Delhi Court October 1994 Judgments

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Raliwax (India)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT341TriDel

1. Collector of Central Excise has filed this appeal against the order of Addl. Collector of Central Excise. The Additional Collector in his order had held :- "After carefully considering and as per observations in the following paragraphs, 1 am fully satisfied that the charge of manufacture and consumption of wires thicker than 14 SWG without specifically pin pointing at which gauge the same has been accounted for as a complete product, corroborated by evidence is not maintainable. Moreover, there is no indication that at such intermediate gauge the manufacturer have been considering the same as finished product and have actually transacted by way of sale and/or transfer. Thus, the charge against the said firm has not been sustained and I order accordingly." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s Raliwex India the respondents in this case are engaged in the manufacture of Electric Wires and Cables. The appellant manufactured 16,961.750 Kgs of bare Copper Wire upto 13 SW...

H.M. Bags Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC486Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP Woven Sacks, filed a Classification List seeking the classification of HDPE/PP Woven Sacks under sub-heading 6301.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. On the basis of the order No. 8/92, dated 24-11-1992 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs under the provisions of Section 37-B, the appellants were served with a Show Cause Notice seeking the recovery of differential duty amounting to Rs. 4,31,838/- in respect of the clearances of the said goods effected from the factory during the period June, 1992 to November, 1992 on the grounds that the goods in question were classifiable under sub-heading 3923.90. The appellants contested the demand on the ground that the clearances during the relevant period having been effected on the basis of an approved Classification List no d...

Bird Dyes and Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT681TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), New Delhi dated 28th April, 1988.2. The appellant has sent a telegram stating that the matter may be decided on the basis of their written submissions.3. Ld. D.R. states that in this case the crucial issue involved is the date on which the exemption Notification No. 202/86, dated 25-3-1986 became effective.4. The appellants are claiming that they came to know about the Notification only on 31-3-1986 and therefore the clearances prior to the date of receipt of their information should be governed by the unamended notification whereas it is the department's contention that the amending notification came in force on the date of the notification itself namely 25-3-1986. It was made even otherwise known to the public by issue of a trade notice dated 27-3-1986 (On this date it was also, in addition, put up on the Notice Board).The Directorate of Publication of the Department of Revenue has also informed vide its letter dated 11-...

Flowmore Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and anr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(31)DRJ675

Vijender Jain, J. (1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, praying, inter alia, that respondents be restrained from encashing the bank guarantees which were five in number. This Court on 26.3.1993 by ex parte order restrained the respondents from encashing bank guarantees with the direction that the petitioner shall keep alive all the above bank guarantees. On 24.1.1991, the matter was referred for arbitration by the parties and the arbitrator was appointed which, according to Mr.Taneja, learned counsel for the respondents continued till 24.5.1992. According to Mr.Sanjeev Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner, the arbitrator continued with the arbitration proceedings till 14.4.93 and thereafter as time for making the award was not extended by the defendants, the petitioner filed a petition under Sec-28 of the Arbitration Act in this Court. In the present application this Court is not concerned with the application under Sec.28 of ...

Prithvi Singh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 56(1994)DLT535

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. (1) The petitioner applied for the Retail Outlet Dealership at Chant Road, Faridabad District (2) The petitioner asserts that his date of birth was 26.12.1965 and the date of birth shown in the metriculation certificate was got corrected and he has produced the corrected metriculation certificate also. According to the petitioner he was not given any opportunity to dispell the inference drawn by the first respondent before cancelling the Dealership and the principles of natural justice were thus violated.(3) The rival applicant has come on record as the second respondent. In the counter affidavit she has asserted that the petitioner has manipulated the correction in the metriculation certificate and according to her the petitioner's date of birth (26.12.1965) as stated, is not at all correct. She has produced a few documents to substantiate her contention that there was no entry of the birth of the petitioner on the date referred by the petitioner in the releva...

K.L. Rathee Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)555; AIR1995Delhi226; 56(1994)DLT243; 1994(31)DRJ274

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. (1) The petitioner seeks the quashing of a notice dated 30th March, 1992 pertaining to the year 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, issued under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the Act for short). Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to continue to levy the property tax till it is revised. (2) Petitioner states that he received a letter dated 17th March, 1993 signed by Deputy Assessor and Collector informing the petitioner that the petitioner had not sent any reply to a notice issued to him under Section 126, on 30.3.1992; petitioner replied pointing out that he did not receive any such notice; thereafter, petitioner obtained a certified copy of the notice dated 30.3.1992 issued by the Assistant Assessor and Collector proposing to raise the rateable value from Rs-15,660 to Rs.2,89,070.00 . Petitioner asserts in the writ petition that the statement of the Inspector that he went to the petitioner's house t...

Vishal Goods Transport Company Vs. Inter University Press (P) Limited

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal been filed by the comsplainant against the order of the District Forum dated 5th August, 1994. 2. Briefly, the facts are that an ex-parte/ order was passed by District Forum No. 1 (D.F.) against Vishal Goods Transport Co. Opposite Party (O.P.)appellant. Later an application for setting aside that order was filed by the Opposite Party. The learned District Forum held, that mere was no provision in the Consumer Protection Rules empowering it to set aside the ex-parte order and consequently, the application for setting aside ex-parte order was not maintainable. The O.P. has come up in appeal against the said order to the Commission. 3. The short question that arises for determination is, whether the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have got the power to set aside exparte order. The learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued mat the Judicial/ Tribunals have got the inherent powers to set aside t...

Mineral Wool Manufacturing Co. Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT721TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Original dated 31-5-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Slagwool falling under T.I. 22F(iii) of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants are also making matresses out of such slag goods in their own two units situated at Adityapur and Jugsalai. Appellants were charged with for having mis-declared the quality and value of the goods manufactured by them. A show cause notice dated 1-9-1982 and corrigendum dated 16-5-1985 was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur alleging that the appellants had given misleading information in their classification lists and price lists with intent to evade duty. They were, therefore, asked to explain why duty amounting to Rs. 1,90,096.98 Paise evaded by them by contravening the provisions of Rules 9(1), 173B, 173C, 173F, 173G(1) read with Rules 198 and 1...

Kushal Textiles Processing Mills Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT854TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 19-12-1985 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 6-2-1983 the Central Excise Preventive Party, Jodhpur intercepted a consignment of bleached fabrics in the city which was not accompanied by any Central Excise document. The scrutiny of the records of the appellants' factory revealed that more than 15000 sq. meters of bleached cotton fabrics were cleared from the factory on 25-12-1982 against Gate Pass Slip Nos. 7419 and 7429, dated 25-12-1982. On the grounds that the appellants were not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 130/82, dated 20-4-1982 in respect of processed cotton fabrics, the Central Excise officers seized the 8185.25 meters of bleached cotton fabrics detained during the preventive checks. They also seized another quantity of 21278 meters of cotton fabrics found in the appellants' factory. After further investigations, the appellants were serve...

Continental Devices India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT192TriDel

1. Modvat credit of countervailing duty has been denied on (i) high resolution photomasks, (ii) graphite jigs (blocks/plates) and (iii) fused quartzware (glass tubes) on the ground that they are not inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the appellant's final products viz. EPAPX, transistors and diodes which are in the nature of apparatus/equipments and hence excluded from modvat benefit in terms of the exclusion clause to Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.Duty has been demanded as follows :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. No. Description of input Period Amount (in Rs.)1. High Resolution 12-6-1988 to 87,012.16 Photomask 19-1-19902. Graphite Jigs 22-10-1988 to 1,15,599.73 31-1-19903. Fused Quartzware 31-3-1989 to 1,23,763.29 15-3-1990 A further ground for denial of modvat on fused quartzware is alleged non-declaration of this item.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Counsel submits that the role of the above 3 items...