Delhi Court June 2004 Judgments

Ashwani Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut, imported two consignments of ball bearings and got them cleared through Inland Container Depot (ICD), Meerut during June-July, 2000. The first consignment was declared at a value of over Rs. 27.4 Lakhs and was cleared under Bill of Entry No. 00023, dated 5-6-2000. The second consignment was declared at a value of over Rs. 27.6 Lakhs and cleared under Bill of Entry No. 00026, dated 17-7-2000. Though originally both the consignments were cleared after assessing them to duty at the declared import price, the second consignment was seized from the godown of M/s. Dooab Exim, Meerut on 18-7-2000 by officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The seizure was of 7,76,945 pcs. upon a finding that the country of origin, brand name and quantity of ball bearings had been misdeclared in the customs clearance documents and there was large evasion of duty. At the time of seizure, the value of the consignment was estimated at Rs. 3.60 crores. It was found that the bu...

Urastan Metal Industries Pvt. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC476

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Urastan Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether Cenvat Credit, paid on capital goods, is available to them on the basis of endorsed Bill of Entry in respect of part consignment.2. Shri B.L. Narasihman, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture automobile components as per the requirements and specifications of M/s. Maruti Udyod Ltd. (MUL) for the manufacture of which they use dyes and fixtures supplied by MUL; that MUL imported certain dyes and fixtures under a Bill of Entry dated 24.3.2000 and supplied part of the consignment to them after getting the Bill of Entry duly endorsed by the Customs Authorities; that the Revenue has disallowed the Cenvat Credit on the ground that the consignment cannot be split into different parts and the entire consignment should have been endorsed to the appellants. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that endorsed Bill of Entry is a proper document for availing the Cenvat Credit ...

Late Umrao Prasad Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Delhi)681

1. These two appeals by the assessee raise identical issues against the order dt. 12th Jan., 2000, of learned CWT(A), New Delhi, as under : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the decision of learned CWT(A) in confirming the jurisdiction under Section 17 of learned AO is ab initio improper and illegal inasmuch as the notice under Section 17 has been issued for assessment and not reassessment, and whereas the appellant has already been assessed under Section 16(1) for the relevant assessment year, 2. That the learned CWT(A) has not passed any order regarding 1st ground of appeal taken before CWT(A) which is being reproduced herebelow : 3. That, the learned AO has passed order under Section 16(5) whereas our counsel had appeared on dt. 5th Jan., 1998, which clearly proves that the order has been passed in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the following acts of the authoritie...

Vardhman Spinning and General Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT29TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of yarn and imported a consignment of second hand (used) Ring Spinning frames with auto doffer Winding machine at Ludhiana in June, 2003 and filed Bill of Entry No. 650, dated 4-8-2003 for clearances of these machines. The declared value of consignment was about Rs. 1.35 crores. The machine was also declared as less than 10 years old. The appellants also produced Chartered Engineer's Certificate dated June 30, 2003 in support of the declaration that the goods were less than 10 years old.2. The Customs authorities got the consignment examined by two Chartered Engineers who expressed the opinion that most of the items were more than 10 years old. The customs authorities thereupon called upon the appellants to explain as to why the goods should not be confiscated since they were more than 10 years old and the import of more than 10 years old machine is restricted under Para 2.7 of the Import and Export Policy. The appellants contested the charge but fai...

Kanodia Technoplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC281

1. M/s. Kanodia Technoplast Pvt. Ltd. have challenged the Order-in-Appeal No. 481/CE/03 dated 4.12.03 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of duty on the quantity of inputs found short in their premises, confiscation of finished goods found in excess and the penalties imposed on them.2. Shri R.P. Singh, learned Consultant, submitted that the Appellants manufacture laminated rolls, pouches and lacquered polythene, etc.; that when the Central Excise officers visited their premises on 28.6.01, they found an excess quantity of 2009.7 kg. of laminated rolls (finished goods) and a shortage of 7370 kgs. of PET films (inputs); that the Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 68/2002 dated 13.1.03 demanded duty of Rs. 1,00,232 on the shortage of inputs, confiscated the finished goods found in excess with an option to redeem the same on fine of Rs. 50,000 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,232; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-original an...

Hari Kewal Vanaspati Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC631

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Vanaspati and refined oil from the crude palm oil and degummed soyabean oil. The crude palm oil and degummed soyabean oil were imported at concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No.22/99-Cus dated 28.2.99 with the condition that imported oil shall be used in the manufacture of Vanaspati and refined oil. A show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty of Rs. 2317491 on the ground that the imported oil weighing 601.933 MT were short delivered at Port and lost in transit as such are not used for the manufacture of Vanaspati.3. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty.4. The condition of the appellant is that they had imported 29 consignments of the oil in question and demand is made on the basis of short delivery at the Port for which they are ...

Reliance Telecom Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by M/s. Reliance Telecom Ltd., is whether the appeals filed by them against two Order-in-Original both dated 31.12.99 were filed within the time limit stipulated in Section 128 of the Customs Act.2. Shri Rohan Shah, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants imported computer hardware and filed Bills of Entry dated 21.6.97 and 15.7.97 classifying the goods under Sub-heading 8471.49 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act; that the consignments were permitted to be cleared on their furnishing Bond under the provisions of Section 143 of the Customs Act for production of import licence or otherwise proving that licence produced was valid for clearances of the goods; that by a letter dated 9.12.2000, they wrote to the .Deputy Commissioner of Customs stating that the Bonds were pending for cancellation and requested that copies of bonds and other related documents be provided to their clearing agent; that they were forwarded co...

Dewan Rubber Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC183

1. All these five appeals, filed by M/s. Dewan Rubber Industries and Others, have been filed against a common Order-in-Original No. 22/2001, dated 16-3-2001 by which the Commissioner has confirmed the Customs duty on the Hydraulic Drive System (HDS) removed by the Appellants No.1 from their 100% EOU premises to another premises of M/s. Dewan Sugars Ltd., Appellants No. 2, and imposed penalties on all the Appellants, besides confiscating the HDS with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Dewan Rubber Industries, Appellants No. 1 a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) manufacture bicycle tyres and tubes since March, 1993 and they are exporting these goods since April, 1994; that they imported an hydraulic drive system (HDS) under Bill of Entry dated 17-4-1996 for using the same for compression of various materials for the formation of tyres and tubes; that the said HDS was cleared without payment of duty availing th...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Standard Pencil Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC409

1. The question raised for the consideration of the Larger Bench is as follows :- "Whether an order of review which has been passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act by the Board within one year from the date of the order of the Commissioner (adjudicating authority) and has been issued to the Commissioner (executive authority) beyond the said period of one year for the purpose of preferring appeal to the Tribunal against the latter order is hit by time-bar under Sub-section (3) of the said section." The reference was required since conflicting views are expressed by Benches Coordinate jurisdiction. In Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v.Fujitus India Telecom Ltd. - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 878 (Tri-Mumbai) and Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Vardhaman Acrylic Ltd. - 2002 (148) E.L.T. 360 (Tri-Mumbai) the West Zonal Bench of the Tribunal has taken the view that it is not the date on which order is passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 35E but the date ...

Aarti Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC311

1. M/s. Aarti Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. have filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 53/02 dated 27.11.2002, by which the Commissioner of Central Excise, has confirmed the demand of Central Excise Duty Rs. 7,33,656 and imposed penalty of equivalent amount besides confiscating land building, plant, machinery with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. one lakh.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture M.S. Bars and Rods falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the entire duty demand is fictitious, imaginary and unsubstantiated both on facts and in law; that the duty has been demanded from them by denying the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-CE dated 20.5.1988 on the ground that the appellants had procured M.S. Billets through the dealers of M/s. Nova Udyog Ltd., who are alleged to have manipulated their raw-material account by showing fictitious sales and that M/s. Nova Udyog L...