Delhi Court December 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.
J. J. Foam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT309TriDel
1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s J. J. Foam P. Ltd., the issue involved is whether the goods manufactured by them, are classifiable under sub-heading No.3921.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under heading No.94.04 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order.2. Sh. V. Valte, learned S.D.R., submitted that the process of manufacture, as given by the appellants, mentions that the sides of PU Foam sheets for mattresses are taped with cotton tape as packing to protect the edges from damaging; that this issue has been settled by the appellate Tribunal in the case of C.C.E, Meerut Vs Sheela Foams (P) Ltd., 2001 (138) ELT 1387 (Tri.-Del.) and Sheela Foams Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C.E., Ghaziabad, 2003-TAXINDIAONLINE-78-CESTAT-DEL. He, therefore, requested that in view of these two decisions of the Tribunal, the appeals, filed by the appellants, deserve to be rejected. The appellants, on the other hand, have relied upon...
Satia Wollens Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC641
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Satia Woollens Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether Modvat Credit of the duty paid on capital goods, is available to them.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture wool tops, which were exempt from payment of excise duty when they started manufacturing activity in January 1995; that they had imported certain machinery in the month of September/October 1994 and did not avail of Modvat Credit as no duty was payable on the final product; that the Central Excise duty on wool tops became payable from 16.3.1995; that, thereafter, they claimed the Modvat Credit of the duty, in respect of machines; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their appeal holding that subsequent imposition of duty would make previously received and installed capital goods, eligible for Modvat Credit. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the capital goods were installed in January 1995 and these were used only for a period of a...
indo Export House, Shahana Ali, Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT142TriDel
1. Under the order impugned in these appeals, Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughalakhabad, New Delhi has directed the first appellant M/s.Indo Export House to pay back an amount of Rs. 31 lakhs, which had been paid to it as drawback. Further, a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs each has been imposed on the second appellant Smt. Shahana Ali, proprietor of M/s. Indo Export house and Shri Yunus Ali, who is the husband of the second appellant.2. The proceedings leading to the passing of the order emanated from 8 exports of handicrafts, mainly the umbrella stands, by the first appellant to Europe in September and October 1998. These exports were made under drawback and an amount now ordered to be returned had been paid to the Indo Export House as drawback. The actions aforesaid have been ordered on nothing that "payments against all the exports were received after a delay of six months and in four cases beyond a period of three years and this was reported to RBI" (para 13 of the Order).3. The procee...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. H.L. Oberai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT101TriDel
1. All these appeals are directed against the same impugned Order-in-Appeal. Accordingly, they were taken up together and are disposed of under this common order.2. The assessees are engaged in the manufacture of PVC Sheets. On 3-8-1999, Central Excise officers visited the assessee's factory and carried out a physical verification of the stock of inputs and finished goods. It was observed that there was a shortage of quantity of one input namely, R.M. Printing Ink involving a Modvat credit of Rs. 27,894/-, The assessee reversed that amount of credit under protest immediately. It was also noticed that inputs and finished products at various stages of production had not been entered in the record of production (RG-1 register). Show Cause Notice was, therefore, issued proposing to confiscate the unaccounted goods and to impose penalty on the assessees. In adjudication that notice was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. He confiscated all the raw materials and other goods and imposed a ...
Bhel Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT274TriDel
1. Both the above applications are filed by the appellant in Appeal No.E/2567 to 2576/98-NB(A). The above appeals were dismissed by us under Final Order Nos. 170-179/03-NB(A), dated 10-4-2003 [2003 (158) E.L.T.634 (T)]. We followed an earlier order in the case of appellant itself, namely, Final Order Nos. 179-180/99-A, dated 23-2-99 [1999 (112) E.L.T.246 (T)]. It was brought to our notice by the learned DR that the appeals filed by the assessee as Civil Appeal Nos. 3643-3644/99 before the Supreme Court were dismissed on 25-3-2003 [2003 (154) E.L.T. 10 (S.C.)].2. The above referred ROM was filed by the appellant on 29-7-2003 contending that notice for hearing of the appeal was received only eight days after the date of hearing, therefore, the applicant could not be present in the Court and address arguments on the issue of imposition of penalty which was not legally sustainable. The appellant contended that non-consideration of question of penalty is error apparent on the face of the r...
Marwon Audio Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT347TriDel
2. The learned Advocate pleads that the balance amount required to be paid in terms of Tribunal's order could not be paid up to 11-5-2000 i.e. the date of which the final order, dismissing their appeal, for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was passed. He has drawn my attention to the fact that the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/- was paid on 26-8-2000. Accordingly, he pleads for restoration of the appeal claiming that they have made compliance of the Tribunal's order though belated.3. Learned D.R. vehementally opposes the application on the ground that the condonation of such delay may result in unnecessarily reopening of the final order passed by the Tribunal and there would not be any finality of such order. The learned DR also submits that the restoration application itself has been filed after a gap of 3 years from the date of the payment of the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/- and there is no explanation as to the reason for such delay.4. O...
Dipen Enterprises Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC78
1. M/s Dipen Enterprises (appellants in Appeal No 534/96) are aggrieved by confiscation, by the Commissioner of Customs, of a consignment of 'Video Magnetic Tapes in Hubs' covered by Shipping Bill No. 426772 dated 8.4.94 (with option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/-). They are also aggrieved by imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh by the Commissioner. Shri Antubhai K. Sheth, partner of M/s Dipen Enterprises, is the appellant in Appeal No. C/535/96 wherein he challenges the personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on him by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The relevant facts of the case are that M/s Dipen Enterprises had imported 'Video Magnetic Tapes in pancakes' in terms of Advance Licence No. 0302672 dated 12.2.92 under the DEEC Scheme (DEEC Book No. 058442 dated 7.4.92) and cleared the goods free of duty under Bill of Entry No 8535 dated 25.2.94 for the purpose of manufacture of Video Magnetic Tapes in hubs, which were to be exported in discharge of export ...
Laxmi Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT126TriDel
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the alleged loading of value of Iranian Pistachios with Shell imported by it under Bill of Entry dated 21-10-2002. The appellant declared the value at the rate of US $ 3.21 per kg. which was enhanced to US $ 3.88 per kg. by the Customs authorities.2. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned DR. On going through the Bill of Entry, we find that the value declared by the appellant is at the rate of US $ 3.88 per kg. There is nothing in the Bill of Entry to support the contention of the appellant that they had initially declared the value of US $ 3.21 per kg. which was enhanced by the Customs authorities as US $ 3.88. The learned Counsel submits that the value at the rate of US $ 3.88 was shown in the Bill of Entry as compelled by the Customs authorities. We do not find any such allegation either in the memorandum of appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before us. In this circumstance, contention be...
Krishna Sulphite Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT97TriDel
1. The instant appeals filed by the manufacturing company and its director are directed against the orders of the lower authorities whereunder a demand of Rs. 4,34,134/- was confirmed against them. The allegations against the manufacturer are that, when compared to the normative consumption of raw materials and finished product yields, it was noted that as against the yield of 1.6 kgs. of sodium bisulphite and 0.78 kgs. of sodium sulphite per kg. consumption of soda ash, the actual production in the excise records was less. Hence it was alleged that the shortfall in production, was actually not a shortfall, but there had been a clandestine removal. Accordingly, the demand for the said amount was confirmed, penalty of equivalent amount imposed on the company and Rs. 10,000 on the Director. The appellants are challenging the findings of the lower authorities.2. Heard both sides. In the appeal it has been tabulated that in case the yield of 1.6 kgs. of sodium bisulphite (SBS) per kg. con...
Modipon Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC407
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the Order dated 4.3.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The proceedings arise out of an order of remand. Final Order was passed by this Tribunal under Final Order No. 443/99-A dated 9.4.99. Under the above order the Tribunal had directed the adjudicating authority to consider two issues, one relating to the claim of the assessee for deduction in the name of transit loss and the second relating to C & F charges. The original authority by its order-dated 17.9.99 rejected those contentions. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order passed by the adjudicating authority.2. In this appeal apart from those contentions, the learned Counsel wanted to argue on different points also. We are of the view that only 2 issues emerge out of this proceeding pursuant to the remand order of this Tribunal referred above. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the claim for deduction on account of transit loss follow...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »