Delhi Court June 2005 Judgments

Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(197)ELT263TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed these appeals against the orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). As the common issue is involved in these appeals, they are taken up together.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 3.12.2002, the residential premises of Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma and Anil kumar were searched by the Customs Officers and from the residence premises of Shri Pawan Kumar, 102 pcs. of assorted mobile phones, 20 pieces of adopted of mobile phones and Indian currency of Rs. 1,95,000 were seized under Section 110 Customs Act on the reasonable belief that the same was liable for confiscation. As the mobile phones and adopters are smuggled into India and Indian Currency is sale proceeds of smuggled goods. On smilar ground 30 mobile phones and 25 batteries for mobile phones, 100 ears phone leads and 150 charges for mobile phones and Rs. 19,000/- were seized from the residence of Shri Anil Kumar. The adjudicating authority confiscated the mobile phones and part...

Mehta Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT423TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the present case the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of defective goods received in the factory was denied on the ground that the Bill of Entry was not in the name of the appellant.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of Bulk Drugs and goods were cleared on payment of duty to M/s. Jal Health Care and M/s. Jal Health Care exported the goods. The export goods were received by M/s. Jal Health Care being defective. M/s. Jal Health Care Ltd. filed Bill of Entry regarding the goods received back. The Bill of Entry was duly endorsed in the name of that appellant as the appellant manufactured the goods and the same endorsement was attested by the Customs Officer. The appellant availed credit in respect of the defective goods received in the factory which were earlier cleared on payment of duty. The only objection of the Revenue is that Bi...

Pt Poly Sinda Eka Parkasa Vs. Designated Authority/Ministry

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT358TriDel

1. The appellant has challenged that portion of the final finding No.19/2001-DGAD dated 4.1.2002 wherein the Designated Authority has held that the price undertaking offered by the appellant is not acceptable and the impugned Notification No.15/2002-Cus imposing anti-dumping duty on the appellant, seeking modification of the final finding, by accepting the price undertaking offered by the appellant and to the effect that no anti-dumping duty should be imposed and a modification of the Notification on that basis.2. The appellant, M/s. P.T. Polysindo Eka Prakasa was producing partially oriented yarn (POY) and exporting it from Indonesia to India.The authority designated under the Customs Tariff (Interpretation), assessment. And Collection of anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles And For Determination Injury Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1995), on a written application received on behalf of the domestic industry alleging dumping of POY originating in or exported fro...

Bal Kishan Soni Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT430TriDel

1. In this appeal, which has been filed against the impugned order-in-appeal, the appellant has contested the confiscation of the goods (one gold bar) and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/-.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that on 24-4-1995, residential-cum-business premises of the appellant at Jodhpur was raided by the Customs Officers and one gold bar (10 tolas) was allegedly recovered from him. Shri R.P Meena, Asstt. Commissioner, headed that raiding party. From the record, it is also evident that he lodged a complaint against the appellant and his wife, Smt. Kanchan Soni, for having abused him and other members of the raiding party, but the same was dismissed by the Court. Smt.Kanchan Soni wife of the appellant filed a counter complaint in the Court alleging that she was molested by Shri R.P. Meena. The Panchnama, which was prepared at the spot, does not bear the signature of Shri R.P. Meena. Rather one Shri S.K. Pathank, Ins...

Sneh Silicate Inds. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Sodium Silicate and were availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the final product. On 25.3.98, the officers of revenue visited the factory of the appellants and during verification he found that Soda Ash which is an input was found in excess of 12.675 m.t. than the balance recorded in the statutory record. The shortage of 3.560 m.t. of Scrubber Liquor which is also found.After issuance of SCN, the adjudicating authority confiscated the inputs found in excess and demanded duty in respect of the inputs found short and personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed.2. The contention of the appellants is that the soda ash was received just before the arrival of the Excise Officer, therefore, he could not enter in the stock of inputs. The contention is that the ...

Nath Bros. Exim International Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT415TriDel

1. In this appeal which has been preferred against the order-in-appeal, the appellants have contested the correctness of the impugned order directing them to pay charges on cost recovery basis and not on MOT basis.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that the appellants are 100% EOU. As per the terms of the bond executed by them, they were liable to pay charges on cost recovery basis, if any Customs Officer was posted in their unit for supervision. But there is nothing on the record to suggest if any such posting was made. Rather, it has not been disputed by the authorities below in their respective orders that no Customs Officer was appointed in their factory. That being so, charges on cost recovery basis, cannot be claimed by the Revenue. The Revenue can only claim charges on MOT basis which the appellants had already paid for the disputed period from 1-1-2002 to 30-6-2003. It may also be added that for the subsequent period, charges...

Shri Motilal @ Mohanlal Khatri, Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT1119TriDel

1. In these appeals which have been preferred against the common order-in-original, the appellants have contested the imposition of penalty and confiscation of gold bars.2. On 2.6 1998, Shri Lalit Kumar Khatri, appellant, while traveling in a bus from Ahmedabad to Jaipur was intercepted by the Customs Officers and recovery of 15 gold bars was effected from him. He could not produce the documents regarding the valid purchase of these gold bars and the gold bars were accordingly seized by the Officers. At that time, he was carrying one Bill dated 14.5.1998 pertaining to the purchase of 8 gold bars from M/s Mahavir Bullion Co. His father, Shri Motilal @ Mohanlal Khatri and Shri Vishnubhai Keshavlal Patel, were also later on arrested. Show cause notice was issued to all the three appellants.3. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that Shri Lalit Khatri, appellant, at the time of his apprehension did not admit of having smuggled the gold bars ...

Upendra Soni and Shri Bal Krishan Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC409

1. In these appeals, the appellants have contested the imposition of penalties and confiscation of their goods (one gold bar and silver) as ordered through the impugned Order-in-Appeal.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. On 23.5.1992, recovery of one gold bar and some quantity of silver, as detailed in the impugned order, and Indian currency of over Rs. 2. lakhs was effected from the residential premises of Shri Balkishan Soni, appellant. He himself was not present at the house at that time. His father, Shri Anant Ram Soni, and his brother, Shri Satyanarayan, were interrogated. His father denied his knowledge about the business activities of his son, Shri Balkishan Soni. However, his brother, Shri Satyanarayan, who was present at that time, disclosed that in the absence of his brother, Shri Balkishan Soni, he had been looking after the business. He also disclosed about the smuggled nature of the sized goods, but he retracted his statement when he moved has bail app...

J.K. Indus. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The duty of Rs. 96,444/- and Rs. 15,562/- with penalties has been confirmed against the appellants, as detailed in the impugned order by denying them the modvat credit in respect of the furnace oil used in the generation of steam which was partly consumed by the appellants in their own factory and partly supplied to their other unit. The question, whether under these circumstance credit could be disallowed to the appellants, stands already answered in their favour by the Tribunal's judgement in the case of Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. Vs. CC, 2001 138 ELT 609. That judgment was followed by the Tribunal also in an identical case of M/s. SRF and allowed the stay application in that appeal. Therefore, prima facie, the appellants have a strong case on merits. The stay applications are accordingly allowed. The appeals be listed for hearing in due course....

Shri Kanhaiya Lal Purswani, Shri Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these appeals, which have been preferred against the common order-in-original, the appellants have contested the imposition of penalties on them and confiscation of the Indian currency and scooters.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The record shows that penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on Shri. Kanhaiya Lal, appellant, and of Rs. 50,000/- each on other two appellants under Section 112(b) has been imposed, on account of alleged recovery of gold bars of foreign origin from the dickey of the scooters of Kanhaiya Lal and Vijay Kumar, on which they were riding, and one Raju was pillion rider on the scooter of Vijay Kumar, at that time. The Indian currency of Rs. 10,000/-was recovered from Shri Kanhaiya Lal. Regarding the seized gold bars, the Commissioner vide order dated 27.2.1993 ordered the absolute confiscation on the ground that none has come to claim the same. That order has already attained the finality. While passing that order, the Commissioner for the reasons...