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.
A.K. Jewellers Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC496
"Whether while passing an order under Section 125 of the Customs Act, the authorities can direct confiscation of goods and payment of fine in lieu of confiscation together with a direction to re-export the goods." 2. The referring Bench noticed the conflict of views expressed in the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. v.Collector of Customs - Final Order No. A/32/90-NRB, dated 27-12-90, Padia Sales Corporation v. Collector of Customs - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 90, Skantrons (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 635 and HCL Hewlett Packard Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 4. The contention of the appellants is that the adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction to confiscate the goods and impose redemption fine in lieu of confiscation while permitting the importer to re-export the goods. The appellants mainly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siemens Limited v. Collector of Customs - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 776. The contention of the appellan...
Mount Everest Mineral Water Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)LC350Tri(Delhi)
1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Mount Everest Mineral Water Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 9/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98 is available to the goods manufactured by them with effect from 12-10-98.2. Shri P.R. Mallick, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that on account of lack of proper advice, they initially started paying the Central Excise duty on full rate without availing the benefit of concessional duty as applicable to small-scale units; that they revised their classification list with effect from 12-10-98 by claiming the benefit of Notification No. 9/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order has disallowed the benefit of the said notification on the ground that they had not fulfilled the conditions specified in Para 2(i) of the Notification; that as per the said conditions the exemption contained in the Notification shall apply to a manufacturer who commences his first clearance in the year 1998-99 on or af...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)90ITD616(Delhi)
1. The Revenue in this appeal has made a grievance to the order of the CIT(A) dt. 27th May, 1998, on the ground that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.2. The relevant facts available on the record are that the assessee for the asst. yr. 1995-96 filed a return of income on 30th Oct., 1995, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,24,920. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) and the same was finalized on 15th Jan., 1996, at the same amount as disclosed by the assessee. Subsequently, the record transpires that the case was selected for scrutiny and pursuant thereto notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act was issued on 13th Aug., 1996. Consequent to the issuance of notice Shri V.K. Jain, CA appeared and attended the proceedings from time to time. During the course of investigation the AO found that in the computation of the total income furnished alongwith the return the assessee had shown a sale of 56000 shares of ...
Prem Prakash Oberoi Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ364
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Against the demolition order dated 19.2.1997 passed by DDA in respect of petitioner's property bearing No. 63, Rani Jhansi Road, Motia Khan, New Delhi, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal being Appeal No. 88/ATMCD/97 which was dismissed by order dated 19th May, 2003. After the dismissal of this appeal, petitioner came to know that the area in question where the property of the petitioner situate, namely, Development Area No. 130 had been de-notified by DDA vide notification dated 21.3.2003 passed under Section 12 of the Delhi Development Act. Armed with this notification, petitioner preferred review application before the Tribunal which has been dismissed by order dated 2nd June, 2003 observing that review cannot be allowed even if that decision is erroneous.2. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC spells out the circumstances under which review application can be preferred. One of the grounds in the discovery of new and important matter which, after the exerci...
Vinod Khatri Vs. State (Cbi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ472
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of bail in case RC No. 3A/2003/CBI/ACU-IX/DLI for the offence Under Sections 7/8/11/12 read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B, IPC.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was arrested in the above-noted case on 7.5.2003 and after police remand he was sent to judicial custody on 15.5.2003; that nothing incriminating was recovered from the petitioner or at his instance; that petitioner has clean antecedents and is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by the Court; that no useful purpose is likely to be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer; and there is no likelihood of the charge-sheet being filed within 60 days, on which date, the petitioner would be entitled to be released on bail under proviso to Section 167(2), Cr.P.C.3. Mr. A.K. Dutt, learne...
Amrapali Industries Limited Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT814TriDel
1. M/s. Amrapali Industries Limited have filed the present appeals challenging confirmation of penalty against them by the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order.2. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture texturised yarn out of POY obtained on payment of duty; that they were availing Proforma Credit of duty paid on POY under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that for this purpose they had filed an application, dated 5-4-1994 and the necessary permission was granted by the Assistant Commissioner on 12-4-1994 for availing the Proforma Credit; that by Notification No. 24/94-C.E., dated 20-5-1994 the credit scheme under Rule 57A was extended to POY and texturised yarn; that the Appellants availed Modvat Credit of duty paid on POY from 1-4-1995; that the Assistant Commissioner under Order-in-Original Nos. 66/98 and 67/98, dated 31-12-1998 imposed penalty on them on the ground that they had taken the Modvat Credit without filing d...
Mark Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC79
1. M/s. Mark Auto Industries Ltd. is a manufacturer of fuel (automobile) tanks for Maruti Udyog Ltd. They import `Terne Steel Sheet' for manufacture of the fuel tank. In 1999, they entered into a long-term purchase agreement with British Steel Corpus, UK, for the purchase of the `Terne Steel Sheet'. The period of supply was to be spread over 18 months from March 1999 to March 2001, taking into account the contracted volume of 3000 MT. The quantity, price and period to supply fixed under the contract were as under: Period Quantity (MT) Price (US $ per MT)Oct 1999 to March 2000 1000 PMT 585April to Sept 2000 1000 PMT 570Oct 2000 to March 2001 1000 PMT 555 2. The imports started arriving in terms of the contract from November 1999. Till April 2000, consignments under 20 Bills of Entry were assessed and cleared through the Customs at the contracted transaction value. However, dispute about valuation was raised by Customs in April 2000. The reason was that another importer, M/s. Rasandik E...
Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT406TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against imposition of a penalty of Rs. 60 Lakhs on the appellant M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. The imposition of penalty has been done under 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The penalty on the appellant has followed a finding that a differential duty of over Rs. 3 crores was payable by the appellant's subsidiary M/s. Super Cosmetics (P) Ltd. in respect of soap manufactured by them.The demand has been confirmed in terms of proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the imposition of duty was entirely illegal inasmuch as the original clearance of the soap consignments were on payment of duty at assessable value which had been approved under price lists filed from time to time. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that it is settled law that the question of evasion of duty cannot arise in a case where clearance of goods in terms of approved price or classificat...
Milton Laminates Ltd. Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC198
1. M/s. Milton Laminates Ltd., Ahmedabad, is a manufacturer of laminates. They import "Melamine" for use in the manufacture of laminates. These appeals arise from a dispute about valuation of four consignments of Melamine so imported from Indonesia. While the importer declared a value ranging from 700 to 708 US $ MT, the Customs authorities ordered the assessment of the goods on enhanced value ranging from 998 US $ PMT to 1041 PMT. Details are available in the table below:S.No. B/E No. Value declared Value fixed by US $ MT CIF Customs US $ MT CIF1 1162 dated 16.12.99 709 998.3442 12298 dated 29.1.2000 708 998.3443 12511 dated 10.2.2000 700 1043.1434 13222 dated 27.3.2000 700 1041.563 2. Findings for enhancement of value recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Kandla who adjudicated the cases is as under: I have carefully gone through the facts and evidence of the case. There was a doubt regarding the value of the imported goods. Therefore, the value of the goods in question is...
Hpl Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT357TriDel
1. M/s. HPL Chemicals Ltd. (appellant) manufactures Hydrazine. While selling the Hydrazine, in addition to the price, the appellant charges transit insurance @ 0.4% of the value of the goods from all buyers.Central Excise investigation showed that the actual cost of insurance, by way of insurance premium, worked out to only 0.242%. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated to treat the differential amount between the amount collected and the premium paid as additional value of the goods and to recover central excise duty on the same. The authorities below confirmed the duty demand so raised. Thus, the short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether that action is correct.2. It is the appellant's contention that it is well settled that differential amounts arising on account of collection of freight, insurance premium, etc., at a standard rate is not required to be treated as forming part of the value of the goods and duty collected.According to the appellant, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »