Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(74)ELT603TriDel
1. Both these appeals involving the similar issue were taken up together and are being disposed of through this common order.2. In case of E/166/91-NRB, the appellants have been denied modvat credit on base paper, printing ink and medium used in the manufacture of packing material for the biscuits. Similarly, in case of Appeal No.E/4304/91-NRB, appellants have been denied modvat credit on TDL Poster Paper, Glas-sine paper, printing ink, H.R. Media Ethyl/Butyl Acetate, Wax Poly Granules etc. used for printing and waxing of packing material.3. Being aggrieved with the order of Collector (Appeals), the appellants have came up through these appeals before the Tribunal.4. Ld. Advocate for the appellant Shri Harbans Singh submitted that eligibility of modvat on such inputs has been upheld in a number of decisions. He cited the cases of Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CCE 1993 (67) E.L.T. 980 (Tribunal], East End Paper Industries Ltd. v. Collector 1989 (43) E.L.T. 201 (SC), Parle Products Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(74)ELT677TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of Order-in-Appeal No. 42/CE/KNP/91, dated 16-4-1991 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad upholding the order of Assistant Collector of Central Excise Kanpur confiscating 12.530 MT of steel ingots but releasing the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1000/- and also imposing penalty of Rs. 500/- on the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots and rolled products in their Steel Foundry at Kanpur. On 30-1-1984 the Central Excise Officers visited the appellants' steel foundry for stock checking of steel ingots and other products. The RG 1 register shows 507.680 MT of steel ingots reflecting an excess of 35.630 MT. Its production of 23.100 MT of steel ingots was yet not entered in the RG 1 register. The officer estimated the stock of steel ingots by taking 50 pieces of steel ingots and weighed them in three lots. On the basis of weight of three lots so ascertained the total weight of stock on an avera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994(31)DRJ153
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Parties entered into an agreement. The said Agreement contained an arbitration clause. Pursuance thereto, in case of disputes and difference, the aggrieved party could invoke the provision of arbitration clause. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the deductions made by the respondent invoked the arbitration clause. The persona designata appointed Shri R.K.Gupta, respondent No.2 as the sole arbitrator. The said arbitrator after hearing the petitioner and respondent No.1 made and published his award dated 6th August,1990. The petitioner filed an application under Section 14 read with Sections 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter called as 'Act') asking that the said award be filed by respondent No.2 and thereafter be made rule of the Court. (2) Pursuance to the notice issued by this Court, the arbitrator filed his award. Notice of the filing of the award was issued to the parties. Petitioner chose not to file objections. However, respondent/ Uoi has file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 55(1994)DLT683
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petitioner had entered into a works contract with therespondent. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the same were referred to adjudication by arbitration. The Arbitrator has given his award dated 30.6.1989.On the award having been filed in the Court, proceedings for making it a rule of the Court were initiated. The parties were noticed. The respondent Union of India has filed its objections to the award. The controversy raised is confined to the award made by the Arbitrator under claim No. 4.(2) The petitioner had claimed an amount of Rs. 40,000.00 under Clause 10-C of the Contract on account of increase in labour rates. The Arbitrator has given a reasoned award. The gist of his finding is summarised in the next para.(3) According to the Arbitrator, the document Exhibit C-30, which is a notification dated 25.4.73, proves the statutory increase in wages. Tender was accepted on 23.6.1973. The increase had taken place prior to acceptance of the tender but ...
Tag this Judgment!