Delhi Court January 2004 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.
Firma Chemiczna Dwory S.A. Vs. Ministry of Finance, Designated
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC432
1. These appeals arise out of imposition of Anti-Dumping duties on "All grades of High Styrene Resin/Rubbers" (HSR) exported from poland and Eurcoean Union to India under Customs Notification No. 6/2002- Cus Date 15th January 2002. The imposition of duties was made pursuant to a final finding notified on 18.12.2001 by Designated Authority that the said items were being dumped from these countries and injury has been caused by such dumping to Indian domestic industry. The rates of Anti-Dumping duty were also the same as recomended by the Designated Authority. The first appellant M/s Firma Chemiczna Dwory S.A. is the exporter from Poland, second and third appellants, namely M/s Apar Industries Limited and M/s Apcotex Lattices Limited are domestic manufactures of HSR in India and the fourth appellant M/s Paragon Rubber Industries is an importer of HSR. It may be noted here that investigation into dumping of HSR was initiated based in a petition filed by the appellants M/s Apar Industries...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT303TriDel
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of lead Seal and claiming the classification under Chapter subheading 7806.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants to reclassify the Lead Seal under Chapter sub-heading 8309.00 of the Tariff. The adjudicating authority confirmed the classification under Chapter sub-heading 8309.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The present respondents filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order in respect of Lead Seal and held that Lead Seal is classifiable under Chapter subheading 7806.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the Lead seals are specifically covered under Heading 8309.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and as per HSN Notes also the Lead Seals of all kinds are covered under sub-heading 8309.00 of the Central Exc...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rungta Irrigation Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT574TriDel
1. The issue in this case pertains to classification of the HDPE pipes manufactured by the respondents. When the respondents filed a revised classification declaration with the department under Rule 173B (of the Central Excise Rules 1944) claiming classification of their product (HDPE pipes) as a part of Sprinkler Irrigation System under sub-heading 8424.91 (rate of duty "Nil") of the CETA Schedule, the department opposed the claim and insisted on continuance of the earlier classification under SH 3917.00 (rate of duty 16%). The original authority held the classification under SH 3917.00 and demanded duty on the clearances for the period July 2001 - March 2002. It also imposed a penalty on the party. The decision of the original authority was set aside by the first appellate authority in the assessee's appeal. The appellate authority classified the goods under SH 8424.91 as claimed by the assessee, and vacated the duty demand and penalty. Hence this appeal of the Revenue.2. Heard SDR ...
P.R. Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT51TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC has been questioned.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The Officer of the Central Excise at the time of checking on 11-12-98 found shortage of modvatable inputs. The appellants reversed the Modvat credit as detailed in the order-in-original, as the shortage was admitted by Shri Bhushan Goel, Partner of the appellants. However, show cause notice was given to them on 9-7-99 for confirming the duty after expiry of the normal period, by invoking the extended period.3. So far as liability to reverse the Modvat credit on the inputs found short is concerned, the same has not been contested before me. The learned Counsel has conceded that even though show cause notice was issued after expiry of normal period of limitation, as it was issued on 9-7-99, whereas shortage of inputs came to the knowledge of the department on 11-2-98, the appellants having already reversed ...
Gsc Toughened Glass Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC729
1. Both these appeals are directed against the same order in adjudication. Accordingly, both were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of under this common order.2. The first appellant M/s. GSC Toughened Glass Pvt. Ltd. is a manufacturer of Glass and glass articles. Goods produced were cleared after paying duty under Headings 70.03, 70.05 and 70.15 of Central Excise Tariff. Under a show cause notice dated 2-3-2001, Central Excise authorities alleged that some of the goods on which appellants had paid duty under Heading 70.15 were actually liable to duty at higher rates under Heading 70.03 or 70.04. Based on this dispute of classification, duty demand of over Rs. 37 lakh was raised for the period April, 1997 to February, 2000. Allegation was also made that the appellant had evaded duty by suppressing relevant facts from the departmental authorities and on account of that reason the duty evaded was liable to be recovered for the extended period as provided under proviso to Sec...
Cce Vs. Haryana, Vidyut Parsaran Nigam
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC512
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Lead Seal and claiming the classification under Chapter Sub-heading 7806.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants to reclassify the Lead Seal under Chapter sub-heading 8309.00 of the Tariff. The adjudicating authority confirmed the classification under Chapter Sub-heading 8309.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The present respondents filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication Order in respect of Lead Seal and held that Lead Seal is classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 7806.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the Lead seals are specifically covered under Heading 8309.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and as per HSN Notes also the Lead Seals of all kinds are covered under sub-heading 8309.00 of the Central E...
Chawla Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Cce and Cross Appeals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC100
1. Appeal Nos. E/3443-45/2000-NB(A) are at the instance of the assessee and Appeal No. E/1891/2001-NB(A) is by the Revenue, All these appeals are directed against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 15.9.2000 confirming a duty demand of Rs. 4,78,37,028 against M/s.Chawla Enterprises Ltd., appellant in appeal E/3443/2000-NB(A) for the period 1.1.93 to 31.3.97. The Commissioner under the impugned order imposed an equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11 AC and directed payment of interest at the rate of 20% under Section 11 AB. A penalty of Rs. 2000 under Rule 9(2) and Rs. 1,00,00,000 under Rule 52A(8) and Rs. 2000 under Rule 226 were also imposed. A penalty at the rate of Rs. 30,00,000 were imposed on appellants in appeals E/3444-45/2000-NB(A) under Rule 209A.2. The appellants are engaged in manufacturing Quartz Movement for Clocks (QMCs), Table Clocks, Wall Clocks, etc. On 11.1.95, Officers of Directorate General of Anti-Evasion (DGAE) conducted search and seizure operatio...
Neo Sacks Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC37
1. M/s. Neo Sacks Ltd. have filed this Appeal against the confirmation of duty of excise and imposition of penalty by the Commissioner of Central Excise under the impugned order in Original No. 32/97 dated 10.2.97.2. Shri A. Upadhyay, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants had sent laminated fabrics under Chapter X Procedure, to M/s. Panam Packers Ltd. who had obtained the requisite CT 2 from the proper Central Excise officer in terms of Notification No. 63/87 CE dated 1.3.87; that the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on the ground that the goods manufactured by them is classifiable under sub-Heading 3926.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and they are not eligible for the exemption under the Notification. Learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Appellants had cleared the goods under exemption Notification No. 63/87 under Chapter 59 of the Central Excise Tariff as per the permission given by the Central Excise Officer, t...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vivek Paul [Alongwith Ita No.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)82TTJ(Delhi)699
1. These two appeals arising out of the order, dt. 2nd April, 1997, passed by the CIT(A), since, involve the common question of law and facts, are being taken up together and disposed of by this common order.2. The challenge to the order of the CIT(A) by the Revenue is on the following grounds : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to exclude the salary for the period, the assessee stayed outside India, viz., 365 days." "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to exclude the salary for the period, the assessee stayed outside India viz. 60 days." 3. The facts available on the record as far as these two appeals are concerned are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings while framing and finalising the assessment had assessed the income of the appellants for the entire period of their assignment in India including the period the appellants were not in...
Agrim Sampada Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT567; 2004(72)DRJ783; 2004(93)ECC434; 2004(186)ELT15(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. Rule. 2. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. The petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for an appropriate direction to be issued to the respondents to register the Bill of Entry of the petitioner and to permit the petitioner to clear the goods represented by the said Bill of Entry. It has also, inter alia, prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to issue a detention certificate for the waiver of demurrage charges. 4. This petition is concerned with the import of zinc ingots from Singapore. The petitioner, a public limited company, placed an order for 300 MTs of special high grade zinc from Allied Deals (S) Pvt. Ltd., Singapore in March 2001. In response to the petitioner's said order, the said Allied Deals, Singapore offered to sell to the petitioner the said goods which had earlier been consigned to one Shiv Ganga Organic Chemicals Ltd on cash against delivery basis. The said Allied Deals, Singap...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »