Delhi Court October 1996 Judgments

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Falcon Tyres Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT649TriDel

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for disposal of the appeal on merits.2. The matter arises on two refund claims preferred by the respondent for a total amount of Rs. 37,026.68. Claim arises in relation to the duty paid for the period 1-11-1980 to 11-11-1980. According to the respondent, certain post manufacturing expenses were wrongly included in the assessable value and if these were deducted from the assessable value, the refund would be due. The Assistant Collector allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 23,643.00. The Collector of Central Excise directed the Assistant Collector (Legal) under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the Act) to apply to the Collector (Appeals) for determination of the points arising out of the decision of the Assistant Collector. Accordingly, Assistant Collector (Legal) filed an application which by virtue of Section 35E(4) was required to be treated as an appeal. The Collector (Appeals)...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Gwalior Rayon and Silk Mfg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT239TriDel

1. The common appellant, Collector of Central Excise, Indore, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) reversing the decisions of the Assistant Collector, has filed the present appeals.The Assistant Collector passed three separate orders rejecting three refund claims made by the respondent. The Collector (Appeals) disposed of the appeals by a common order.2. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemicals like Caustic Soda and was selling the same to different parties on the basis of contracts separately entered into with each of them. Three consignments were sent to a customer who had undertaken to pay a particular price. For certain reasons, he declined to take delivery of the goods. Respondent contacted another customer in the same town whose contract was for a lesser price and on the customer agreeing to take delivery, the consignment was sold to that customer at a lesser price.Thereafter, the three refund claims were filed alleging duty was pa...

Pragati Construction Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) raising for our consideration the solitary issue of an addition of Rs. 1,15,000 on account of three cash credits in the name of the following parties : (i) Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta Rs. 25,000 (ii) Shri Ramakant B. Banka Rs. 60,000(iii) Shri Sushil Kumar Chiranjilal Rs. 30,000 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was originally completed under Section 143(1), but set aside by the Commissioner under section 263 vide order dated 14-3-1986. In the course of the assessment proceedings pursuant to the set aside the Income-tax Officer took note of certain cash credits emanating from Bombay which included the three parties aforesaid. In addition to the aforesaid one more addition was made in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 standing in the name of Shri Shanti Kumar Dalmia, but on further appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) set aside the matter to the file of the Inco...

India Furnishers Vs. Chinar Exports Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(1)ARBLR378(Delhi); 65(1997)DLT686

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 5, 8 fell of the Arbitration Act seeking for appointment of an independent and impartial person as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arising between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 engaged the services of the petitioner for the work (if interior furnishing and renovation of Chinar Exports Ltd. situated at 7th floor of World Trade Tower, New Delhi. In respect of the same a memorandum of understanding came to be executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, a copy of which is on record. (2) Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be content if the named Arbitrator in the memorandum of understanding is also appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon and decide the disputes and differences arising .between the parties and as stated in the petition. My attention has also been drawn to the various clauses of the memorandum of u...

Hari Ram Vs. Rukmani Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)777; 64(1996)DLT662; 1997(40)DRJ808; 1996RLR522

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order dated 16.7.1979 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dismissing the appeal of the appellant and affirming the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, inter-alia, under clause (b) of the Proviso to Section 14(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act and under clause (j) of Proviso to Section 14(1) further granting one month's time to the appellant to restore the premises to its original condition and repair the damage caused to the premises and further directing that if the damage is not repaired and the premises are not restored to its original condition within the time granted, the eviction order would be deemed to have been passed on the ground covered by clause (j) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as well. As regards ground under clause (a) of the said proviso, the Trial Court had passed the requisition order for the deposit of arrears of rent from 6.3.1973 to 5.7.1973 and ...

National Fertilizers Limited Vs. Collr of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT704TriDel

1. The facts of the case in brief, as set out in the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh are, that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapters 25,28,29 and 31 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the main product being fertilizers. They hold a L-6 licence for procurement of, inter alia, raw Naphtha for intended use in the manufacture of fertilizer at the concessional rate of duty of Rs. 5/- per kilo litre in terms of Notification 75/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 at Sl. No. 2 of the table thereto. During the period December 1989 to February 1990, they had used a quantity of 2,998.445 KL of raw naphtha so obtained, in the trial runs and pre-commissioning of their new plant for manufacture of ammonia fertilizer. The Assistant Collector held that the raw naphtha used for trial runs during the period of commissioning of the plant was not entitled to the benefit of Notification above cited as such, raw naphth...

Sarabhai M. Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT540TriDel

1. The appellants in this case have challenged the Order-in-Original dated 15-3-1990 given by the Additional Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara ordering them to pay an excise duty amounting to Rs. 23,193.16 on their product 'Cycocel' and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2000/-.2. The appellants are manufacturers of Chlormequat Chloride (Cycocel) and they held a L-4 licence. They had cleared their product classifying it under the erstwhile Tariff Item 68 claiming exemption under Notification No. 234/82. After 1-3-1986 they had classified their product under Chapter sub-heading 3808.10 of the CETA, 1985. declaring the products as 'pesticides'. On information received by the Department a Show Cause Notice was issued on 18-5-1989 calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why duty of excise should not be demanded from them and penalty imposed for mis-declaring and mis-classifying their products as insecticides /pesticides falling under Chapter sub-heading 3808.10 though the...

Friends Wire Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT232TriDel

1. The rectification application filed under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 by the applicants seeks a finding from the Bench in regard to the imposition of penalty in terms of the order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. When the appeal had come up for decision before the Tribunal, a finding was given regarding the Modvat credit which had been disallowed by the lower authorities. Though this was sustained in the order of the Bench, an observation was given therein that once the erroneous payment of duty by debit to RG 23A Part n account is regularised by payment of duty from PLA, the original debit to RG 23A Part II account would stand restored to that account and would be available for being utilised by the applicants/appellants for payment of duty on their declared final products. While recording this order the plea made in the appeal for setting aside of the penalty was not considered and no finding was given. The present rectificatio...

Lt. Col. J.S. Oberoi Vs. Technology Parks Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Complainant Lt. Col. J.S. Oberoi booked an industrial plot bearing No. 270 in the Park City with the opposite party No. 1, Technology Parks Ltd., and an agreement dated 6.1.89 was signed and executed by both the parties. According to the agreement the complainant was to make payment of 40% of the total price at the time of booking and the remaining amount was to be paid in interest free monthly instalments of Rs. 782/-. Accordingly the complainant paid Rs. 26,917.20 being the 40% of the total price, at the time of booking. The total consideration of the plot was Rs. 62,565.75. The said project was monitored by the Uttar Pradesh Government and was to be implemented with great speed and it was understood that the entire project would come up within a period of 3 to 4 years.. According to the complainant till date there is practically no development in the area. The opposite parties in their communications with the complainant falsely represented that they hav...

Bharat Gears Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC179Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 1902/87-BCH, dated 4th May, 1987 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The appellants imported one Hypoid Gear Tester Model 512. They claimed it to be hypoid gear tester used for testing gears and sought its assessment at a concessional rate of duty under Notification No.49/78, which granted partial exemption among others to hypoid gear tester. This claim was rejected by the authorities below on the ground that what was imported was hypoid "Bevel Gear Tester". Hence, this appeal.3. Arguing for the appellants, the Ld. Advocate submits that the invoice describes the impugned goods as hypoid bevel gear tester Model No. 512. The same description also has been given by them in the Bill of Entry. Drawing our attention to catalogue placed in the appeal papers, he submits that catalogue describes the impugned goods as Gleason No. 2 hypoid gear tester. Notification allows exemption to hypoid gear tester. What they imported is, in fact, ...