Delhi Court June 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.
Ambassador Indl. Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT141TriDel
1. M/s. Ambassador Industrial Corporation, Ludhiana filed 5 shipping bills, all dated 15-3-99, at Bombay Customs for export of "Steel Balls". Total FOB value declared was about Rs. 1.2 crores. The shipping bills were under claims for DEPB benefit at the rate of 20% of FOB value. DEPB benefit is subject to the condition that the benefit cannot exceed 50% of the Present Market Value (PMV) of the goods under export.In view of this, the appellant declared the PMV of the export goods at about Rs. 1.3 crores.2. Upon physical examination of the goods on 8-4-99, the Customs Officers felt that the goods had been highly overvalued/over-invoiced inasmuch as the declared FOB value came to Rs. 2140 per kg. of steel balls which value was several times higher than the value noticed for similar goods. In respect of previous exports, the value was found to vary in the range of Rs. 180 to Rs. 227 per kg. The case was therefore, referred by the Dock Customs Officer to Special Investigation & Intelli...
Vijay Tanks and Vessels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT302TriDel
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of iron and steel drums and containers. The said manufacturer is on job work basis for M/s. IOC Ltd. The present appeal relates to the demand for duty short-levied on account of alleged undervaluation of the containers so manufactured and supplied to IOC Ltd. The demand is for the period April, 1996 to January, 2001 and show cause notice was issued on 15-4-2001.2. The contention of the appellant is that the demand has been raised beyond the period of limitation provided in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. It has been submitted that the normal period provided under Section 11A is only six months and the extended period of five years is available only in exceptional circumstances involving fraud, collusion, suppression of facts or mis-statement of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The appellant's submission is that in the present case the full facts covering the transaction between the parties were known to the jurisdictional Central Ex...
Sangemermer India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT703TriDel
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of irregular Marble Slabs. On 20-2-99, the Officers of the Revenue Department visited the factory of the appellant and during verification of the record, it was found that there was a shortages 286.659 sq. mtrs. of irregular Marble Slabs than the recorded balance.3. During the search of the premises some loose slips were also recovered. The explanation given by Shri Kalu Ram Bagda, accountant in respect of these slips was that these are in respect of the job work undertaken in respect of trading activity of their trade Firm.Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted by Shri Rameshwar Prasad Bajaj, the Director of the appellant's Firm where he also submitted that the sheets are in respect of the job work undertaken by them and also in respect of the trading activity of their other Firm and later on subsequentl...
Polar Forging and Tool Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT99TriDel
1. This order will dispose of all the above captioned seven appeals; four filed by M/s. Polar Forging & Tool Ltd. and three by M/s. Heynan India Ltd., against the common order-in-appeal dated 18-9-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the orders-in-original of different dates.2. The facts in all the appeals and the issue involved are common and can be disposed of by this one order. The appellants imported certain raw material falling under Chapter 82 of the CETA and deposited in a private Customs Bonded Warehouse under 100% EOU Scheme, but they failed to clear the bonded goods within a specified period. They were accordingly served with a show cause notice calling upon them to pay the interest on the customs duty amount which would be payable by them at the time of clearance of the goods. The adjudicating authority after getting the reply, confirmed the interest amount on duty amounts through the orders-in-original. Those orders-in-original had been affirmed by t...
JaIn Raffia Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT752TriDel
1. I have gone through the impugned order and, in my view, the stay application as well as appeal both can be decided simultaneously.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The proceedings were initiated against the appellants on the strength of the show cause notice for having clandestinely removed the excisable goods without payment of duty during the period in dispute i.e. January, 2000. Penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q of the Rules was also proposed in that notice. The adjudicating authority after getting the reply, confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,57/610/- with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC, besides imposing penalty of Rs. 30,000/- under Rule 173Q.A penalty of Rs. 3,000/- was also imposed on Shri Surendra Kumar Singhvi, Director and Shri Dharam Chand Singhvi, General Manager of the appellants' company. This order of the adjudicating authority (Additional Commissioner) dated 26-3-2001 was challenged by the appellants' company and the Director before the Commis...
Havell'S India Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC796
1. The issue raised in this appeal is the correct classification of electromagnet assembly under Central Excise Tariff. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner has confirmed its classification under tariff entry 85.05, treating the item as electromagnet, after overruling the appellant's contention that the item in question was an assembly of parts alongwith electromagnet and not a mere electromagnet.The appellant had canvassed classification under Chapter 90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The impugned order also notes that the item consists of number of parts. Nevertheless, classification under tariff item 85.05 was approved because "as a whole it is electromagnet as it creates a magnetic field around it with the passage of electric current through the coil surrounding core lamination." 2. During the hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant took us through the various chapter headings and chapter notes and pointed out that the very issue had came up for considerat...
Sona Winding Wires Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT690TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common order-in-appeal dated 8-11-2002 vide which penalty of Rs. 20/000/- has been confirmed on appellants No. 1, M/s. Sona Winding Wires, while confiscation of the goods of appellants No. 2, M/s. Mayur Metal (India), besides confirmation of duty with penalty, as detailed therein, had been ordered.2. The learned Counsel for both the appellants had contended that the appellants No. 1 is a trader and he purchased the goods from appellants No. 2. The goods were being shifted by appellants No. 1 to his premises when the tempo was intercepted. The goods could not be confiscated for having been purchased by appellants No. 1 from appellants No. 2, who is a SSI unit and that the release of the goods was also required to be made in favour of the appellants No. 1 and not appellants No. 2. No penalty could also be imposed on any of the appellants under the law as there was no violation of any Central Excise Rules.3....
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jai Mata Plywood Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Delhi)377
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dt. 3rd July, 1998 of CIT(A)-II, Meerut (Camp Ghaziabad) pertaining to 1995-96 assessment year. "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief of Rs. 8,76,000 out of total addition in the trading account of Rs. 11,26,000 by directing to take sales at Rs. 25 lakhs and GP rate of 10 per cent ignoring the fact that the assessee had not produced the books before the AO and therefore, the AO was justified in estimating the sales at Rs. 50 lakh as against sales shown at Rs. 23,37,919 in view of facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief mentioned at para No. 1 by directing to take GP at 10 per cent as against GP rate of 22.52 per cent taken by the AO and shown by the assessee itself for asst. yr. 1994-95 ignoring the fact that the fire broke out in the assessee's business premises on 8th June, 1994 and out of total sales shown at Rs. 2...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kitply Industries Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT49TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether the panels of laminated particle boards and panels of laminated medium density fibre board are classifiable under sub-headings 4406.90 and 4407.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as Ordered by the Commissioner under the impugned Order or under sub-heading 4408.90 of the Tariff as claimed by Revenue.2. We heard Shri A.S. Bedi, learned SDR for Revenue, and Shri Pravin Sharma, learned Advocate, for the Respondents, M/s. Kitply Industry Limited. It has been brought on record that the Tribunal, in the case of Respondents themselves [CCE, Noida v. Kitply Industries Limited, 2003 (151) E.L.T. 560 (T)] has held as under :- "A study of the 3 entries shows that Tariff entry 44.06 covers particle board and similar board of wood etc, Tariff entry 44.08 covers plywood veneered panel and similar laminated wood. A closure study of these three entries shows that it is not only particle board that is covered und...
Vitan Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT1009TriDel
1. This application for restoration of the appeal is by the appel-lant's Advocate. This is not enough. An application for restoration of an appeal should be filed by the appellant himself. If the ground for restoration of the appeal is something personally pertaining to the Counsel, the application should be accompanied by an affidavit of the Advocate. The present application is rejected, with liberty to the appellant to file proper application as required by law....
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »