Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 1 of about 296 results (0.019 seconds)Mool Chand Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT387TriDel
2. The appellant is a manufacturer of M.S. Ingots. On 1-9-2000, Central Excise Officers visited the appellant's factory and recorded the following position about stock."Stock as per RG-I register Difference if any (4)185.560 MT (+) 26.005 MTof 102.800 MT on 1-9-2000 (+ 274 Nos. of ingots)" 3. On that day the appellant had 2227 ingots. The total weight and the excess weight of 26 MT was worked out by taking the average weight of 95 kgs. per ingot. This weight of 95 kg. per ingot was told to the Excise Officers by one Mr. Chumman Lal, Authorized signatory of the appellant.4. On 2-9-2000 the Director of the appellant's company wrote the following letter:- A team of Central Excise Officers visited our factory on 1-9-2000 and seized a quantity of 26.005 MT M.S. Ingots alleged to be the excess quantity over and above the RG-I balance. The so-called excess quantity was arrived at by the officers by counting the Ingots and multiplying it with 95 kg. as mentioned in the statement of Mr. Chumma...
Tag this Judgment!Vardhman Cable (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT275TriDel
1. These two appeals have been filed by M/s. Vardhman Cables (India) and Shri Parag Jain, Director against dismissal of their Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of time limit.2. We heard Shri Kamaljeet Singh, learned Advocate and Shri Bipin Verma, learned Departmental Representative. Learned Advocate submitted that they had filed the Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 20-8-2004 against Order-in-Original No. 113/2004, dated 20-4-2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner; that the said Order-in-original was communicated to them on 22-6-2004 and as such the Appeal filed by them on 20-8-2004 was within the time limit specified in Section 35 of the Central Excise Act; that the Commissioner (Appeals) made his own inquiry from the Assistant Commissioner who informed him that the Order-in-original was despatched to the Appellants on 20-4-2002 itself and Order was delivered to the Appellants on 29-4-2004 which has also been confirmed by Post Master; that the Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Jaiswal Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT368TriDel
2. This appeal is directed against the confiscation of 10 bags of Betel nuts valued Rs. 90,000/- on a finding that they were smuggled from Nepal. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there is no evidence to establish smuggling. It is also being pointed out that since the Betel nuts is not one of the items notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, burden of proof was on the Revenue.3. The goods were seized near Deoria on 28-12-2000. The place of seizure is far from international border. Except the opinion of two traders that the goods are of foreign origin, there is no evidence to support a case of smuggling. In such a situation the confiscation is not justified, particularly since this is not an item notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The burden to establish licit import lies on the processor of the goods in the case of goods notified under Section 123. In other cases, the burden is on the Revenue. In the present case, there is no sufficient...
Tag this Judgment!Jaypee Rewa Plant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT305TriDel
1. This is an application by M/s. Jaypee Rewa Plant for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty of Rs. 6,13,335/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate submitted that the applicants, engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinkers, are availing cenvat credit in respect of lubricating oil; that the Department has confirmed the duty on mixed oil sludge which comes out of the machine and the duty has been confirmed as the waste product is nothing but lubricating oil; that no duty is payable as the goods in question is nothing but mixed oil sludge on which no duty is payable as no manufacturing activity has taken place. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 23 wherein it has been held that oil coming into existence not as a result of production or manufacture and as such is not excisable. We also heard Shri P.K. Rai, learned DR who submitted that mixed o...
Tag this Judgment!Goenka Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT75TriDel
2. This case relates to confiscation of goods valued about Rs. 2 lakhs and imposition of penalty. The appellant's case all through was that the items in question were unfinished, unpacked & untested condition and therefore they were not required to be entered in the production record (RG 23-I). The impugned orders did not accept the appellant's submission and noted that at each and every stage account is to be kept. The observation in the Commissioner (Appeals) reads as under :- "It is needless to again emphasize that the appellants had not maintained their statutory records properly under the scheme of Central Excise Rules, adequate provisions have been incorporated for accountal of goods at each and every stage, i.e. right from the raw material to the finished stage. Column 15 of the RGI Register prescribes for accountal of unfinished goods. Any contravention or deviation shall invite penalties. The attainability of the RG-I stage or otherwise shall in no way effect the accounta...
Tag this Judgment!Sun Vacuum Formers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT317TriDel
1. In this appeal, the challenge has been made to the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty of Rs. 1,51,67,478/- with penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs, against the appellants.2. The duty has been confirmed for denying them the Modvat credit on the capital goods under Rule 57Q for having removed the same outside the factory without valid permission after availing the Modvat credit during the period December, 1999.3. The learned Counsel has contended that the capital goods Moulds and Dies (30 in number), detailed at Serial Nos. 1 to 30 in Annexure 1(B) to the show cause notice, were removed from the factory with the permission of the competent authority. He has also contended that even after the expiry of the period, the appellants sought extension of time and their prayer was never rejected by the competent authority. He has further contended that regarding the goods detailed at Seri...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Ram Dhan and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT24TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Sita Ram Ram Dhan & Co., the issue relates to the availability of DEPB Credit.2. Shri Naveen Malhotra, learned Advocate, submitted that they had exported Stainless Steel Forged Machines Pin and Drop Forged Combination Pillar Crome Plated under Shipping Bills dated 26-3-2002 and DEPB duty credit was allowed as per the DEPB rates applicable to these items --- on the Shipping Bills as existing on the date of Order of 'Let Export' by the Customs i.e. 2-4-2002; that they requested that DEPB credit should be allowed to them at the rates in force on the date of submission of the Shipping Bills i.e. 26-3-2002; that the Department has applied the DEPB rates which were revised on 31-3-2002 downwards.The learned Advocate, further, submitted that subsequently the DEPB rates have been further revised w.e.f. 1-4-2002 retrospectively by Public Notice No. 62 (RE-2002)/2002-2007, dated 17-2-2003. He requested that the DEPB credit should be given to the appellants o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Modern Textile Finishing Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC577
1. The appeal is directed against the reduction of penalty from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue has filed this appeal saying penalty equivalent to the duty involved is mandatory under Rule 96ZQ(5). During the hearing, learned DR placed reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 406 (All.) = 2004 (93) ECC 633 (All.). It is seen from the order of the Commissioner that it has been passed following the decisions of the Apex Court and the Tribunal. In these circumstances, there is no justification for interference with the order. The appeal fails and is dismissed.2. Proviso to Section 35B(1) states that the Tribunal may in its discretion refuse to admit an appeal wherein the amount of fine or penalty determined in the impugned order does not exceed Rs. 50,000/-.The legislative intention as revealed by this proviso is that second appeal to Tribunal is not to be enterta...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shiva Exim Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT169TriDel
1. Both the appeals have been directed by the Revenue against the common impugned order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) who had reversed the order-in-original and dropped the duty and penalty against the respondents.2. We have heard both sides. From the record, we find that the adjudicating authority had clubbed the clearances of the respondents-firm with that of firm, M/s. Shivam Petro Products, on the ground that their partners were inter se relations as in the respondents-firm, Shri Amit Kumar and his father, Shri Shiv Kumar, were partners, while in the other firm, Shri Amit Kumar and his mother, Smt.Kiran Nenwani, were the partners and both the firms had common infrastructure facilities and funds, and as such could not avail the benefit of Notification No. 9/2002 for payment of duty of the clearances during the period in dispute. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed that order on the ground that both the firms were working independently and separately having no ...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Northern Railway Baroda House Vs. Mr. Vishva Nath ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT286; 2005(81)DRJ190
Vijender Jain, J.1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the writ petition.2. Counsel for the applicant/petitioner contends that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Ors. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. : (1987)ILLJ500SC and Bhag Singh and Ors. v. Major Daljeet Singh and Ors., : 1987(32)ELT258(SC) , court should not take a strict view and delay should be condoned. Counsel for the applicant further submits that petitioner being a Government body, a liberal approach be taken by the court. Law of Limitation remains the same whether it is a government or a private party. What has to be noticed is whether the delay has been caused on account of some procedural matter or on account of the department being too unwieldy. The impugned order having been passed on 22.4.2004, he reasons for condoning the delay has not been explained. If there is a private party before us, we expect delay of...
Tag this Judgment!