Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments

Hgi Automotives (P) Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC217

1. The applicants filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. 1031-32/2003-NB(S) dated 5.9.2003.2. The contention of the applicants is that the plea of jurisdiction read with Section 33 of the Central Excise Act was not considered while passing the final order. The contention of the applicants is also that the statements which were not signed by the excise officers are not admissible under the Central Excise Act. As these pleas were not considered by the Tribunal while passing the final order, therefore, there is a mistake in the final order.3.1 find that in the present case, the issue before the Tribunal was whether unaccounted goods which were found in the factory were liable for confiscation and the Tribunal after relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kriloskar Brothers Ltd. v.Union of India, 1988 (34) ELT 30 and decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd., 1986 (10) ECC 35 (A.P...

C.C.E. Vs. Hind Polymers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs. 72,200/- from Rs. 2,88,774/-.3. The only contention of the Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to reduce the penalty as per the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority has to impose the equal amount of penalty as of confirmed demand.4. I find that the Tribunal in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi, reported in 1999 (35) RLT 9 (CEGAT) held that the adjudicating authority has discretion to impose lesser amount of penalty than maximum provided under Section 11AC. In view of the above decision, I find no merit in the appeal. the appeal is dismissed....

Prime Exports Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT313TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Prime Exports, the issue involved is whether penalty is imposable on them for opting to avail the Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZNA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants are engaged in processing of textile fabrics and they had opted for Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZNA; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order, has rejected their application on the ground that they do not satisfy the conditions of the Notification to be eligible for the Special Procedure of Compounded Levy Scheme available to an independent processor engaged in the manufacture of specified textile fabrics; that the appellants are not challenging the denial of Special Procedure of Compounded Levy Scheme; that the appellants are contesting the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on them for filing wrong declaration; that no penalty is imposable as they had opted for the Special Procedure of Compounded Levy a...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Chandan Trading Company

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT111TriDel

1. The issue involves in both the appeals are common, therefore, are taken together. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. Therefore, the appeals are being taken up in the absence of the respondents.2. Heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the appeal papers.3. The respondents availed the deemed Modvat credit in terms of Notification No. 58/97-C.E., dated 30-8-97 on the strength of invoices issued by the manufacturers and the inputs who are paying duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The credit was taken on the strength of invoices issued by the manufacturer of the inputs where a Certificate was given to the effect that duty discharged under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZP(3).4. The contention of the Revenue is that the manufacturer of the inputs had not fully discharged the duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules. In the ground of appeal, the Revenue had not produced any evidence to show that the manuf...

Deepak PolyspIn Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal against setting aside the penalty imposed on M/s. Deepak Polyspin by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order.2. Shri Ajay Jain, learned Advocate for the Respondents, under letter dated 10.2.2004 has requested for adjournment on account of his engagement somewhere else. As the issue involved is in very narrow compass, we reject the application for adjournment and take up the appeal for disposal after heading Shri D.N. Chaudhary, learned SDR, and after perusing the records.3. Shri D.N. Chaudhary, learned SDR, submitted that the Respondent, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, were engaged in the manufacture of man-made blended yarn for which they had procured capital goods/machinery without payment of CEntral Excise duty in terms of Notification No.1/95-CE dated 4.1.95; that when the Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises on 5.8.98 some of the machines/capital goods were not found physically present therein; that on subsequ...

S.R. Tissues P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether slitting/cutting of jumbo rolls of tissue paper into smaller sizes for use as facial tissue, toilet tissues and napkins amount to manufacturer.2. We heard Sh. M.P. Dev Nath, learned Advocate for the appellants, and Sh. V. Valte, learned SDR.for the Revenue. The learned Advocate submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal has been decided by the Appellate Tribunal in their own case as reported in 2001 (136) 367 (T) that the Commissioner (Appeals), while rejecting their appeal has relied upon the Order-in-Original No. 21/99 dated 22.11.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise ; that the said order has already been set aside by the Tribunal and, therefore, the reliance of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the said Order-in-Original is wrong. On the other hand, the learned SDR submitted that the Department has filed a SLP against the Tribunal's decision and the same has been admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned...

Arjun Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT63TriDel

1. This an application by M/s. Arjun Industries Ltd. for waiver of pre-deposit of Customs duty of Rs. 1,01,03,020/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. Sh. Sameer Jain/ learned Advocate, submitted, that the applicants, a 100% EOU, had imported capital goods by availing the exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 13/81; that due to adverse conditions, their manufacturing operations came to stand still despite installation of the plant and machinery; that the Commissioner has confirmed the demand and imposed penalty under the impugned order on the ground that they have not fully installed the imported capital goods or used them in connection with the production of the goods for export out of India. The learned Advocate raised many contentions such as that the Commissioner of Central Excise is not competent to adjudicate the matter relating to customs; that no permission for issuing the show cause notice was obtained from the Development Commissioner; that the impugned order is ...

Manoj Raghuvanshi Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT154; 2004(73)DRJ310

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 16.1.2003, whereby the learned M.M. has desired to inspect for himself the telecast version and script of the complainant pursuant to a closure report in FIR No. 515/2000 registered at P.S. Preet Vihar under Section 420/120-B IPC r/w Section 63 of Copyright Act. 2. The facts of this case are that the complainant respondent No.2 herein filed a complaint before the learned M.M. who vide its order dated 18.10.2000 directed investigation under Section 156(3) thereof. On 31.5.2001, the Police submitted a cancellation report. This cancellation report did not find favor with the M.M. who directed further inquiry into the matter. The Police made further investigation and submitted a second cancellation report dated 9.4.2002 which also did not find favor with the Magistrate, he has thereafter directed the Investigating Officer to produce before him video recording as well as the script of the complainant to examine the material...

Santosh Vs. Gupta Brass Parts Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2004)BC542; 2004CriLJ2918; 110(2004)DLT160; 2004(73)DRJ308

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 4th January, 2003, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has held that the period of 15 days after receipt of notice of demand is to be calculated with respect to the payment received by the holder of the cheque.2. The facts of the case are that the notice of demand dated 20th July, 2001 was dispatched by the counsel of the complainant on the same date and as per the A.D. Card Ex.CW1/7, it was received by the accused on 23rd July, 2001. The accused prepared a demand draft on 6th August, 2001 and put into the post along with covering letter dated 13th August, 2001, which was then received by the complainant on 17th August, 2001.3. Counsel for the petitioner argues that the interpretation by the learned Magistrate is faulty for in the event payment is made by demand draft or cheque, the date on the instrument of repayment is relevant and not the date of receipt of payment by the holde...

Delhi Safe Deposits Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Del)602; 110(2004)DLT273; 2004(73)DRJ413; [2004]269ITR66(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. As For assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions for adjudication. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assets recovered by virtue of the decree of the High Court dated 29.6.1967 was in satisfaction of the loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- inclusive of interest allegedly due to the assessed from the partnership and it became a part of the stock-in-trade of the assessed? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed was entitled to set off the liabilities of partnership in the computation of the capital gain and if so, to what extent? 2. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, it does not arise and, thereforee, we are not required to examine it and is returned unanswered. 3. The facts relevant to decide the aforesaid questions are as under: 4. The assessed- Delhi Safe Deposits Company Ltd. entered into an agreement of partnership with John Elliot on 15-2-1964. A copy of ...