Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Punjab Chemi-plants Ltd., Avon Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC50

2. The duty demand is in regard to the Steel structures and parts thereof fabricated by the appellants as job work, in terms of contracts. Demands have been raised for the extended period as permitted under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The contention of the appellant is that the demands have been raised beyond the permissible time limit, inasmuch as there was no 'wil ful' suppression of facts by the appellants 'with intent to evade payment of duty' so as to attract the extended period stipulated in the proviso to Section 11A. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that a perusal of the findings of the Commissioner would make it clear that these cases do not satisfy the ingredients like willful suppression or mis-statement of facts or fraud which allow of issuing demands beyond the normal period and up to five years.4. The finding of the Commissioner on the issue of limitation is on identical terms in all these cases. We may read the fi...

Saraf Fabrics Ltd Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order of the Appellate Tribunal has been delivered by Shri O.P. Nahar, Chairperson. 2. This is an appeal by the appellant herein against adjudication Order No. DD(AA)/D2/386/2003/201 dated 20-12-2003 imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs against the appellant-company and Rs. 14,000 each against other five Directors for contravention of the provisions of section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act on the reasons that appellants failed to take reasonable steps for repatriation of the export proceeds equivalent to Rs. 26,69,824 of the goods exported outside India. The appellant-company has made pre-deposit of Rs. 1 lakh in compliance of the order dated 30-9-2004 passed by the Tribunal. Shri T.K. Gadoo, DLA has confirmed the same. Presently this appeal is taken up for final hearing on merits. This is single appeal from the appellant-company and any observation herein is simply related to it. 3. Learned counsel Shri M. Venkataraman argued that p...

Sharma Carpets Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order of the Appellate Tribunal has been delivered by Shri R.N. Poddar, Member. 2. The appellants have challenged the impugned adjudication order No. SDE(SSB)11/17/2004, dated 30-4-2004 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000 on the appellant in appeal No. 661/04 (hereinafter referred to as the appellant firm) and a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 each on the appellants in appeal No. 662/2004 and appeal No. 663/2004 for contravention of sections 18(2) and 18(3) read with section 68(1) of FERA, 1973 (the said Act) for the reason of their failure to repatriate the export proceeds to the tune of Rs. 68,09,253. 3. A show cause notice No. T-4/26-C/97 (SCN), dated 8-12-1997 issued to the appellant firm and to its partners, namely appellant in appeal Nos. 662/04 and 663/04 to show cause why the adjudication proceeding should not be held against them for their failure to realise the balance export proceeds to the tune of Rs. 1,15,54,861 ...

Dcm Engineering Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC112

1. The applicants are seeking stay from recovery of duty of Rs. 7,30,270/- and penalty of equal amount confirmed by the Commissioner under the impugned order.2. It was argued that the applicants had not included the value of moulds and dies used by them in the manufacture of castings. The department had issued show cause notice to them demanding duty for the period of 5 years. Order was passed by the Commissioner which was challenged by them before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the period of 5 years is not applicable and the duty should be computed only for six months and the applicants should pay the duty. The Commissioner on the direction of the Tribunal computed the duty for six months which is in dispute under the impugned order. It was argued for the applicants that the Commissioner while computing the duty for six months has taken certain customers whose moulds and dies were not the subject matter of the original show cause notice and thus has wrongly calculated the duty ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Birla Tyres

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application for rectification of mistake has been filed by the department for rectifying the mistake in Final Order Nos.427-428/2005B, dated 9.3.2005 on the ground that the CESTAT has not taken into account the recent amendment made in the Union Budget, 2005, to the effect that, the credit availed on AED (GSI) can be utilized for the payment of BED only if AED (GSI) was paid on or after 1.4.00, the date from which a separate accountal for AED (GSI) was dispensed with.It was argued that Board's Circular No. 700/16/2003-CX., dated 6.3.2003 was withdrawn.2. We find that the amendment made in the Budget, 2005 is after the passing of the order by this Tribunal. No argument was taken up during the hearing of the appeal on the side of the Revenue that Circular No.700/16/2003-CX., dated 6.3.2003 has been withdrawn or any amendment has been made in the relevant provisions. No cross-objections were filed by the Revenue. Since there was no argument on this issue, therefore, there is no m...

Alkali Manufacturers Vs. Designated Authority, Ministry

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These three appeals and Misc. applications have been filed by M/s.Alkali Manufacturers Association of India, M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited and M/s. National Aluminium Co. Ltd. 2. M/s Alkali Manufacturers Association of India (hereinafter referred to as AMAI) filed a petition before the Designated authority on behalf of the Domestic Industry alleging dumping of Sodium Hydroxide commonly known as Caustic Soda originated in or exported from people's republic of China & Korea PR. Public notice dated 14th May, 2002 was published in Gazette of India Extraordinary, initiating anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Caustic Soda from the subject countries. Preliminary findings were notified by the Designated Authority under Notification dated 21st September, 2002 and the interested parties were requested to make their views known in writing.A copy of the preliminary findings was also sent Page 279 to known exporters, importers and embassies of subject countries in India request...

Haldiram Bhujiawala Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides and perused the record. Duty demand is in respect of Syrups, Wafers etc. manufactured by the appellant under the brand name/logo of "HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA". When the Central Excise Officers visited the appellant's unit on 27-5-99, they saw certain stocks with the appellants. Duty demand is on such stocks. The demand is on the ground that the appellant was using the brand name of another person and, that made off the goods ineligible for small scale exemption.2. The contention of the learned Counsel is that duty demand remains already discharged and there is an interim order of injunction of Delhi High Court against the appellant in regard to use of the said brand name. The contention of the learned Counsel is that since the ownership of the brand name is in dispute before the Hon'ble High Court, the imposition of penalty and confiscation were not justified. The submission is that duty liability is not on account of any willful acts on the part of the appellant; but b...

Sun Food Tech Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This miscellaneous application is for early hearing of the stay application and the appeal. The appeal was admitted and the stay application was heard.2. The applicants were denied concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 9/2002-CE dated 1-3-2002 on the ground that they had not filed the declaration claiming exemption under the Notification 9/2002-CE before the clearance of the goods. The applicants submitted that they had filed the declaration under their letter 28-8-2002 and post it under certificate of posting on that date. The adjudicating authority had admitted this fact and held that even otherwise the applicants were entitled for SSI benefit under Notification 9/2002-CE and he accordingly dropped the proceedings against the applicants.However, on appeal filed by the Department, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original and allowed the appeal thus confirming the demand of Rs. 36,768/-.3. It was pleaded on behalf of the Revenue that the applicants fact...

Dinesh International Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC79

The appellant imported three consignments of copper scraps of "BIRCH" Varieties - two from Singapore and one from Israel, during the period November - December 1998. The purchase price varied from US $ 1160 to US $ 1180 PMT. Customs authorities accepted the prices and assessed the goods to duty and allowed their clearances. Subsequently, notice was issued on the ground that, as per the London Metal Exchange (LME), price was higher than the assessed values. The appellant was, therefore, directed to deposit the differential duty or show cause as to why the consignments should not be re-assessed and duty short-levied demanded. The appellant resisted the demand holding that original assessments which were based on transaction values were correct and no short-levy was involved. It was also contended that it is well settled that LME prices cannot be the basis for assessment. Appellant also mentioned that there were contemporaneous imports at comparable prices.2. In adjudication, the Deputy ...

Smi Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. By this rectification application, the applicant seeks rectification of Paragraph 5 of the final order by deleting the finding portion extracted in Para 2 of the application from that order and by making consequent amendment in the order portion and has also prayed for the rectification of the name of the appellant/assessee.2. As regards the name of the appellant/assessee, the learned Counsel for the applicant fairly stated that the mistake had occurred before the Commissioner and that the wrong name was shown in the appeal which was filed before this Tribunal by the present applicants. Therefore, there was no mistake apparent from the record of the Tribunal in so far as the name of the appellant was concerned because the appellant themselves gave that name which according to the learned Counsel was the same when the Commissioner made the order.3. So far as the contention that a mistake has crept in Paragraph 5 of the final order is concerned, on a careful scrutiny, this seemingly ...