Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT398TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original, the issue relates to the liability of the appellants to pay penalty and interest as confirmed against them under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported various inputs on the strength of quantity Based Advance Licence dated 20th May, 1995. They availed exemption from payment of duty under the exemption Notification No. 82/95, dated 26-5-1995. They admittedly failed to discharge the export obligation and accordingly on demand, they paid the entire duty amount in terms of clause (b) of the notification.3. The adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 112(a) for violation of the provisions of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act and also directed the appellants to pay interest. He has, however, not referred to any provision of the Act or Notification under which he has so ordered.4. The main contention raised by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »