Delhi Court April 1996 Judgments

Mangal Chand Tubes (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above appeal arises out of the order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur confirming a duty demand of Rs. 3,89,508.13 p on the ground that the appellants were manufacturing shells and blanks of copper falling under T.I. 26A (4) upto 28-2-1984 and falling under TI 26A (1) thereafter during the period 1-3-1981 to 8-7-1983 without discharging duty liability and using them further in the Captive consumption of tubes, bars and rods falling under T.I. 26A.In addition, he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,500/- upon the appellants.2. We have heard Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri M. Jayaraman, learned DR for the Revenue. We note that on 1-11-1989, Notification 54/89 is issued under the provisions of Section 11C reading as under: "Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that according to a practice that was generally prevalent regarding levy of duty of excise (including non-levy thereof) under Section 3 of the Central Excises a...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Ludhiana Bottling Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT671TriDel

1. The captioned appeals are directed against the order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals), in his order, had held : "I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant in the appeal memorandum and also during the course of personal hearing. In these cases, Modvat credit facility on aerated water was withdrawn on 1-10-1987 vide Notification No. 203/87 and the appellants had some stock of inputs lying with them on 30-9-1987 which they had already availed Modvat facility. Therefore, the issue for decision before me is whether the credit once taken can be reversed in the event of a particular input being deleted from the specified categories of the inputs. On close reading of Rule 56A, it is quite clear that there is nothing in Rule 56A or under the Modvat rules which authorises Revenue to demand back the credit amounting in a case of the nature under reference. When credit has been utilised for payment of duty without any irregularity it cannot be taken back ...

Shiv Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT71TriDel

1. Being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner, Central Excise, the appellants have filed the present appeal. The Commissioner in his order had held that credit of duty under Modvat scheme amounting to Rs. 24,785/- was wrongly taken by the appellants. The Commissioner, therefore, ordered the recovery of this amount under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed on the appellants.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tractor parts. They procured a number of items for manufacture of these parts on the items procuring from outside, the appellants were availing credit of duty under Modvat scheme on the inputs. The Department alleged that during the year 1992-93, the appellants had taken Modvat credit of Rs. 1,46,788/- and cleared 12,588 nos. of tractor parts. Duty on 10,084 nos. was paid on GPI where as 2,504 nos. were cleared without payment of duty under Notification No.239/86...

Polyfab Packaging Indus. (Pvt.) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT406TriDel

1. Arguing on behalf of the appellants Shri B. V. Doshi, Ld. Consultant submitted that in the instant case demand for the period from 1981 to December 1988 was raised vide Show Cause Notice dated 18-8-1984, that is to say, beyond six months. He took us through the impugned order-in-original wherein the Ld. Collector herself has held that the demand is time-barred, "however, the party can be asked to pay voluntarily the amount of duty involved". He submitted that since there was utter confusion regarding the interpretation of the Notification No. 105/80 no question of imposing any penalty arises.2. In reply Shri A. K. Madan, ld. SDR, has nothing to comment in view of the express findings of the Collector regarding the appellants to pay duty voluntarily. However, he submitted that penalty be maintained.3. Considered. Since the Collector has herself found the demand time-barred and there is no provision under the law to ask the assessee to pay duty voluntarily we set aside the demand. We...

V.S.L. Alloys India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT554TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the Order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 5-12-1995. The short facts leading to the issue are as follows :- 1. M/s. V.S.L. Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. had taken credit of the duty paid on the inputs received under original copy of the manufacturer's invoices issued under Rule-52 A during the months of April, July and August, 1994. After issuing two show cause notices, the Asstt. Collector held that such Modvat credit taken by the assessee was inadmissible and directed them to deposit the amount of Rs. 68,728.47. The Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, upheld the order giving rise to the present appeal.2. The ld. Advocate stated that the second copy of the various invoices accompanying the inputs were detained at the barrier by the Trade Tax Authorities. The appellants, therefore, had to take the Credit on the original copies. Citing the provisions of Notification No. 15/95-CE (NT) dated 30-3-1994, the learned Advocate argued that this notification, which spec...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shri D.D. Gupta, Presiding Officer and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ610; [1996(74)FLR2109]; (1997)ILLJ808Del

1. By this order I will be disposing of batch of seven writ petitions being C.W.P. No. 186 of 1976, C.W.P. No. 1269 of 1976. C.W.P. No. 1292 of 1976, C.W.P. No. 1293 of 1976, C.W.P. No. 1294 of 1976, C.W.P. No. 1295 of 1976 and C.W.P. No. 1296 of 1976 since common questions are arising in all these writ petitions. In all these writ petitions Delhi Transport Corporation is the petitioner. The said Corporation is a Motor Transport Undertaking within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 which has been enforced in Delhi w.e.f. February 1, 1962. Section 2(g) of the said Act reads as under : '2(g). 'Motor transport undertaking means a motor transport undertaking engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward, and includes a private carrier'. 2. Under the said Act the term 'Motor Transport Worker' is also defined in Section 2(h) which reads as under : '2(h). 'Motor transport worker' means a person who is employed in a motor transport...

Prime Channel Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT223; 1996(37)DRJ377

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the third respondent dated March 26, 1996. By that order, the petitioners were directed to complete the Seriall 'Chandrakanta' in four episodes and the last episode of the Seriall to be telecast on April 21, 1996. The first petitioner claims to be a software production organisation and is owned by the second petitioner. The first respondent is the Union of India in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, while the second and the third respondents are the Director General, Doordarshan, and the Controller of Programmes, Office of the Director General, Doordarshan, respectively. On October 21, 1993 the second respondent permitted the first petitioner to telecast the Seriall 'Chandrakanta' on Sundays at 9.00 A.M. from January 23, 1994. The Seriall was approved for 26 episodes to be shown at the aforesaid Prime Time. On April 10, 1994, at the request of the petitioners for rescheduling of the Ser...

Sadhna Gupta Vs. University of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(39)DRJ574

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This case also pertains to the selection of the three persons who were to be selected to the post of Lecturer in Applied Psychology in Sri Aurobindo College (Evening). The said selection was challenged in another connected case, being Civil Writ Petition No.893 of 1996 titled as 'Dr.Siddhant K. Mishra v. University of Delhi & Others'. I have already upheld the selection and dismissed the Writ Petition of that petitioner. The controversy which is sought to be raised in the present case is also similar to the one decided by me in the aforesaid Writ Petition and relates to the constitution of same Selection Committee and the selection, which has already been held to be properly constituted and selections made have already been upheld by me. This case is accordingly covered by the decision in Civil Writ Petition No.893 of 1996. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition also fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs....

Charles Sobhraj Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)550; 1996CriLJ3354; 63(1996)DLT91

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) In a case bearing First Information Report No. 139 of 1989 under Sections 224 and 328 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000.00 with two sureties in the like amount. This was on January 10,1990. In April, 1990, the petitioner moved Cr. M.(M) 824 of 1990 praying that either he be released on personal bond or the bail amount and the number of sureties be reduced. Consequent thereupon, on December 13, 1990 the Court directed release of the petitioner on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000.00 with one surety in the like amount. This order was followed by Crl. Misc. 1112 of 1996. It is that application which is the bone of contention and which has led to this order. (2) The petitioner now prays that as the trial is likely to consume a few more years and as he is a foreigner with nobody known to him in Delhi, he may be permitted to deposit a cash s...

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Inter-ocianic Plastic

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT88TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. SKM-195/89-BI, dated 20-2-1989 of Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). The issue that falls for determination is whether products known as 'sequins' made from PVC Films are eligible to exemption under Notification No. 53/88, dated 1-3-1988.2. Arguing for the Revenue, ld. DR submits that sequins are classifiable under Chapter 3926.90 and there is no doubt on this issue.He, however, [contends] that these items are not eligible to exemption under Rule No. 39 of Notification No. 53/88 since these goods are made from PVC Film and not from material falling under Heading No. 39.01 to 39.15 of CETA, 1985. A condition specified under [Heading] 26 of the Notification the PVC Film from which sequins are made are classifiable under Tariff Item 39.20 and, therefore, these items do not fall under any of the Heading from 39.01 to 39.15. No exemption is admissible. In support of his contention, he cites the case reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 474.3...