Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(27)ECC39
1. M/s. Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. had filed the above captioned appeals at serial number 1 and 3, and the Collector of Customs, Bombay, had filed the above captioned appeal at serial number 4 and a cross objection at serial number 2. The Bench vide miscellaneous order No.l35/88-C dated 9th December, 1988, in response to the importer M/s.Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. 's request for the change of the name to M/s.Elephanta Oil & Vanaspati Industries Ltd. had ordered for the change of the name from M/s. Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. to M/s. Elephanta Oil & Vanaspati Industries Ltd. The learned Departmental Representative had no objection to the request of the importer.2. Against Order No. S/10-175/83-A dated 20.12.83 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, M/s. Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. & Another (now Elephanta Oil & Vanaspati Industries Ltd.) had filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the same was registered as Matter No.1838 of 1983. After the filing of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)LC736Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals are directed against the impugned Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur.2. Factual Backdrop : It was the case of the Department that the officers of the DRI, New Delhi, assisted by the Customs and Central Excise Officers of Kanpur, searched the residential premises of the appellant on 3-9-1973 at 7 A.M. and recovered 41 pieces of primary gold bars of foreign origin and 8 pieces of gold (Bithur) in the presence of Shri Ram Niwas Sharma and Shri Shree Ram Agarwal, and also in the presence of two panch witnesses, namely, Shri Prem Chand Sharma and Shri Bankey Lal, as detailed out in the panchnama/recovery memo, said to have been prepared on the spot. It was alleged that the appellant, Shri Shiv Charan Bajpai, was also present on the spot, but he slipped away from the house when some photographs of the contraband gold, as recovered above, were being taken and accordingly FIR to that effect was lodged at 11.20 A.M. with the Police Station,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(81)ELT407TriDel
1. Transhipment cargo consignment covered by Airway Bill No.098-57616812 and House Airway Bill No. 21732 which had arrived from Hongkong by Air India Flight on 6-5-1992 was intercepted on 8-5-1992 on the basis of intelligence information. The consignment consisted of 48 cartons of "Polyester Film Capacitors". Consignee was shown as Shree Electronics, G-41, Noida, Ghaziabad (appellant in Appeal No.C/533/94/A). Consignor was shown as NRCOLA Ltd., Hongkong. Consignor's cargo agent was M/s. Air Freight Ltd., Hongkong. Consignee's . cargo agent was M/s. Air Freight, Calcutta. Instruction was issued to Air India not to load the consignment for transhipment to Calcutta, till the consignee's address was verified. Enquiries conducted through customs and excise officers at Delhi, Noida and Calcutta revealed that there was no such unit by the name. "M/s. Shree Electronics" at the given address. Hence, consignment was opened and examined in the presence of Panch witnesses. The cartons were found ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1986)(8)LC207Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Madras has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order in appeal No. 136/82 (M) dated 12-4-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. In column No. 3 of the memorandum of appeal the date of service has been mentioned as 12;4-1982. The appellant had moved an application for amendment of the appeal and has requested for making the amendment to the effect that the date had been wrongly written as 12-4-1982 against the correct date of 27-4-1982. By a separate order dated 20-2-1986, the amendment of the appeal was allowed to the effect that para No. 3 of form E. A.3 should be read as 27-4-1982. In terms of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the appeal was to be filed within three months. By virtue of the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order No. GSR 597(E), dated 11-10-1982 the appeal could have been filed within six months. The appellant has filed an application for condonat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)(145)ELT669TriDel
1. On the basis of intelligence, a packet which arrived from Singapore by Malaysian Airlines at IGI Airport, New Delhi in the name of M/s.Umesh Book Service (consignee) on 26-10-97 under AWB Bill No.232-8075-8705 and House AWB No. ACT-9015 was examined by officers of Customs in the presence of independent witnesses and representatives of the Airport Authority of India. The goods were described as "books/printed matter" in the Airway Bill. The packet was opened in the presence of the witnesses and was found to contain three cardboard cartons which, in turn, contained electronic goods such as 'Sanyo' cordless telephone, 'Casio' printing calculator, 'Sony' video CD/LD/player with remote control, 'Panasonic' video cassette recorder with remote control etc., totally valued at Rs. 14,28,800/-. The address of M/s. Umesh Book Service was found, on verification, to be fictitious. The consignment was not accompanied by any documents establishing lawful importation of the goods. Officers, theref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC631
1. Prior to its amendment on 27.12.1985, Section 11A of the then Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 {now called Central Excises Act, 1944, and hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), provided that for recovery of central excise duty not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid, notice was to be served, on the person chargeable with the central excise duty, which had not been levied or paid or which had been short levied or short paid, by a Central Excise Officer. The power to determine the amount of duty of excise due from such person on whom the notice had been served, was to be exercised by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, A question had arisen whether this power could be exercised by the Collector of Central Excise. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise was an officer subordinate to the Collector of Central Excise. There were a few decisions of the Tribunal wherein it had been held that even though under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A of the Act, Asstt. Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)(16)ELT126TriDel
F.S. Gill, J. (President) and B.B. Gujral, D.N. Lal, (T) and S. Duggal, (J) Members 1. This appeal has been referred to a larger Bench because the Bench hearing this appeal did not agree with the decision dated 17-8-1983 given by another Bench of the Tribunal in Appeal No. ED(SP)67/83C. This is how the matter is before us and we have heard counsel for both sides at great length and given our consideration to the matter as well.2. The main question for consideration is whether the appellant is bound to deposit the duty demanded or the penalty levied as a condition precedent to the hearing of the appeal as required by Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (as amended by Finance Act No. 2 being Act No. 44 of 1980) hereinafter referred to as the Act. The amendment inserted a new chapter VIA containing a series of Sections 35, 35A to 35P and 36 in the Act in substitution of the previous Sections 35, 35A and 36 of the old Act. We will first extract the relevant amended provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER: D.N. PANDA 1. Two batches of appeals were made against two adjudications done in respect of different imports of ball bearings involving following appellants who came before Tribunal facing consequences of adjudication as depicted in the table below. Both sets of appeals are dealt by this common order in view of similar cause of action and common investigation resulting in similar consequences. Both sides could not inform whether other persons/concerns against whom adjudication was also done by the following order were whether in appeal accordingly this order is confined to the appellants as appearing in the table below: Consequence arose under O-I-O No. 105/2005 dated: 30.11.2005 against allegations in SCN No. 338/XIV/96/2003 Dt. 30.04.2004 Consequence arose under O-I-O No. 100/2005 dated: 28.11.2005 against allegations in SCN No. 338/XIV/96/2003 Dt. 22.11.2004 Sl.No Appellants Batch of Customs Appeal No. Consequence of Adjudication Batch of Customs Appeal No. Consequence o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1986)(8)ECC57
1. This is a reference to the larger Bench for resolving differences in the view taken by the Bench in the matters of M/s. Steel Rolling Mills of Hindustan (P.) Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta - 1984 ECR 1527 (CEGAT) and Moti Lal & Co., Thane v. C.C.E., Bombay - 1984 (15) E.L.T. 157 and the order of Special Bench 'C' of the Tribunal in C.C.E., Bombay v. Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., Surat - 1984 (4) ETR 58.2. The point for difference arose as under :- In the appeals Nos. 365 and 365-A/78-B-I, the show cause notice dated 29-12-1978 proposing to review the orders-in-appeal Nos. 2387 of 77 and 2388 of 77 dated 19-12-1977 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi was issued by the Government of India beyond six months of the order proposed to be revised. In appeal No. 366/78-B-I the show cause notice dated 24-3-1979 was issued by the Government of India proposing to review the order-in-appeal No. 424-CE/78 dated 1-6-1978 passed by the Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(29)ELT401TriDel
1. This is an application dated 8-10-1985 for "stay of the operation of" the order in original in a proceeding, initiated by an application under Section 129D(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, (hereinafter, the Act), to be heard as if it were an appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority (i.e. the order in original) in terms thereof. (a) the Respondent imported 24 consignments of Ball Bearings during November, 1982 and January, 1983; (b) the invoice values, not being acceptable, the Respondent was given an option to clear the goods on a provisional duty bond and the Respondent had availed of such option for clearance for home consumption as well as clearance under Section 59 of the Act after furnishing the requisite bonds with bank surety or cash deposit; (c) a notice dated 31-5-1984 was issued to the Respondent along-with M/s. Skefko India Bearing Co Ltd. and Punjab Bearing Traders, alleging, inter alia, (i) the existence of a special relationship between the Respondent and th...
Tag this Judgment!