Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 11 of about 296 results (0.017 seconds)Commissioner of Customs Vs. Swan Press
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT93TriDel
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. In this case the respondents made import of second hand used Heidelberg Speedmaster 4 colour offset printing machine and declared the value of Rs. 43,18,760/-. The Revenue after rejecting the value declared by respondents enhanced the same by applying Rule 8 of Rs. 76,95,900/- minus 66% depreciation.4. The contention of the Revenue is that they had made enquiries and the manufacturer of the machine informed the Custom authorities that the value of the new machines and taking into consideration the value of the new machines and after allowing the depreciation, the value was enhanced. Therefore, the impugned order whereby the enhanced value was set aside is not sustainable. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gajra Bevel Gears v. CC reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 612.5. The contention of the respondent is that they produced the Chartered Engineer's...
Tag this Judgment!Vinko Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC455
1. The appeal involved the Modvat credit of about Rs. 2.5 lakhs on inputs and the penalty of Rs. 50,000. The said credit was denied for the reason that appellant had not filed declaration in regard to Rubber Compound (the input in question) prior to the receipt of the inputs.The inputs were received in December 1997. It is being pointed out that the appellant had filed revised declaration (this position was noted by the Authorities also) specifically declaring the inputs and it was within power to Deputy Commissioner to condone the delay.2. Perused the records and heard both sides. There is no dispute raised about the receipt of the duty paid inputs. The claim is being denied only for a short delay in filing a declaration. It is settled in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, 2004 (92) ECC 230 (LB) : 2000 (40) RLT 575 the delay/failure to file declaration is no ground for denying Modvat credit. As against this, the learned DR has relied upon the decision of the Apex Co...
Tag this Judgment!Sunint Auto Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC213
1. The issue involve in this appeal filed by M/s. Sunint Auto Pvt. Ltd. is whether 100% Polyester Curtain Fabric imported by them is classifiable under heading No. 60.02 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Heading 58.04 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.2. We heard Shri Piyush Kumar, learned Advocate, and Shri H.C. Verma, learned D.R. The rival Tariff Headings read as under : "5804 Tulles and other net fabrics, not including woven, knitted or Crocheted fabrics; lace in the piece, in strips or in motifs, other than fabrics of headings 6002 to 6006" It is the contention of the learned Advocate the heading 58.04 clearly excludes fabrics which are woven, knitted or crocheted; that as per test report of the Textile Committee obtained by the Department that fabric is knitted fabric; that the test report of the Textile Committee cannot be discarded without valid reasons; that the said opinion was obtaine...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Kejriwal Bee Care (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC387
1. This is an application by Revenue for condoning the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal.2. Shri P.K. Ray, learned DR, submitted that the delay has been caused on account of consulting the Chief Commissioner; that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, (1988) 3 SCC 132 that when the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note making, file pushing and passing on the buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand but more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community and, therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible.3. Opposing the prayer, Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that Section 35B of the Central Excise Act only authorises the Commissioner to direct any Central Excise Officer to file an appeal against Or...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Plaza Lamps and Tubes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT223TriDel
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods imported by the respondents are not liable to pay anti-dumping duty as per Notification No. 128/2001, dated 21-12-2001.3. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the Notification the Compact Fluorescent Lamps falling under Chapter 85 without choke are liable to anti-dumping duty. The contention is that the respondent made import of Compact Fluorescent Lamps without choke, therefore, are covered under the scope of the notification.4. The contention of the respondent is that these are not complete Fluorescent Lamps the other parts also required for completion of the Compact Fluorescent Lamps. The other parts are not imported by them, therefore, they are not covered under the scope of the notification.The respondent relied upon the decision of Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of Permalite Electricals (P) Ltd. reported in 2004 (1...
Tag this Judgment!Rohit Steel and Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT692TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned order mainly on the ground that show cause notice raising duty demand was resved on them after the expiry of extended period of limitation of five years.2. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record and in our view, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods (GI wires) and availed benefit of Notification No. 206/63. They were also manufacturing barbered wire during the period in dispute i.e.1980-81, But show cause notice was issued on 22.8.85 and it was pasted on the outer gate of the factory of the appellants on 11.7.86, as is evident from para 2 of the impugned order. It was apparently served on the appellants after the expiry of five years of the duty demanded therein. Therefore, the duty demand was time barred and could not be legally confirmed. The case of the appellants stands fully covered by...
Tag this Judgment!The Associated Cement Companies Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT311TriDel
2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the demand was confirmed in respect of the coils. The contention of the appellant is that they are repairing only industrial motors/transformers in their factory and only defective burnt out parts are replaced. For this purpose, they obtained raw material in the form of super enameled copper wire/strip/bars and also not claimed Modvat credit and that wires is used for replacing the burnt out parts of the old motors/transformers. The contention is that the Revenue is demanding duty in respect of the winding coils by classifying the same under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff. The contention of the appellant is that they are not manufacturing and clearing any winding coils as such they are only undertaking the activity of repairing motors/transformers. Therefore, there is no case of demand in respect of winding coils.3. The appellant also relied upon the decision in their...
Tag this Judgment!Khurana Paper Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT177TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order whereby the Commissioner of Central Excise held that during the period July 1987 to March 1992. The appellants wrongly classified the Kraft paper under Tariff heading 4804.11 of the Central Excise Tariff and wrongly availed the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 48/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989 as the Kraft paper manufactured by the appellants is not containing 75% by weight of pulp made from bagasse.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Kraft paper and they were claiming the classification under Heading 4804.11 of the Central Excise Tariff and benefit of the Notification No. 48/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989 on the ground that they were manufacturing Kraft paper containing not less than 75% by weight of pulp made from Bagasse. A show cause notice was issued on 6-7-1992 for the period July 1987 to March 1992 demanding duty and imposition of penalty on the ground that Kraft paper manufacture...
Tag this Judgment!Sarvesh Kumar Prajapati Vs. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT667; 2005(80)DRJ713
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution's case is that on 23.11.2000, one Mr M.C. Mahajan was abducted and on 14.12.2000, he returned on his own. The prosecution's case further is that a demand for a ransom for a sum of Rs.2 crores was made and it was paid by the friends and associates of Mr Mahajan. The petitioner and six other persons were arrested on 12.02.2001 at Lucknow. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of arrest and thereafter the photographs and descriptions of the petitioner and the other persons who were arrested were flashed on newspapers and the television networks. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the co-accused Sanjay has been granted bail and he has accordingly drawn my attention to the order of grant of bail to the co-accused Sanjay which is at page 33 of the paper book which reads as under:-'Heard on the bail application. The complainant had identified the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Shammy Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2075; 117(2005)DLT629; 2005(80)DRJ685
R.C. Jain, J.1. Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks the quashing of order of his externment dated 29.12.2003 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi and that of the Lt. Governor of Delhi, dated 3.3.2004 thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.2. On receipt of a proposal for externment of the petitioner, a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') giving an opportunity to the petitioner as to why an order for his externment be not made on the facts, circumstances and material disclosed in the notice. The petitioner appeared before the Additional Deputy Commission of Police and filed a reply. The competent authority after consideration of the facts, circumstances and the material obtaining on record, made an order dated 29.12.2003 thereby directing the petitioner to remove hi...
Tag this Judgment!