Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Neo Sack Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT639TriDel
1. The Appellants filed this appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants made import of certain machineries under EPCG licence. The condition of the licence was that the import can be made of new machinery. On verification, it was found that some machines imported by the appellants were old machines, therefore, the adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the machines, and allowed the release of the machines on payment of redemption fine and the customs duty was also demanded in respect of the machines and the personal penalty was also imposed.3. Heard both the sides. The contention of the appellants is that the adjudicating authority relied upon the opinion given by Shri Tapan Kumar Chakraborty, Appraiser in respect of the condition of the machinery. The appellants specifically asked for cross-examination of the Appraiser vide letter dated 9-10-2001. The cross-examination...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bohra Novatex (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT114TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 20-9-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the Order-in-Original dated 23-4-2001 of the adjudicating authority.2. The facts are not much in dispute. On carrying out the physical verification of the stock lying in the factory of the respondents by the Officers of the Central Excise on 30-3-2000, shortage of 40,045 mtrs. of fabric was detected and this shortage was also not disputed by the Director, Shri J.K. Jain, of the respondents' company. On completion of investigation, the show cause notice was issued to the respondents' company as well as its Director, Shri J.K. Jain (not party in the present appeal). The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 25,629/- with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC and with further penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 173Q. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the Director of the respondents' company. The Comm...
Shivanshi Ferrous (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC420
1. The appellants were engaged, during the material period, in the manufacture of MS ingots under the compounded levy scheme of Rule 96-ZO of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. They closed down their unit from 7.6.98 to 2.7.98 on account of disconnection of electric supply by the UP State Electricity Board. They filed a claim with the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for abatement of duty for the said period. This claim was rejected on the following grounds related to the procedure laid down under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 96-ZO:- (i) Electric meter readings at the time of closure and re-start of the unit were not furnished by the party; (ii) The balance of stock at the time of re-start of production was not furnished; (iii) Declaration of continuous closure of the factory during the above period was not submitted.2. Against the above decision of the Commissioner, the party preferred appeal to this Tribunal and this Bench remanded the matter as per Final Order dated 23....
Brahamputra Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT123TriDel
1. The issue to be considered in this appeal is whether the two slits created one in front of the first chamber and another at the end of the last chamber so as to enable the placement of rollers to make room for entry and movement of grey fabrics below the stenter chain would enhance the capacity of the stenter. Prima facie we find that the introduction of the rollers as mentioned above may not enhance the capacity of the stenter. The issue is to be considered after detailed arguments at the time of hearing of the appeal. Since the appellant has made out a prima facie case, the condition for pre-deposit is waived....
Ratnagiri Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT110TriDel
1. In this case the goods were cleared in terms of Advance Release Order (ARO) issued under the Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) on payment of duty which did not take in CVD. According to the Revenue, proviso to Section 5A under which the exemption notification was issued, says that unless it is specifically provided in such notification, no exemption shall apply to excisable goods which are produced or manufactured by EOU. If the above contention of the Revenue is accepted, it will lead to a situation that where under the DFRC the goods are imported, there will be no CVD whereas if they are purchased from EOU, as is permitted in accordance with the policy, CVD will have to be paid. We find that this issue requires detailed consideration at the time of hearing. We, therefore, grant exemption from pre-deposit....
Fertichem (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT184TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 29-8-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Unwrought Zinc Slabs from the imported raw material (Galvaniser Zinc Ash). They were not earlier paying duty on the final product but as a result of the Budgetary changes, waste and scrap of Zinc was excluded from Chapter 79 and included in Chapter 26 w.e.f. 1-3-1988. As such, the zinc Slabs manufactured by the appellants from the said raw material became classifiable under Chapter 26 and as such were not entitled for exemption under Notification No. 104/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 as amended by Notification No. 183/88 dated 13-5-88 which the appellants were earlier availing.3. The issue involved is, as to whether the benefit of Notification No.183/88-CE., dated 13-5-1988 was available to the appellants during the period 13-5-1988 to 22-6-1988 or not. This ...
Arpit Marbles (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT630TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of marble slabs and marble tiles. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for demand of duty and for imposition of penalty on the ground that they had cleared the marble slabs for captive use and shown less marble tiles manufactured out of the marble slabs.3. The contention of the appellants is that they were clearing marble slabs on payment of duty and there is no dispute in respect of clearance of such marble slabs. The contention of the appellants is that only defective marble slabs were captively used in the manufacture of marble tiles and there is no allegation that the appellants had cleared marble slabs without payment of duty. It is admitted fact that during the manufacture of marble tiles, some material comes into existence as waste/broken slabs. This waste is known as crazy which is exempted from the payment of duty. ...
Shivanshi Ferrous (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT263TriDel
1. The appellants were engaged, during the material period, in the manufacture of MS ingots under the compounded levy scheme of Rule 96ZO of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. They closed down their unit from 7-6-98 to 2-7-98 on account of disconnection of electric supply by the UP State Electricity Board. They filed a claim with the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for abatement of duty for the said period. This claim was rejected on the following grounds related to the procedure laid down under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO :- (i) Electric meter readings at the time of closure and re-start of the unit were not furnished by the party; (ii) The balance of stock at the time of re-start of production was not furnished; (iii) Declaration of continuous closure of the factory during the above period was not submitted.2. Against the above decision of the Commissioner, the party preferred appeal to this Tribunal and this Bench remanded the matter as per Final Order dated 23-1...
S.D. Watches (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC319
1. The appellants in this case are challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) where they have been denied the Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 1,08,989. The facts are not in dispute. The appellants had been wording at C-234, Sector-10, Noida. On transfer of their manufacturing activity to new premises at A-45, Section 10, Noida, they reversed the credit of the aforesaid amount in respect of the inputs lying in stock, as well as the inputs contained in the final product -- "wrist watches", lying in stock under the directions of the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers. After due intimation to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, the appellants took credit of the aforesaid amount in their RG 23 records of the factory situated at new location, after complying with all the prescribed formalities. Proper records were maintained of the inputs/final products and the credit amounts. In his Order-in-Original dated 22.6.2000, the Deputy Commissioner of Central...
Saipem S.P.A. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)86ITD572(Delhi)
Tribunal even after being an all India Tribunal the impact of its order does not extend to the whole country but to the area which is co-terminus with that of the jurisdictional High Court and outside its sphere the decisions of the Tribunal have persuasive value on other Benches of the Tribunal.Tribunal even after being an all India Tribunal the impact of its order does not extend to the whole country but to the area which is co-terminus with that of the jurisdictional High Court and outside its sphere the decisions of the Tribunal have persuasive value on other Benches of the Tribunal.It is only the Hon'ble Supreme Court which occupies an exalted position and its decisions are binding on all the courts and Tribunals of the Country including the Hon'ble High Courts and its decisions are the law of the land. The High Courts in turn lay down the law within their territorial jurisdictions and the different Benches of the Tribunal decide the appeals before it following the law laid down ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »