Delhi Court June 2003 Judgments

Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co. Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC73

1. In March, 1996 Designated Authority (D.A.) in the Ministry of Commerce, initiated an investigation into complaint by the domestic industry that Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber ('NBR') was being dumped into India. Upon conclusion of the investigations, DA issued its final finding dated 17th July, 1997 confirming the allegation and recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty on exports of NBR from South Korea and Germany. Pursuant to this final findings, antidumping duty was imposed under Notification 62/97-Cus., dated 30th July, 1997 at rates recommended by the DA. M/s. Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (M/s. Kumho) was one of the exporters subjected to the investigation and duty had been imposed on its exports into India also. M/s.Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. the Indian Indenting Agent of M/s. Kumho filed an appeal against the imposition of duty before this Tribunal and that appeal was rejected by this Tribunal under its Order No.22/2000-AD, dated 2-2-2000 [2000 (119) E.L.T. 157 (...

A.K. JaIn Vs. Video Care

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal is directed against order dated 3.9.2001, passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 161/2000-entitled Shri A.K. Jain v. M/s. Video Care. 2. The relevant facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant Shri A.K. Jain had given his two-in-one for repair to the respondent on 25.11.1999 and the same was to be delivered after due repairs on 8.12.1999. However, despite various visits the same was not returned to the appellant till 28.12.1999. The respondent charged Rs. 550/- for the repairs without rectifying the defects. Soon after taking the delivery of the two-in-one, the defects reappeared inasmuch as the sound of the two-in-one was not clear and the volume had also reduced. As such the appellant had to again approach the respondent for repairs. This time the equipment was returned to the appellant after alleged repairs on 26.2.2000. The appellant was still not satisfied ...

Sukhbir Singh Bahl Vs. Managing Director, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Lt ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The instant appeal is directed against the order of District Forum-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi, dated 16.8.1999, passed in Complaint Case No. 979/1998 - entitled Shri Sukhbir Singh Bahl v. The Managing Director, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and Anr. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal are, that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had applied for a new telephone connection, to the respondent, on the basis of the advertisement published in the newspapers and announcement made in the FM Channel of Radio, that persons applying for a telephone connection on or before 11.3.1998 and depositing Rs. 3,000/- would get telephone connection by 31.3.1998. Accordingly, the appellant deposited the requisite amount on 10.3.1998 but the respondent failed to release the connection t...

Commissioner of Customs, Icd Vs. Goel Offset Printers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT475TriDel

1. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs on 22-10-2000. Respondents herein imported second-hand Adast Dominant Offset printing machine under Bill of Entry dated 9-11-2000. The value of the machine declared was Rs. 10,85,600/-. The certificate was also produced to show that the machine was manufactured in the year 1991. After Customs examination, it was found on the basis of a report submitted by Amit International who were local representative of the foreign manufacturer of the imported machine i.e. Adast Dominant machine that the machine was manufactured in March, 1988. The Commissioner took the view that the machine was liable to confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. On the basis of import of a similar machine of 1991 make at ICD, Patparganj at a CIF value of Rs. 12,00,155/- during the same time, the Commissioner accepted the declared value. He imposed a redemption fine of Rs....

Rakesh Kapoor Cargo Helpers Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC405

1. M/s. Rakesh Kapoor Cargo Helpers are challenging the suspension of Customs House Agent Licence by the Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned order.2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate, submitted that his licence has been suspended by the Commissioner on the ground that one Binoda Nand Jha, authorised representative (G. Cardholder) of the Appellant had attempted to get an import consignment cleared on the basis of forged signatures of Customs Officers on the out of charge gate pass without physically getting the goods examined by the Customs Officer with the help of one Shri Manikant another 'G' Cardholder of M/s. Travel Planner; that the entire activity of Jha was not in the knowledge of the Appellant as the papers were never received by the Appellant firm for Customs clearance; that no person of importing firm had contacted the Appellant for the clearance of the import consignment. He, further, submitted that show cause notice dated 19-5-2003 has been issued by the Assistan...

Gdpa Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT366TriDel

1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 13-9-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who directed the confiscation of the goods seized from the premises of the appellants with option to get the same redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh and also imposed penalty of that much amount on them.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are SSI unit engaged in the manufacture of valves and cocks and are not availing Modvat credit on the inputs. They purchased the inputs from M/s.Aggarwal Metal Co. who in turn procured the goods from the manufacturer Harsh Metal Co. as is evident from the impugned order. But the manufacturer had in fact cleared those goods without payment of duty.After recording the statement of the manufacturer as well as of the present appellants show cause notice was issued to the appellants for imposition of penalty under Rule 209A for h...

Gagan Synthetics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1038TriDel

1. As the issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Gagan Synthetics, has been settled by the Supreme Court, we stay the recovery of the entire duty and penalty and take up the Appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. We heard Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate and Shri Jagdish Singh, learned Departmental Representative. The issue involved in this Appeal is whether the length of the galleries is to be included in the length of Chamber while determining the annual capacity of production of an independent textile processor. The Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur-II v. S.P.B.L. Ltd. - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 254 (S.C.) has affirmed the decisions of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, 2001 (127) E.L.T.679 (Tri. - LB) = 2001 (42) RLT 429 (Cegat - LB). The Tribunal has held that "A gallery which is having no rails, fan or radiator attached to it cannot come within the purview of "any other equipment" ...

Aspen Crew Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC206

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of caps and bags containing logo/monogram of their customers. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for classifying the caps under heading 6501.80 of Central Excise Tariff and for bags under heading 6305.39 of Central Excise Tariff and for denying the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification on the ground that appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification as they were manufacturing and clearing branded goods.3. The adjudicating authority classified the goods as proposed in the show cause notice and denied the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification. The adjudicating authority also ordered the confiscation of the goods which were found in the factory and gave option to the appellants to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 75,000 personal penalty of R...

AlladIn Khan Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT505TriDel

1. In this appeal the appellant has contested the impugned order dated 5-7-2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on him and confiscating the currency recovered from his possession.2. The facts are not in much in dispute. On 9-12-93, the appellant was intercepted at Railway Station, Sadulpur Junction when he came from Delhi in Delhi-Bikaner Train. On conducting his search, Indian currency Rs. 7,19,300/- was recovered from him. He disclosed that the seized currency was sale proceeds of 114 tolas of smuggled gold which was sent by Lal Mohd. of Saudi Arabia illegally to Satyanarain Soni. Thereafter search of the house of Satyanarain Soni was carried out which resulted in recovery of Rs. 18,900/-. Parameshwar Soni and his father Satyanarain Soni to whom the gold was alleged to have been sold, denied this fact in their respective statements. However, Hanif Mohd. in his statement stated that he sold 100 Kgs. of silver a...

Dy. Cit Vs. Himalaya Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)296

ORDERSikander Khan, A.M.:In this appeal the revenue has raised the following ground'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,30,850 made on account of unconfirmed outstanding liabilities.'2. The assessing officer noticed outstanding liability of Rs. 2,30,850 in the balance sheet in the name of M/s Ever air Industrial Corporation and M/s Climate Tumer India. He found that these outstanding liabilities were more than three years old. He was of the view that the amount was includible in the total income under section 41(l) of the Act. He added the amount to the total income saying that the assessed had agreed vide order-sheet entry. The assessing officer also relied on the decision reported in CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. : [1996]222ITR344(SC) .3. Aggrieved, the assessed preferred first appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who after considering the submissions made before him deleted t...