Delhi Court April 2004 Judgments

Cce Vs. V.A. Tech Esher Wyss Flovel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC509

1. This is an application by Revenue for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 217/2003 dated 31.7.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Shri U. Raja Ram, learned DR, submitted that the impugned Order was received by the Commissionerate on 6.8.2003 and the same was accepted by the Commissioner, Central Excise on 23.9.2003; that after the acceptance of the order, report in the prescribed form alongwith copy of the impugned order was sent to the Chief Commissioner for further review; that the directions of the Chief Commissioner to file the appeal was received only on 3.2.2004 and thereafter the appeal was filed immediately which was received by the Tribunal on 17.2.2004; that delay was on account of procedure which may be condoned. He relied upon the Tribunal's Misc. Order No. M/23-24/2004 dated 9.2.2004 in which delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue has been condoned.3. Opposing the prayer Shri S.C. Kamra, learned Advocate, submitted that the...

Dhanpal Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004CriLJ2724; 111(2004)DLT464; 2004(74)DRJ506

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.04.2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.65/2000, upholding the order of conviction of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate held the petitioner guilty under Section 279/304-A IPC. Vide separate order the ACMM has sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine-2-CRL.REV.P.264/2001 to undergo S.I. for 30 days under Section 304-A IPC and R.I. for six months with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for fifteen days under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned order has modified the sentence of the appellant/petitioner herein to R.I. for six months with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for thirty days under Section 304-A IPC ...

A.S. Puri Vs. State (Cbi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT520; 2004(74)DRJ465

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9th September, 1992, whereby the learned Judge has framed a charge under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for an offence committed under Section 165 IPC.-2-Crl.Rev.P.3/19932. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that a charge under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not have been framed in view of Section 31 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which specifically repeals Section 165 IPC and brings into play Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. In other words, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act permits the continuation of investigation, legal proceeding or remedy as may be instituted continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment as may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. Consequently, the charge under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could not have been framed. He also draws my attention ...

Steel Strips Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC557

1. These are two appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal No.514/03 dated 19.9.03 -- one by M/s. Steel Strips Ltd. and other by the Revenue.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Steel Strips Ltd. had been undertaking the activity of cold rolling of duty paid hot rolled strips, which were contended by them as not amounting to manufacture; that the matter was finally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which had held that the Department had not been able to establish that the process undertaken by them brought into existence in new article; that they had claimed refund of the duty collected by the Department alongwith interest for the period 2.4.80 to 20.3.82; that, initially, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority vide Final Order No. 1457/96-NB dated 30.5.96; that in de novo proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the refund claim vide order dated 26.8.99; that, however, ...

international Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT521TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar, the issue relates to conversion of drawback shipping bill initially filed by the appellants at the time of export of the goods (tractors) to Zimbabwe and South Africa in January 2003, to DFRC scheme. The Commissioner has rejected the request of the appellants for this conversion of the ground that they were not forced to file initially the free shipping bill under the drawback scheme and as such. the conditions laid down in the Circular No. 6/03-Cus dated 28.1.2003 did not stand satisfied.2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of the tractors. They in January 2003 exported tractors to Zimbabwe and South africa. They filed the shipping bills under the drawback scheme. They requested for the drawback by sending their letter to the competent authority on 25.2...

D.B.S. Industries and ors. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue raised in these appeals is common. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of all the appeals under a common order.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PP/HDPE fabrics and sacks falling under sub-heading 3926.90 and 3923.90 respectively. The goods manufactured are sold at the factory gate on payment of duty. In addition to the sale of the fabrics and sacks at the factory gate, the appellants stock transfer some quantity of the fabrics manufactured to their godown. They are sent to the job worker for conversion into sacks. Sacks so received from the job workers are sold to the customers. The department took the view that fabric stock transferred to godown should be valued on the basis of the selling price of the sacks. The adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the duty demand and penalties imposed on the assessees.3. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the value of the goods in the form in which they are cleared from the...

Koatex Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(115)LC695Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue relates to the availability of the benefit of Notification No. 36/97 dated 1.4.1997 as amended against Special Imprest Licence (SIL) to the appellants in respect of the spares of the machines/machinery imported by them under the DEEC scheme.2. I have heard both the sides. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the benefit of the above said Notification to the appellants for claiming total exemption from payment of customs duty on the ground that the spares were not covered by the said Notification which applied only to the components.He has followed the ratio of law laid down in this regard by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in Delta Jute and Industries Ltd. v.CCE, Calcutta 7/ wherein such a view had been taken by the Tribunal by placing reliance on the Larger Bench decision in Hindustan Sanitaryware and I...

Century N.F. Casting Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC261

1. In these two appeals filed by M/s. Century N F casting, the issue involved is whether the Modvat credit can be availed of on the basis of declaration made on the Bill of Entry in the Customs House itself for transferring the goods to the Appellants by the importer.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants manufacture Aluminum alloy; that the principal raw material is aluminium scrap, which was purchased by them during the relevant period from M/s. Multi Metal Udyog, a dealer registered with Central Excise department; that M/s. Multi Metal Udyog had imported Aluminium scrap at Internal Container Depot at Ballabgarh; that the dealer gave a declaration to the Customs Authority that the entire material had been sold to the appellants; that accordingly Appraiser of Customs made the endorsement that the entire quantity of material has been sold/transferred to the Appellants; that the Appraiser of the Customs made the endorsement on the Bill of Entry to the effect...

Birla Vxl Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC191

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the benefit of modvat credit was denied on the ground that the invoice issued by the dealer does not contain the particular as provided under Notification No. 15/94-CE.3. The contention of the appellants is that Notification No. 15/94-CE dated 30.3.94 provides certain requirements which were to be complied by the dealer while issuing the invoices. The invoices on the strength of which the credit was denied were prior to 30.3.94. The contention of the appellants is also that with the invoices issued by the dealer they had also produced G.P. 1 issued by the manufacturer of the goods which were also duly endorsed in their favour. The contention of the appellants is that now Rule 57-G has been amended by Notification No.7/99 which is also applicable to the removal of the goods. The appellants also relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kamakhya Steel...

Bpl Display Devices Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals, filed by M/s. B.P.L. Display Devices Ltd., are posted today for hearing the stay applications. However, we take up the appeals themselves for disposal after staying the recovery of the entire customs duty for the reasons mentioned below.2. Sh. rupesh Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants, the manufacturer of Colour picture tubes, had imported parts of colour picture tubes at concessional rate of Customs duty under Notification No. 25/99 Cus. dated 28.2.99 as per the procedure prescribed under Customs (Import of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable goods) Rules, 1996; that during the course of transporting the imported parts from the port of importation, some parts got damaged and as such were not suitable for use in the manufacture of colour picture tubes; that the Revenue has demanded the Customs duty in respect of those parts on the ground that the damaged imported parts, in respect of which benefit of notifications w...