Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Caps and Caps (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT341TriDel

1. None has come present on behalf of the respondents in spite issuance of notice of hearing for today. No request for adjournment has been also received. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the learned JDR.2. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the confiscation of the unaccounted goods found lying in the factory of the respondents and altered the penalty from Rule 173Q to Rule 226 by following the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Bhilai Conductors - 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781 (T) = 2000 (91) ECR 569. But he has failed to take note of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd., v. CCE - 1987 (27) E.L.T. 40 (AP) and Bombay High Court in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. UOI, 1988 (34) E.L.T. 30 (Bom.), wherein it has been observed that even in the case of non-accountal of the goods by the assessee, the provision...

Adrash Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre deposit of duty of Rs. 22,64,426/- and penalty of equal amount.2. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled products of non-alloys steel. The annual capacity of production of the rolling mill was determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide the impugned order.3. The contention of the applicants is that the Commissioner of Central Excise Excise Wrongly fixed the annual capacity of production after invoking the provisions of rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolled Mills annual Capacity Determination Rules. The applicants applied to the Commissioner of Central Excise for change of parameters of their mill and the same was allowed. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Sawanmal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills Vs.CCE, Chandigarh, reported in 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-97-CESTAT-DEL-LB the provisions of rule 5 of the Rules are not applicable where the annual capacity of the mill is predetermined a...

Ashwani Bhatia Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC349

1. This appeal has been directed by the appellant against the impugned Order-in-Original vide which penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed on him under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.2. The learned counsel has contended that no recovery of smuggled goods had taken place from the house, shop or personal search of the appellants and that he had been penalized only on the basis of statements of Shri Satpal Singh and Shri Manjit Singh from whom the recovery of gold biscuits allegedly took place on 6.3.2000 when they were intercepted near the Dholewala Chowk Bridge, Ludhiana, while coming in a car. Even they in their statements had not specifically named the appellant and that the shop, residence and mobile telephone numbers furnished by Shri Manjit Singh also did not establish any link of the appellant with him and Shri Satpal Singh. It is a case of non-evidence, according to the counsel, and as such the provisions of Section 112(a) could not be legally invoked against the appellant.3...

Machino Montell (i) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On the basis of a difference between entries (relating to clearance of goods) in Balance Sheets and those in RG-1, noted by officers of Central Excise, the department came to the conclusion that the respondent has clandestinely removed excisable goods without payment of duty during the financial years 1996-97 to 1998-99. Accordingly, they issued a show-cause notice to the party. But before that, the party had paid up the entire amount of duty leviable on the differential value of goods. The show-cause notice was mainly aimed at penalising the party under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q. The notice also proposed to levy interest on the duty amount under Section 11ABG.The original authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.13 lakhs on the party under Section 11Ac and also demanded Rs. 56,927.28 towards interest on the above duty under Section 11ABG. The appeal preferred by the aggrieved party against the decision of that authority was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the prese...

Century Cement Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are cement manufactures. They use explosives in their off-factory mines for mining of limestone which is is required for the manufacture of cement. They took input duty credit on such explosives over a period viz. april 2000 to Feb., 2002. The original authority disallowed the entire credit by relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-97-SC-CX, wherein it had been held that explosives used by cement manufacturers in their off-factory mines were eligible capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the appeal preferred by the assessee against the decision of the original authority, Id. Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the credit on explosive for the period upto 30.06.2001 and disallowed the credit taken on the item for the subsequent period (July, 2001 to Feb., 2002). The present appeal of the assessee is against the denial of credit for the latter per...

Delphi Automotive Systems (P) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT257TriDel

1. This is an application by M/s. Delphi Automotive Systems (P) Ltd. for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order Nos.775-776/2003-NB(B), dated 4-10-2003 [2004 (163) E.L.T. 47 (T)].2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the applicants filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner, by which the Commissioner had denied them the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. on the ground that parts supplied by them from their factory and from the warehouse, if combined together, bear the essential character of goods; that it was the case of the applicants, all along, that for determining the nature of clearances, only the clearances made from the manufacturing unit, have to be taken into account and not from the trading warehouse as both are separate; that even otherwise, the settled legal position is that the goods have to be assessed in the form in which they are cleared from the place of manufacture i.e. the factory; that neither any detail...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Indian Watch Parts Mfg.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT141TriDel

1. Both these appeals of the Revenue relate to issue of valuation of watch parts imported from Singapore Traders at Jaipur. Appeal No.C/177/03-NB(A) relates to the import of 4000 pieces of assembled watch movements by Indian Watch Parts Manufacturer, Jaipur in June, 1995. The value of the consignment was declared to the Customs authorities at HK $ 10,000 and the goods were assessed and cleared at that value.Subsequent investigation showed that the foreign supplier had declared a F.O.B. value of Rs. HK $ 36,000 for the same consignment under their export declaration filed before the Hong Kong Customs. In Appeal No.C/248/03-NB(A) Ro-chi Ram and Sons, Jaipur had imported a consignment of 53,000 pieces of watch-cases with metal band (bracelet) in August, 1994. The value of this consignment was declared to Custom at CIF US $ 27,878 i.e. Rs. 8,79,551/-. Later investigation showed that, for the same goods, the foreign supplier had declared a value of HK $ 2,38,500 (Rs. 9,73,080/- as F.O.B. v...

Kitply Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This ROM application is directed against the rejection of revenue's submission that the Commissioner (Appeals) was in error in upholding the appellant's claim for deduction towards interest on receivable. The present application points out that five invoice Nos. 945, 948, 949, 951 & 95. all dated 31.03.98 indicated that credit period was only seven days and beyond that period interest at 21% shall be paid. Based on those invoices, it is being contended that credit period was only seven days. As against this the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent points out that the appellant was selling their goods from 26 depots. It was the case all along that the appellant was not realising interest even in cases where the delay in making the payment was 72 days. This position has also been accepted by the lower authorities. It is submitted that the law on the subject remains well settled, as noted in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) that deduction towards delay in payment is per...

Smt. Kamlesh, Widow of Sh. Om Parkash Yadav, Vs. Sh. Bhoop Singh Sehra ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC576; 110(2004)DLT69; 2004(73)DRJ299

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellants are the legal representatives of Om Prakash Yadav, a young man of 28 years and an employee of the Postal Department of the government of India. He succumbed to injuries in a motor accident on 2nd October 1987. The Appellants filed a claim for compensation before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT). The claim of the Appellants was that the deceased had a monthly salary of Rs.1402.00 as a postal assistant; he earned Rs.1000.00 per month from a private job as a radio and TV engineer and Rs.2500.00 from cultivation. The total claim for compensation was for an amount of Rs.11,00,000.00.2. The following issues were framed on 27th April 1989: --1. Whether the petitioners are the LRs of the deceased late Om Prakash Yadav?2. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident on 2.10.1987 due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. DEP 5452 on the part of Respondent No.1?3. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petit...

Ramjas Foundation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi238; 110(2004)DLT10; 2004(73)DRJ128

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having its office at Delhi, has filed this petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or directions for quashing the decision of the Lt Governor dated 18.6.2002, whereby representation made under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for de-notification of the lands belonging to the petitioner, came to be rejected. The action is challenged on the ground of discrimination as also the exercise being arbitrary and without following the policy.2. It is contended that the representation was made on behalf of the petitioner on 6.9.2000, a copy of which is placed on record at page 153. It is contended that the said representation is in continuation of earlier representations dated 16.11.1995, 3.3.1999 and 1.6.1999, etc. for release of lands owned and possessed by the petitioner society at village Sadhora Khurd, popula...