Delhi Court October 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.
Bhushan Steel Strips Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT243TriDel
1. Perused records and heard both sides. The appeal is directed against denial of Modvat credit on certain capital goods and spare parts for capital goods. The submission of the appellant is that their claim remains covered by the decision of this Tribunal as well as the instructions of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The first item in question is Tank fitted on trailer. This item is used for moving propane gas within the factory. The contention of the appellant is that material handling equipment used in relation to production are eligible for Modvat credit in terms of the decision of a Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III, Gurgaon v. Machine Plastics Ltd. [2001 (132) E.L.T. 71 (Tri. - Del.)].As against this, the learned Departmental Representative has pointed out that in the appellant's own case, in another appeal, the claim was rejected by this Tribunal. In this connection learned Counsel has pointed out that the denial o...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Barnala Pipes
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT74TriDel
1. In these appeals, the Revenue has disputed the correctness of the impugned order in respect of the imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC.2. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. No request for adjournment has also been received from them. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeals on merit, after hearing the ld. JDR.3. So far as the duty is concerned, the same was deposited by the respondents before the issuance of the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) has imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- each in both the appeals under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q, obviously keeping in view the amounts of duty which were Rs. 63,873/- and Rs. 60,968/- and deposit of the same by the respondents before the issuance of the show cause notice. The sole contention raised by the ld. JDR is that the penalty was to be imposed equal to the amounts of duty evaded by the respondents under Section 11 AC and Rule 173Q. He has also referred to the ratio of law laid down in Ramesh Kumar...
Sneh Enterprises Vs. Cc Overruled
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC249
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the M/s. Sneh Enterprises, is whether Anti-Dumping Duty is imposable on goods imported by them.2. Shri P.C. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported 'sealed maintenance free batteries' of Taiwan origin to be used in "UPS" on 16.4.2002 at Mumbai from where the goods were transhipped to the I.C.D., Tuglaqabad, New Delhi; that IGM was filed on 22.4.2002; that they filed Bill of Entry on 22.5.2002; that the Central Government has also imposed Anti-Dumping duty on lead acid batteries (Industrial) by issuing Notification No. 55/2002-Cus dated 22.5.2002; that the Anti-Dumping duty is not applicable as the impugned goods had been imported into India much earlier on 22.4.2002; that the Tribunal in the case of CC, Chennai v. Suja Rubber Industries, 2002 (82) ECC 146 (T) : 2002 (142) ELT 586 (Tri) has held that on a clear reading of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, "it indicates that the duty has to be determined when the ...
Cce Vs. Kraftech Products Inc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT396TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether the Central Excise duty is payable by M/s. Kraftech Products Inc. on the assessable value determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act as claimed by Respondents or with reference to M.R.P. under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act as claimed by the Revenue.2. Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned D.R., submitted that the Respondents manufacture 'Godrej Permanent Powder Hair Dye' and "Godrej Kali Mehndi'; that they were packing these products in multi-piece packages and were clearing to their sole buyer M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd.; that a show cause notice date 13.7.2000 was issued to the Respondents for assessing the multi-piece packages under the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act on the ground that multi-piece packages even if having the total weight of contents of all commodities less than 10 gms., required a declaration under Rule 17 of the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) R...
Siddhartha Marketing Services Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT61TriDel
1. The common issue involved in these two appeals, arising out of two separate Orders-in-Original, is whether M/s. Siddhartha Marketing Services Ltd. are clearing the excisable goods bearing the brand name of another person and whether the demand of duty is hit by time-limit.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture- rigid PVC pipes and avail of benefit of small-scale exemption under Notification No. 9/98-C.E., dated 2-6-1998 and subsequent Notifications for payment of duty at concessional rate; that the Commissioner has disallowed the benefit of the Notification on the ground that the goods manufactured were bearing the brand name of others. The learned Advocate submitted that the mischief of Para 4 of the Notification relating to brand name will apply only when the brand names used by the Appellants belong to another person; that there is no proof with the Revenue to prove that the brand names used by them belong to another person; that Shri Rav...
Uttamchand Sunderlal Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT45TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal filed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The appellants made an import of Gambier during the period 7-3-98 to 3-4-98 and filed six Bills of Entry declaring the value of US $ 1850 to 2075 M.T. The Revenue did not accept the value declared by the appellants and issued a show cause notice for enhancing the value to US $ 2200 M.T. on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Trusha International Pvt. Ltd. and Ratan Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. The contention of the appellants is that contemporaneous imports relied upon by the Revenue cannot be made basis for enhancing the value of the goods as the imports are not comparable to the import made by the appellants.3. The contention is that the quantity mentioned in the invoices relied upon by the Revenue is 9-10 M.T. and whereas the appellants made an import of consignment which are 20-40 M.T. Further, the appellants made an import directly from Indonesia, whereas these invoices relied upon by...
Kapsons Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT490TriDel
1. The impugned adjudication order has been passed pursuant to an order of remand passed by this Tribunal. The direction contained in that impugned order was that redemption fine should be re-fixed taking into account the market price of the goods as well as the legal position.2. In the remand proceedings, the Commissioner has reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 10 Lakhs to Rs. 7.25 Lakhs. The contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that the redemption fine fixed is very excessive as it is very much higher than the margin of profit involved. According to the appellant, when the landed price of the consignment is compared with the price of the domestic manufacturers, the profit would come to only Rs. 80,000/-. This submission is made based on the price date furnished by Steel Authority of India. It is also the contention of the appellant that the goods had been ordered and LC opened on 1-12-1998 i.e. well before the issue of Floor Price Notification by DGFT on 11-12-1998....
Jai Bharat Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT361TriDel
1. Perused records and heard both sides. The appeal is directed against confiscation of about 700 Kgs. of copper/alloy sheets on the ground that the same was found in excess upon stock taking on 18-11-2000. The notice had alleged that these manufactured goods were kept unaccounted for the purpose of clandestine removal. That is the allegation which has been confirmed under the impugned orders.2. The contention of the appellant is that the unaccounted stock related to reject quality and they were required to be re-melted and it is the practice that these goods are not entered as finished goods.During the hearing learned Counsel for the appellant referred to this explanation made in the statement dated 12- 2-2001 of Shri Vipul Mittal. The grievance of the appellant is that the proceedings have been concluded without taking this explanation into account at all.3. As against this, the learned SDR has pointed out that no such explanation was offered by the appellant at the time of seizure ...
R.K. Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT87TriDel
1. M/s. R.K. Ispat Ltd. had filed the present appeal against Order-in-Original No. 3/2004, dated 26-2-2004 by which the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed equivalent amount of penalty on the clearances effected by them into Domestic Tariff Area (D.T.A.).2. We heard Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate for the Appellants and Smt. Krishna A. Mishra, learned SDR for the Revenue. The learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants Textile division was functioning as a Domestic Tariff Area unit (DTA unit); that on 29-5-2001 they applied for conversion of the DTA unit into 100% Export Oriented Undertaking; that the letter of permission was issued by the Development Commissioner on 25-6-2001; that they were granted warehousing licence under Section 58 of the Customs Act on 27-7-2001; that they executed B-17 Bond which was accepted by the authorities on 13-8-2001; that the Appellants w.e.f. 1-9-2001 started functioning as an 100% E.O.U. and availed of the benefit as ap...
Shri Pinaki Das Gupta Vs. Publicis (India) Communications and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT345; (2005)139PLR26
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application under Sections 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), mainly founded on the plea that the arbitration proceedings against the petitioner were initiated, based upon the consent of the Advocate, Shri P.K. Mittal, who was not given any authority to accord consent for participation of the petitioner in the arbitration proceedings.2. The petition avers as under:-(a) The petitioner held 26.25 per cent shares in M/s Madhyam Advertising (P) Ltd (henceforth referred to as a company) and entered into a sale agreement with the respondent which provided for various terms including para 27(iii) of the arbitration agreement which reads as under:' ..... any and all disputes and/or claims arising under this Agreement and/or out of or in connection with the execution, interpretation, performance and/or non performance of this Agreement shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the (Ind...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »