Delhi Court December 2003 Judgments

Dharambir Khattar Vs. State Through Cbi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT366; 2004(75)DRJ372

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. Petitioner-Dharambir Khattar, by this petition under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is seeking bail in RC. No. AC3 2003 A0003/ACU.X dated 29.4.2003 under Sections 7, 8 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988.2. Briefly stated prosecution's allegations are as follows: Petitioner enjoyed very close relationship with several officials of the Delhi Development Authority (for short, 'DDA') including its Vice-Chairman-Subhash Sharma; he used to operate as a middle man between DDA officials and private parties. On receipt of information about petitioner's activities, Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI) kept watch on him and his telephone(s) were kept under electronic surveillance; more than 6000 incoming and outgoing calls were tape recorded. As a follow-up action, CBI registered four cases under the same set of sections, on different dates, at its different units, but concerning different properties. ...

Dy. Cit Vs. Durant Refrigeration (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)1130

ORDERSmt. Diva Singh, J.M.:This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 1-2-1999, of Commissioner (Appeals)-I, New Delhi, pertaining to 1995-96 assessment year.2. The grounds raised by the revenue read as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in allowing 100 per cent depreciation of Rs. 14,14,000 on 505 gas cylinders despite the fact:(a) that the assessing officer had clearly established through detailed investigation that the assessed had never purchased such gas cylinders;(b) that the alleged seller of such gas cylinders namely Sh. A.S. Choudhry had admitted in his statement that he had signed a false affidavit in which it was claimed that the said gas cylinders were sold to the assessed- company.'3. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessed filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 57,953. The assessing officer observed that the assessed had claimed that it had purchased...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. JaIn Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC398

1. In this appeal which has been preferred by the Revenue against a part of the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the classification of the product known as Churan Goli manufactured by the respondents.2. The plea taken up by the respondents is that this product is classifiable under Chapter Heading 9.03 as spices whereas the stand of the Department is that it is classifiable under Chapter Heading 21.08.The adjudicating authority accepted the stand of the Department, but the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed that order by holding that this product is classifiable under Chapter Heading 9.03.3. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of miscellaneous edible products preparation of vegetables, fruits, nuts, or other parts of plants. The products being manufactured by them are Amla, Nimbu Masala Goli, Saunf Mixture, Saunf Churi, Churan Goli, Jeera Masala and Chat Masala. Classification of all these products exc...

Neelkamal Plastics Ltd., Shri Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC273

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of plastic goods, mainly, chairs.The present appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No.62-64/Commissioner/Noida/ 2002 dated 22.11.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, NOIDA.2. The impugned order raised duty demand of over Rs. 2.92 Lakhs under 7 headings. The appeal does not dispute the duty demand raised in respect of free gift of items and short payment of duty on moulds.3. The main demand under the order of over Rs. 240 Lakhs is in respect of defective chairs. The appellants manufacturer provided guarantee for an year in respect of their chairs. During this period, if the chairs were damaged on account of manufacturing defects, upon return of the chairs, the appellant used to give a credit equivalent to the value of the goods. Under a Circular dated 9th March, 2000, the appellant revised the policy with regard to guarantee. Based on this circular and other materials collected during investigation, the impugned order has held t...

Surya Cables Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT305TriDel

1 These two appeals, arising out of two different orders, are being decided together as the issue involved is identical in both these appeals. The issue involved in both these appeals is whether the benefit of Notification No. 20/99-Cus. is available in respect of fibreglass roving imported by them and whether the demand is time-barred under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Shri Piyush Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that both these appeals have been dismissed for want of prosecution by Tribunal's Order Nos. 638-39/03-B, dated 29-8-03; that the Consultants' non-appearance on the date of hearing was totally unintentional due to urgent reasons.He, therefore, requested for restoring the appeals to their original numbers.3. We heard Shri V. Valte, learned Senior Departmental Representative, who has no objection if the appeals are restored.4. In view of the submissions made by the learned Advocate, we recall our final Order dated 29-8-03 and restore the appeals to their original n...

Binani Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT533TriDel

1. Appellant is a manufacturer of cement. They import coal as an input for use in the said manufacture, The dispute raised in the present appeal is about valuation of three consignments of coal imported by them from South Africa during the months of May and July, 1999.The parties had agreed to a formula of US $ 30 per MT for coal of 6500 Kcal. The test report at the Port of export indicated the value as 6550 Kcal (Air Dried). When the sample was tested upon arrival in India, the value was found to be 6549 Kcal. The transaction was concluded between the parties on a value of US $ 30.23 PMT i.e. on the basis of 6550 Kcal. The Customs Authorities got the sample tested in their own laboratory, upon which it was found that the value was 6693 Kcal.,Assessable value has been worked out at US $ 30.67 PMT applying that calorific value and duty demand confirmed.2. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Transaction between buyer and seller was dec...

Cce Vs. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC86

1. The ROM application points out that there is an error in citing the impugned order No. in our Final Order No. 329/03-NB(A) dated 4.7.03. It is pointed out by both sides that Appeal No. E/661/03-NB(A) arose out of Order-in-Appeal No. 16/CE/RPC-II/2003, dated 23.1.2003 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur as against Order-in-Appeal No.46-CE/BPL/2002 dated 23.1.2002 cited in title portion of our Final Order.2. The mistake is typographical in character and may be corrected. It is ordered that reference in our Final Order dated 4.7.2003 to the impugned order may be read as "Order-in-Appeal No. 16/RPR-II/2003 dated 23.1.2003" in place of "Order-in-Appeal No. 46-CE/BPL/2002 dated 23.1.2002". Rectification of mistake application is ordered accordingly....

Paradise Plastic Enterprises Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC357

1. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assesses is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 9.5.2003 upholding the imposition of penalty against the appellant to the extent of Rs. 1.25 lakhs and demand of interest under Section 11AB w.e.f. 28.9.96.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of plastic moulded parts for four wheelers, two wheelers and telephones for which the buyers of finished goods provided moulds free of cost. Except in the case of four such buyers supplying moulds free of cost the appellant had included the cost of moulds proportionately in the assessable value of the final products and paid the duty accordingly. Since the requisite information regarding cost to be amortized was not supplied by four customers, the appellant did not amortize the cost of the moulds supplied free of cost by them. Subsequently, on 12.1.2000 upon receipt of the information from the buyers, the appellant paid the differential duty. The show cause notice...

Aman Engineering Works Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issues involved in this Appeal Filed by M/s. Aman Engineering.Works are whether MODVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs in available to them and whether the demand is barred by time limit specified in Rule 57 I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture water meters and avail MODVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs; that they had availed the MODVAT credit of the duty paid on imported brass scrap on the strength of one invoice No. 56 dated 26.12.97 issued by M/s. Shobhit Impex who were importers and registered dealers authorized to issue modvatable invoices; that the MODVAT credit has been disallowed to them on the ground that they has only received the invoice without receipt of the goods. He, further, submitted that the entire demand is bit by bar of limitation as they had submitted copies of invoices along with RT 12 returns; that no allegation of fraud suppression of facts etc. with an intent to evade p...

Smt. Kamla Bai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT237; 2004(72)DRJ613; 2004(92)ECC376

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The quashing of the order dated 22.7.2002 passed by the Competent Authority, (New Delhi) under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as SAFEMA) is sought for in the present writ petition. The impugned order dated 22.7.2002 has been passed in respect of the property bearing No. 5/34, Ram Devaji Ghali, Takhatgarh, District Pali (Rajasthan). By virtue of the said order the said property has been forfeited under Section 7(1) and 7(3) of the SAFEMA to the Central Government. The petitioner is the wife of one Popat Lal who was a detenue under COFEPOSA and in view of his activities the said Shri Popat Lal was a person covered under Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA. The provisions of SAFEMA we are applied to the said Shri Popat Lal and, accordingly, the properties allegedly illegally acquired by the said person were sought to be forfeited in view of the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of SAFEMA. Admittedly, ...