Delhi Court July 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Raj Ratan Castings P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT349TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has made challenge to the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which, he had reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who ordered the confiscation of the goods and imposed fine and penalty on the respondents, on account of non-accountal of finished goods.2. I have heard both the sides. The perusal of the record shows that the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises of the respondents on 3-9-2001 who are engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots and found some quantity of the ingots lying unaccounted. The officers seized those ingots and prepared the panchnama. After issuance of show cause notice, the adjudicating authority confiscated the unaccounted goods (200.023 MTs of MS ingots). The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty on the appellants company and also on the Directors of the appellants company (who is not party in this appeal).3. However, from the bare perusal of the impugned orde...

Cc and ors. Vs. Abdull Habib Khan and Vice-versa

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC494

1. All these appeals arise out of cases relating to import of Audi 80 Cars from M/s Volkswagon Germany. The imports were made during 1987-89.The cars were assessed and customs cleared after accepting the invoice prices as assessable value. Further, partial exemption as applicable to automobiles of less than 1600 CC under Notification No. 83 of 1977 was also allowed.2. These imports were subsequently taken up for investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in November 1989. Very briefly stated, the investigation indicated that the cars were actually of higher CC, the prices declared in the invoices were misdeclared lower values than the actual purchase prices/commercial prices, the imports has been basically organized and managed by Shri Sadiq A. Futehally, proprietor of Ashiya Motors. The main evidence thrown up by the investigation was that, when most of the imported cars were subjected to test at IIT, Bombay and other institutions, actual cubic capacity of the engines w...

Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT348TriDel

1. In the above captioned appeals which have been directed against the common impugned order-in-appeal, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue relates to the imposition of penalties of various amounts as detailed therein on the appellants for having paid duty through cheques instead of from PLA.2. I have heard both the sides. The facts are not much in dispute. From the record, it is apparent that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated water and beverage syrup falling under Chapter 22 and 21 respectively of the CETA. During the period in dispute as detailed in the impugned order, they paid duty through cheques, instead of from PLA. But at no stage, the Department or Chief Accounts Officer to whom cheques were sent, objected to the payment of duty by cheques or refused to accept the cheques and required the appellants to pay duty only from the PLA, Rather all those cheques were retained and accepted by the Chief Accounts Officer. All the cheques as and when su...

S.K. Sharma Vs. Dr. L.C. Sharma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. Shri S.K. Sharma has filed this complaint against Dr. L.C. Sharma alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. on account of which the complainant lost his hearing power and became a deaf person. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 22.1.1992 at about 4.00 p.m. the complainant was admitted in Sanjay Nursing Home belonging to O.P. Dr. L.C. Sharma for treatment of high fever. It is alleged that the O.P. without proper investigation immediately put the complainant on Glucose mixed with Gentamycin. The OP also took the chest x-ray of the complainant. Next day in the morning, the complainant complained to the O.P. that he is not in a position to hear any sound and felt as if he has become deaf. However, the O.P. assured the complainant that he will recover his hearing after the fever comes down. But there was no improvement in the condition of the complainant, neither the fever came down nor there was any improvement in th...

Dabhol Power Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC195

1. Appeal No. C/601/2001 filed by the importer M/s. Dhabol Power Co.(DPC) is directed against order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune, dated 25-10-2001. Appeal No. C/519/2000 at the instance of DPC and Appeal No. C/520/2002 at the instance of Chief Commissioner of Customs, Pune are against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Pune, dated 26-6-2000. Since the issues in the above appeals are inter linked and the imports which are subject matter of the appeals are made by DPC, we heard the appeals together and they are being disposed of under a common order.2. Under order dated 25-10-2001 the Commissioner held that the various items of equipment, machinery etc. imported for the Liquefied Natural Gas (for short, LNG) facility are not entitled to assessment under Tariff Item 9801.00(3) as well as under Tariff Item 9801.00(1) as project imports. It was also held that a portion of the value of the off-shore services contract is liable to be added to the declar...

Banwari Lal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT105TriDel

1. In these two appeals filed by M/s. Banwari Lal and Sons and M/s.Golden Engineering Works arising out of common Order-in-Appeal, the issue involved is whether they were affixing the brand name of another person on the goods manufactured by them.2. Shri Harbans Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that both the appellants manufacture motor vehicle parts and avail of S.S.I exemption; that the Central Excise Officer visited the factory premises of Appellant No. 1 on 11-11-1997 and seized 350 pieces of motor vehicle parts said to bear brand name "KAY PEE"; that subsequently, a show cause notice dated 5-5-1998 was issued for confiscation of 350 pieces of motor vehicle parts seized from their premises, 192 pieces of motor vehicle parts seized from the business premises of M/s. Khosla Automotive Pvt. Ltd., for demanding Central Excise duty on motor vehicle parts bearing the brand name and for imposition of penalty; that similarly, a show cause notice dated 5-5-1998 was issued to the Appellan...

Puneet Resins Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC504

1. The brief facts of the case are that on an application of M/s. Apar Industries Ltd. (Domestic Industries), the Designated Authority under the Customs Tariff Act initiated an enquiry on 15-3-1996into the alleged dumping of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (hereinafter referred to as NBR) from Germany and Korea. The Designated Authority recorded the preliminary findings vide order dated 30-12-1996. In pursuance to the findings of the Designated Authority, the Central Government issued a Notification imposing an Anti-Dumping Duty on the NBR vide Notification No. 9/97, dated 31-3-1997. Thereafter, vide order dated 17-7-1997, the Designated Authority submitted its final findings under Rule 17 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles) Rules, 1995 that the dumping of NBR from Germany and Korea resulted in material injury to the domestic industry. In pursuance to the final findings of the Designated Authority, the Central Government issued Notification No. 62/97, dated 30-...

The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Jeewan Rice and Allied Industries

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC77

The appeal has been presented against the order dated 5.10.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing the application filed by the appellant-Bank for the issuance of a Recovery Certificate in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge-2, Kota on 13.9.89 in Suit No. 23/87. The learned Presiding Officer, by his impugned order dated 5.10.2001, dismissed the application on the ground that it has not been presented within the period of three years as per the provisions of Section 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.2. It is conceded by both the sides that the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT had considered only the question of limitation, and dismissed the said application without going into the merits of the contentions raised by either side. The learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 states that apart from the question of limitation, respondents 2 and 3 had ra...