Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments

Renaissance Global Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC282

1. In this appeal, the appellant has made challenge to the impugned order in appeal vide which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has affirmed the order of the adjudicating authority who directed the absolute confiscation of 406 pieces of Artistic Brass Artware and 177 dozen/boxes of Incense Sticks being obscene and misdeclared respectively and imposition of penalties on the appellants as detailed in the order in original.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the export items in question i.e. 406 pieces of Artistic Brass Artware were purchased by Ms. Sarl Ganesha Enterprises, France through their Manager Mr. Deonl who had visited India and were handed over in packed condition to the appellants for sending/exporting the same to them in France and as such, the appellants had no knowledge that those were obscene.Similarly, regarding misdeclaration of 177 dozen boxes of incense sticks, the appellants did know about it, as these were also purchased and then handed over to the appell...

Crompton Greaves Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC486

1. None for the appellants. They have sent a request for adjournment on the ground that their Excise Consultant is not available. Record shows that on the last date of hearing, the appeal was adjourned for today.The appellants are deliberately avoiding the appearance to prolong the case. Therefore, the request for adjournment is declined.2. The issue in the present appeal relates to the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 43,026 to them for the period April to July, 1997 on the ground that this credit was wrongly availed by them as the inputs which they allegedly sent directly to their job worker M/s Signet Conductors, Rewa under Rule 57-F(4) were never received back by them.3. The plea taken by the appellants is that they received the goods back from the job worker on 25.7.97 and they took the credit on 26.7.97 and that challan for sending the goods to the job worker was issued on 1.7.97. But in my view, their plea has been rightly not accepted by the lower authorities. The inputs were ob...

Sunil Engineering Corporation and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT525; 2005(80)DRJ344; 2005(99)ECC546

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners by this petition impugned the order dated 21st January, 2004 passed by the Adjudicating Officer wherein, while holding that there has been no contravention of Sections 8(3) and 8(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on the firm and Rs.50,000/- each on the partners has been imposed. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Adjudicating Officer has found only a formal violation of the procedure prescribed under para 7A.20 of Exchange Control Manual, inasmuch as petitioner has been found to have imported the goods in question. The remittance and payment has also been made by Letters of Credit through normal banking channels. The only procedural violation attributable to the petitioners is that petitioner failed to furnish the original Exchange Control copy of 'Bill of Entry' within three months from the date of remittance. 2. The Adjudicating Officer in para 9 of the impugned order held that ...

H.C. Hem Chander Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Commissioner of Pol ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT673; 2005(80)DRJ723

Vijender Jain, J.1. Notice be issued to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued.2. Mr. Aditya Madan, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard.3. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself. In the impugned order the Tribunal recorded that there was a finding of fact that the petitioner removed the photocopy of the cast certificate and did not return the same to the department.The Tribunal opined that they would not like to interfere with the finding of fact and held that penalty of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to impose any other penalty other than dismissal or removal from service.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to pages 43-44 of the paper book to highlight his plea that the inquiry officer did not hold that the petitioner had removed the photo copy of the caste certificate. The finding at page 44 is that the petit...

Mahender Rani Johar Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2110; 117(2005)DLT619; I(2005)DMC434; 2005(80)DRJ696

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This application for anticipatory bail was argued by Mr Mathur, the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant who is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The case pertains to FIR No. 6/2004 registered at Police Station Keshav Puram, under Section 304B, 498A and 34 I.P.C. on 4th of January, 2004. Mr Mathur states that the applicant is 62 years of age and that the death of the deceased occurred not in the matrimonial home or in the home in which the petitioner and her husband resided but in the paternal home. This fact is disclosed in the FIR itself where the father has stated that he had taken away the deceased on 4.12.2003 to his home. The deceased committed suicide on 4.1.2004. Accordingly, Mr Mathur submits that there is no proximate connection between the petitioner's alleged action and the incident of suicide by the deceased. In fact, Mr Mathur made a pointed reference to the statement in the FIR to the following effect:-'In between, the husband of t...

Cc and Ce Vs. Amar Sinhji Stationery Indus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC499

1 .The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 M/s.Amarsinhji Stationery Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SASIL) manufacturers, inter alia, "KORES" brand Carbon Papers and respondent No. 2, M/s. Solar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to SPPL) manufactures "KORES" brand Typewriter Ribbons. Both of them sell most of their goods to M/s. Kores India Ltd., the brand name owners. They also sell their products to others at more or less the same price at which they sell their products to M/s. Kores India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as KIL). Show cause notice was issued to the above three and as well as to their Managing Director, Director and other Officers alleging that the respondents No. 1 and 2 KIL are related persons and therefore, the assessable value of 'KORES" brand Carbon Papers and Typewriter Ribbons should be determined on the basis of the price at which KIL sells them to its buyers under proviso (iii) to Section 4(1) (a) of the Central Excise ac...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT222TriDel

1. This is second appeal filed by the Revenue. First appeal before the Commissioner having been rejected.3. The appellant is a manufacturer of sugar. Under a declaration dated 16-9-96 made under Rule 57T, it declared evaporator with tubes and staging complete (under tariff heading 8490) as capital goods for which credit was claimed. In the remarks column the assessee clarified further it is used for concentrate the juice/syrup for manufacturing the final product".4. The appellant received vacuum pan parts and claimed Modvat credit.When the dispute arose, Deputy Commissioner held that since vacuum pan and evaporating unit pre-device used for boiling and evaporating liquids, the declaration dated 16-9-96 covered the goods under receipt.This is the order, which was unsuccessfully challenged. Lower authorities were right in treating the vacuum pan parts as covered by declaration for evaporator. Appeal fails and is rejected....

Ramgarh Chini Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of limitation. There was delay of 15 days is filig the appeal. The delay was on account of leave of the concerned officer. The concerned officer was on leave for 19 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) can condone the delay of 30 days in filing of the appeal. In these circumstances as the appeal was filed with the explanation for late filing of the appeal. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandramani reported.2. Commissioner (Appeals) had not gone into the merits of the appeal, therefore, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeal for deciding the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty as well as penalty in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the appellant for hearing of the appeal....

Aggarwal Zarda Factory Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC22

1. All the appeals and stay applications are being taken up together as the facts and the law involved are common. Moreover, the appeals have been preferred against the common Order-in-Appeals. The appellants have already made pre-deposit of the certain penalty amounts, as detailed in the impugned orders, before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the pre-deposit of the balance penalty amount is waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeals.2. I have heard both sides on merits also. The learned counsel has not contested the impugned order on merits vide which the confiscation of the goods found lying in the factory premises of the appellants, M/s.Aggarwal Zarda Factory Pvt. Ltd., and of the traders M/s. Aftab Traders & M/s. S.K. Traders, by the Officers of the Central Excise during the raid of their premises, has been upheld. The adjudicating authority imposed redemption fine of Rs. 35,000 in respect of the goods seized from the factory premises and of Rs. 35,000 ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. D.C.M. Precision Engineering

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT43TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a refund claim in pursuance to the final order passed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 445/02-B dt. 1-10-2002 [2003 (151) E.L.T. 65 (T)]. The Tribunal in the final order confirmed the demand for the period Aug., 1997 to 9-11-1997 and in respect of the remaining period the demand was set aside. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant deposited the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs as pre-deposit. The appellant claimed the refund of above mentioned amount. The refund was sanctioned after deducting the amount of duty for the period Aug., 1997 to 9-11-1997 and amount of Rs. 1,00,299/- was also deducted as interest for late payment of duty. An amount of Rs. 50,185/- was also deducted from the refund claim in respect of the other demand. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissio...