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.
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Perfect Latex Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT314TriDel
1. The issue involved in these appeals arising out of common Order-in-Original No. 94/2001, dated 18-10-2001 is whether the capital goods imported by M/s. Perfect Latex Pvt. Ltd. and procured indigenously without payment of duty are liable to duty on account of disuse.2. Shri Manoj Arora, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Perfect Latex Pvt. Ltd., a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU), imported plant and machinery for production of surgical/examination gloves and started production in 1989-90; that as they incurred losses due to break down of the USSR and buyer in USA defaulted in its commitment, they became a sick industrial company; that the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) recommended winding up of the assessee company; that a show cause notice dated 2-6-2000 was issued to them for demanding Customs duty and Central Excise duty on capital goods for violating the provisions of Notification No. 5/86-C.E., dated 20-1-86 and Notification No. 339/95-Cus.,...
Dhiman Industries (Regd.) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT345TriDel
1. Compliance has been noted. The learned Counsel states that the matter is an old one and the appeal itself should be decided as the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order had dismissed the appeal of the appellants against the order-in-original on the question of limitation only without hearing on merits.2. T have perused the record and the impugned order and I find that the request of the Counsel deserves to be allowed. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal itself.3. I have heard the learned Counsel and JDR. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that there was delay of 12 days on the part of the appellants in filing the appeal against the order-in-original before the Commissioner (Appeals). That delay according to them occurred on account of misplacement of papers by their Counsel, who even submitted his own letter to that effect before the Commissioner (Appeals). There is nothing on record to suggest if the appellants had any motive to file the appeal alter th...
B.D. Aggarwal and Sons Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC119
1. First respondent-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank) filed O.A. 121/98 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur against the appellant/1st defendant-company (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant/defendant') and the respondents 2 to 12 herein. This O.A. was subsequently transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') and taken on its file as O.A. 915/2001.2. The appellant/defendant filed a written statement dated 21.12.98 to the said O.A. The appellant defendant urged, among other things, that the respondent-Bank had assured to enhance the limit of the facilities granted to the appellant/defendant to Rs. 19 crores since the appellant/defendant had entered into various MoUs and agreements, but did not allow the appellant/defendant to enjoy the enhanced limit and, therefore, the appellant/defendant had suffered loss. The appellant/defendant pleaded in the written statement that it is reserving its right ...
Cce Vs. Upper India Steel Mfg. and Engg.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT482TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original and allowed the modvat credit on the ramming mass along with other items (with which we are not concerned in the present appeal) to the respondents.2. The learned JDR has contended that no evidence whatsoever has been brought on record to prove the use of the ramming mass by the respondents in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product in the factory. In reply to the show cause notice, they had nowhere even disclosed the use. Therefore, the modvat credit could not be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has heavily leaned on the decisions of the Tribunal as well as the Apex Court to contend that any article brought in the factory by the manufacturer and used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product has to be treated a input or capital good for allowing the modvat c...
Ess Ess Metals Enterprises Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(111)LC706Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Ess Ess Metal Enterprises were directed, vide Stay Order No.S/167/2003-NB(C) dated 15.5.2003 to deposit an amount of Rs. 50 lakh within 8 weeks and the matter was to come up for reporting compliance on 29.7.2003. Subsequently, the appellants moved Delhi High Court, which vide order dated 31.7.2003 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4580/2003, directed them to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakh instead of Rs. 50 lakh, directed by the Tribunal, on or before 30.9.2003.2. Shri Pradeep Kumar Accountant, submitted that the appellants have filed a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which is pending. He, therefore, requested that the matter may be kept pending.3. Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the Delhi High Court has directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 20 lakh on or before 30.9.2003 and as they have not deposited the same, the appeal should be rejected for non-compliance with the directions of the Delhi High Court particularly in absence of Stay g...
Teletubes Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT709TriDel
1. The appellant's unit was visited by the Central Excise officers for stock verification, which resulted in noticing shortage of inputs. The finished goods are Picture Tubes Monitors. the inputs are glass shells.Total shortage was 9417 glass shells. The appellants reversed the Modvat credit of Rs. 10,63,676/-. On 23.4.93 corresponding to the credit relating to the said quantity of glass shells. The appellant had taken suo moto credit of Rs. 10,63,676/- vide RG 23A part-II vide Entry No. 589 dated 5.9.97 on the strength of the certificate issued by Superintendent (Prev.), Central Excise, Meerut. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant seeking recovery of the aforesaid amount of credit. The Assistant Commissioner (adjudicating authority) confirmed the demand. The appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also rejected.3. We find that the objection in the show-cause notice for denial of credit was that, the said credit was taken on the strength of a certificate of Supdt...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Punjstar Insulation Fibre Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT543TriDel
1. These three appeals of the Revenue are against three different orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Raipur.These involve a common issue, which is whether the Rockwool/Slagwool and products thereof manufactured and cleared by the respondents during the relevant periods of disputes are classifiable under Heading No.68.03 of the CET Schedule as claimed by the Department or under Heading No. 68.07 of the said Schedule as claimed by the assessee. In the order impugned in Appeal No. E/639/2003, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has classified the goods under Heading No. 68.03, while in the orders impugned in the other two appeals, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 68.07. The latter classification was ordered in view of this Tribunal's decision in the case of Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal [2003 (153) E.L.T. 135 (Tri. - Del.) = 2002 (52) RLT 1024 (CEGAT - Del.)].3. Ld. SDR argued in support of the class...
Bombay Bangalore Freight Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC307
1. The above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common impugned order-in-original dated 31-8-2000 vide which the Commissioner of Customs has imposed penalties of Rs. 5 lakh each on them under Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act.2. The appellants No. 1 is a company engaged in the transportation of the goods as carriers, while the appellants No. 2 is a Manager of the company. On receipt of specific information, search was carried out at the office-cum-godown of the appellants' company and as a result thereof, the Officers of the New Customs House effected recovery of foreign origin ball bearings, detailed in the show cause notice. At the time of search, appellants No. 2 was present and he produced GRs and invoices which accompanied the ball bearings at the time of receipt at their godown from Bombay. But on verification, the addresses of the consignees of the goods were found to be incomplete and fictitious. No document regarding the lawful acquisiti...
Principal G.M., Bsnl Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT597TriDel
1. The instant application of the appellant M/s. BSNL is pursuant to the dismissal of their Appeal No. ST/03/03-NB (SM), by the Tribunal vide order dated 19-6-2003 (issued on 1-8-2003). The dismissal was on two grounds: - (ii) The Principal General Manager under his own individual signatures cannot file the appeal.The appellants have filed a fresh appeal rectifying defect as pointed out by the Tribunal. It is prayed that this appeal may be treated as a fresh appeal which may be admitted by allowing the application for condonation of delay. The previous appeal which was dismissed was within the statutory limitation. In the alternative, it is prayed that the present appeal may be treated as an appeal filed after rectifying the defect pointed out by the Tribunal and may be restored to its original number, after recalling the order of the Tribunal. So far as the first ground of dismissal viz. want of COD clearance is concerned, the same is awaited.3. Considering the facts and circumstance...
Asil Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT376TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants made import of fag bearing and the goods were warehoused on 8-12-2000. As the appellants failed to claim the goods within the normal period of time of warehousing i.e. one year. The appellants made request for extension of period of time for warehousing the goods. The request was made for extension of time on 26-11-2001 and the request was rejected by the Commissioner which was conveyed to the appellants vide letter dated 15-2-2002. Against this rejection, the appellants made a representation to the Chief Commissioner for further extension of period of time which is still pending and in the mean time present show cause notice was issued.3. The Assistant Commissioner passed the present adjudication order and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act.The appellants filed the appeal before the Commissioner (...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »