Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

Cce Vs. Ish Rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC21

1. This is an appeal, filed by the Revenue, against the Order-in-Appeal No. 202/2003 dated 13.5.2003.2. Shri O.P. Arora, learned SDR, submitted that the respondents, M/s.Ish Rolling Mills, manufacture hot rolled untrimmed sheets/circles of copper alloy; that they were clearing the said goods on payment of duty till 28.2.94; that after budgetary changes, they surrendered the Central Excise Registration Certificate on the ground that the impugned goods had been brought under SS! exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE; that as the respondents had cleared the goods valued at more than Rs. 75 lakh upto February 1994, they were liable to pay duty on the goods cleared in March 1994; that the demand was confirmed against them which went upto Tribunal, which remanded the matter vide Final Order Nos. E/378 to 393/97-B dated 6.3.1997 in the case of Aggarwal Rolling Mills v. CCE, New Delhi, 1997 (93) ELT 615. Learned SDR, further, submitted that in the de novo proceedings, the Deputy Commissione...

Basera Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT447TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Basera Exports against the Order-in-Original No. 36/2001, dated 31-10-2001 under which the Commissioner has confiscated the goods imported by the appellants and determined the duty liable to be paid by them besides imposing penalty.2. Shri Y.K. Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was afforded to them; that the last date fixed for hearing by the Commissioner was 31-8-99; that the said intimation was not received by the appellants; that in any case, the case was adjudicated by the Commissioner only in 2001; that when the matter was adjudicated in 2001, the Commissioner had not issued any notice of hearing which is apparent from Para 34 of the impugned order. He, therefore, requested that the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for re-adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.3. Opposing the prayer, Shri Vir...

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT352TriDel

2. The contention raised by the appellant is that even at the time of giving declaration, they have made it clear that the price charged will take effect only for production and sale from the date of the declaration. Revenue has not been able to place any material before us that after the declaration, the goods were sold as a matter of fact in the market at a higher rate than what is originally shown as MRP.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. v. CBEC, New Delhi - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 506, in support of his contention that what is relevant is the price shown as MRP and not the price shown in the declaration.4. We find that the appellant has raised a legal issue which has to be considered in details at the time of hearing of the case. The condition of pre-deposit is, therefore, exempted and there will be a stay of collection of duty demand. Post the matter for regular hearing on 4-12-2003....

JaIn Carbide and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC310

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Jain Carbide & Chemicals Ltd., the issue involved is whether slag obtained by them during the process of manufacture of Ferro Alloys is liable to Excise duty.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Ferro Alloys and avail of Modvat credit of duty paid on Carbon paste which is used as furnace lining material; that during the manufacture of Ferro Alloy a waste material called slag is generated which, according to the Department, is classifiable under Chapter 26 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the goods falling under Chapter 26 were exempted unconditionally under Notification No.19/88-C.E., dated 1-3-88; that the said Notification was amended by Notification No. 27/91-C.E., dated 25-7-91 according to which exemption is available provided that no credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the said goods has been taken under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that t...

Kurt O' John Shoe Components (i) Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT472TriDel

1. The appellants are a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of shoe components' (soles & heels). They had effected certain clearances to a domestic unit without payment of duty. In the show-cause notice issued to them, it was alleged that, they are not eligible for duty exemption contained in Notification No. 2/95 dated 1.1.95 as the supply was not for export but was to a DTA unit. The adjudicating authority confirmed duty demand for Rs. 43, 61, 276/- and also ordered to pay interest Rs. 20% while deciding the apeal against the said order, the Id.Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that-vide final Order No. 32/03-B dated 1.1.2003, in their (appellant's) own case, the Tribunal allowed the exemption from payment of duty on such clearances. The said relief was granted after considering the clearances from their unit to the domestic buyers in terms of Rule 13(1)(b) read with Notification No.47/94-CE(NT). The purchaser had in turn used the shoe components in the manufacture of finished...

Marvel Overseas Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT373TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Marvel Overseas Ltd., the issue involved is whether the communication dated 15.5.1997 by the Asst.Commissioner is an appealable Order against which the appeal would lie to the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants is a 100% Export Orient Unit manufacturing Cotton Yarn, Knitting Fabric and Garments; that under their letter dated 13.3.1997 addressed to the Commissioner, Central Excise they sought a clarification as to whether the benefit of Notification No. 127/84-CE dated 26.5.84 exempting whole of the Additional duty of Excise, leviable under Additional duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 is applicable to them in respect of the goods sold in Domestic Tariff Area; that the Asst. Commissioner under letter dated 15.5.97 clarified that no exemption from payment of Additional duty of Excise would be granted to the goods produced in 100% E.O.U. and allowed to be sold in Domestic Tar...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jai Bharat Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT845TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal Nos.61-62/2003, dated 14-2-2003, by which the Commissioner (Appeals), has allowed the revision of A.S.P. to the respondents, M/s. Jai Bharat Industries.2. Shri U. Raja Ram, learned D.R., submitted that the respondents manufacture aluminium circles; that they filed A.S.P. with the Range Superintendent for the financial year 1998-99 in respect of rolling machine of the size of 32" length in terms of Notification No. 109/94, dated 13-5-94; that they started paying Central Excise duty @ Rs. 10,000/- per month per rolling machine w.e.f. 1-4-98; that, subsequently, w.e.f. 1-7-98, the respondents consequent upon reduction of rolling machine size from 32" to 29.9", filed another A.S.P. and claimed compounded duty @ Rs. 7,500/- per month; that the Assistant Commissioner under Order-in-Original Nos. 103-104/99, dated 14-9-99, demanded the duty on the ground that the A.S.P. once fixed by the competent authority under Rule 96ZA of t...

Kailashanand Mission Trust Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)88ITD125(Delhi)

1. An interesting question of law has arisen in this appeal as to whether CIT can rescind/withdraw the registration granted earlier under Section 12A in 1974.2. The assessee is a trust which was allowed registration as a charitable trust under Section 12A by the CIT, Kanpur, vide order dt.6th Aug., 1974. On certain information gathered, it was felt by the CIT that assessee was not carrying out any charitable activity and was not disclosing its full receipts in the accounts and, therefore, it was being run in violation of the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 (in short Act). Therefore, notice dt. 4th Dec., 2002, was issued to the assessee to show-cause as to why the registration granted earlier should not be withdrawn on the following grounds : (i) That the trust is being run as a private trust of Shri K.N. Gupta. (ii) The interest income is (not) being utilized for the purpose of the trust and it is illegally credited to the corpus account. (iii) Raising of overdrafts from the bank again...

Bhagwan Dass Pachouri Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 11.6.2003, passed by District Forum -II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 276/2002 - entitled Sh. Bhagwan Dass Pachouri v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Sh. Bhagwan Dass Pachouri had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that his personal telephone, bearing No. 6099131, installed at his residence at C-1633, Tigri Khanpur, New Delhi for domestic purpose did not function properly because the appellant refused to bribe the lineman who deliberately had created problem for that telephone. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent it was prayed by the appellant in the complaint file...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. Mahesh Naithani

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), assailing the order of District Forum, Janak Puri, New Delhi dated 20.10.2000, passed in Complaint Case No. 2963/1999 entitled Sh. Mahesh Naithani v. General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and Others. 2. The relevant facts, necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the respondent Sh. Mahesh Naithani had applied for a telephone connection with the Maya Puri Telephone Exchange under OYT category and had deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 15,000/-. Accordingly telephone No. 5546509 was installed at his premises at B-434, Panchwati Apartments, F-Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. After some time the respondent applied for the shifting of the said telephone from Vikas Puri to his new residence at Malviya Nagar. The appellant however failed to shift the same on the ground of non-availability of cables. H...