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.
SimalIn Chemical Industries Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC254
1. Challenge in this appeal is against Notification No. 31/2002-Cus., dated 27-3-2002 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India imposing anti-dumping duty on imports of Hexamine originating in and exported by M/s. Saudi Formaldehyde Chemical Company Ltd. from Saudi Arabia.2. In Appeal No. C/335/2002 Filed by M/s. Saudi Formaldehyde Chemical Company Ltd., the exporter to India, prayer is to annul the final finding dated 15-2-2002 of the Designated Authority recommending antidumping duty and also Notification dated 27-3-2002 imposing anti-dumping duty on the basis of the recommendation. Appeal Nos. C/331 & 334/2002 are filed by M/s. Simalin Chemical Industries and M/s.Rockhard Petro Chemicals Ltd. They are the domestic industry, which filed petition before the Designated Authority for imposition of anti-dumping duty on dumped import of Hexamine from Saudi Arabia and Russia. The prayer in the appeal of M/s. Simalin is for modifying the quantum of dumping margin, injury margin...
Hoerbiger India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC486
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the importer M/s. Hoerbiger India Pvt. Ltd. challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 9.12.2002. The issue arising for consideration is whether running royalty of 5% liable? to be paid by the appellant to its foreign collaborator is to be added to the invoice value of the goods imported.2. Appellants are manufacturers of compressor valves and parts thereof for air compressor as well as gas compressor. They had entered into financial-cum-technical collaboration agreement dated 26.11.93 with M/s. Hoerbiger Ventilwrke Gmbh, Austria (hereinafter referred to as H.V.W). The appellant which is now 100% subsidiary of H.V.W. Austria entered into a Patent and Know-how license agreement dated 30.1.2001 with Hoerbiger Kompressortechnik Service Gmbh, Austria for the purpose of manufacture of valves, control systems, packing and sealing elements as indicated in Recital (1) of the said agreement with the approval of Reserve Bank of India. I...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhawani Shankar Castings Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT554TriDel
1. This ROM application has been moved by the Revenue seeking rectification of the mistake in the impugned final order of the Tribunal dated 16-9-2002 vide which the appeal of the appellants (respondents in this application) was accepted.2. The mistake pointed out in the application, by the Revenue is that the payment of duty by the respondents from the Modvat credit could not be treated as a valid payment for the purpose of discharge of duty under Section 3A of the Act for the disputed period 1-4-98 to 31-3-2002, for setting aside in the order-in-original of the Commissioner. This very ground has been reiterated by the learned SDR during the course of arguments. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has only contended that no doubt the assessees were to pay duty in accordance with the provisions of Section 3A of the Act. But, their claim for discharging the duty in terms of Section 3(4) was still pending. Therefore, payment of duty by them from the Modvat credit was valid.3. We have...
Panalfa Dongwon India Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC824
1. The appeal is at the instance of the importer M/s. Panalfa Dongwon India Ltd. The challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29.8.2002. The issue arising for consideration is whether lump sum royalty of US$ 6,50,000 payable as consideration for (i) training of personnel, (ii) furnishing of technical information and (iii) utilisationn of intellectual property rights and royalty of 2.5% on the net selling price of each licensed product manufactured and sold are required to be added to the invoice value of the capital goods, raw materials etc. imported by the appellant under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.2. The appellant company was formed on a joint venture agreement dated 3.2.1996 between M/s. Panalfa Investment Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, M/s. DCM Daewoo Motors Ltd. New Delhi and M/s. Dongwon Metals Industries Co.Ltd. Korea. Pursuant to the joint venture agreement the appellant was set up to manufacture, assemble and sell complete exhaust...
M.R. Tobacco (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC821
1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.3. The appeal filed by the appellants, was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that there was delay of 34 days in filing the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to condone the delay of more than 30 days as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act.4. The contention of the applicants is that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. Union of India, 1998 (98) ELT 591 (All.) and in the case of Jai Hind Bottling Company (P) Ltd. v.CCE (Appeals), 2002 (83) ECC 587 (All): 2002 (146) ELT 273 (All.) had taken a view that Section 35 of the Central Excise Act does not indicate that Section 29 (2) and Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been excluded expressly. Therefore, it will be open to Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days.5. The contention of the revenue is that the Tribunal in the case of Abhishek Auto Ind...
Kunal Travels Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT861TriDel
1. This application arises in an appeal preferred against an order of the Commissioner of Customs, whereby a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the applicant under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The prayer is for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalty amount.3. It appears from the records and the submissions that the applicants had functioned as CHA for an exporter, M/s. Zenith International in respect of export of brass articles under a few shipping bills. They had discharged their function through their employee, one Shri Ambrish Chauhan, holder of 'H' card. After scrutiny of the shipping bills (claiming drawback), relevant invoices and packing lists, officers of Customs cleared the consignment for stuffing. However, the stuffed goods were destuffed and subjected to re-examination, whereupon a shortage of quantity was found. Statement of the exporter, CHA, etc., were recorded and, on completion of the investigation, show-cause notices were issued to ...
Shaktiman Cement (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT369TriDel
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Notification 5/94-C.E. was denied on the ground that the appellants had not filed any revised classification list.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement. Appellants filed a classification list whereby they claimed the benefit of Notification 1/93-C.E. and after crossing the limit of clearance under Notification 1/93-C.E., they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 5/94-C.E. The benefit of Notification No.5/94-C.E. was denied to the appellants.3. The contention of the appellants is that as they claimed specifically the benefit of Notification No. 5/94 in the classification lists and the classification lists were duly approved by the competent authority, now the impugned order denying the benefit of notification on the ground that they had not filed any revised classification list claiming the benefit of N...
National Dairy Development Board Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC308
1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. National Dairy Development Board, is whether refund of the Customs duty is admissible to them.2. Shri Rakesh Tiku, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants had imported tailor made spares for the Aseptic Packaging Machine falling under Heading No. 98.06 of the Customs Tariff, that they claimed benefit of exemption Notification No. 69/87-Cus dated 1.3.1987; that the Department reviewed the assessment and re-classified the impugned goods and assessed on merits; that as the consignment was incurring demurrage charges, they cleared the consignment on payment of duty on 6.1.1988; that subsequent to the clearance of the impugned goods, they filed an application for refund of customs duty which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, under Order-in-Original dated 23.8.95 on the ground that some of the goods appeared to be interchangeable with parts of motor vehicles; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also under the impug...
Avtar Singh Vs. State Bank of Saurashtra and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC87
1. The 1st respondent State Bank of Saurashtra (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 514/1996 againstsix defendants before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi-I (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') wherein the 5th defendant is Mr. Lakshmi Chand, and the 6th defendant is Mr. B.K. Goel. The claim was filed for the recovery of Rs. 11,54,449.70. All the defendants remained ex parte, and the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order dated 14.5.1998, directing the defendants to pay the above said amount with interest and costs. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT also directed the sale of the hypothecated goods, and also of the mortgaged property. As per the averments in the O.A., 5th defendant Lakshmi Chand had created the mortgage. In execution of the above said final order, the Recovery Officer concerned attached the property said to have been mortgaged, and proclaimed it for sale.2. Thereupon the appellant Avtar Singh (hereinafter referred to ...
Pearless Pack Ltd. Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)LC611Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s Pearless Pack Ltd., New Delhi purchased "Second-hand Offset Printing and Allied machines" at US $ 32,100 under invoice No.052602A dated 27th May 2002 from North East Printing Machinery, Inc., USA. The terms of payment was bill for collection at sight through Indian Bank, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The consignment consisted of the following 4 items as mentioned in the Bill of Entry: (i)l NO. Heidelberg, 2 Color Offset Press Size 20" 1/2 X 29" Year of Mfg. 1993 Serial. No. 535537 Complete with all Accessories, Motors, Compressors and Electrical fittings Made in Germany (ii)l No. Adast Dominant 745,4 color offset press Year, of Mfg. 1993, Serial N. 10627, Size: 19"x26" Complete with all Accessories, Motors, Compressors and Electrical fittings Made in Czech Republic.(iii) 1 No. Mandell Paper Cutting Machine Year of Mfg. 1993 Size: 115 Made in Italy (iv)l No. Ryobl 960 CD, 1 Color Mini Offset Press Year of Mfg. 1993 Made in Japan 2. M/s Pearless Pack sought clearance of the goods ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »