Delhi Court November 1997 Judgments

Paisa Fund Glass Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT460TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Paisa Fund Glass Works against the impugned order passed by Collector of Central Excise, Pune.2. Duty was demanded on the ground that the appellants have cleared the products Refractoryware etc. at Nil rate of duty even after crossing the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs in respect of more than one chapter heading. Further it was alleged that the appellants have failed to furnish progressive totals of exempted clearances on the RT 12 returns and also on gate passes furnished by them from time to time and failed to discharge their responsibility to start paying Central Excise duty after crossing the limits of conditional exemption.3. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, there was a request from them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri R.S. Sangia, ld. JDR for the Revenue. He reiterated the findings given by the lower authorities and submitted that since th...

Khemka and Company (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh Surana

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)821; 69(1997)DLT783; 1997(43)DRJ725

N.G. Nandi, J. (1) In this petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner (original respondent) has been challenging the legality of the decree in ejectment passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. (2) It has been contended by Mr.Anand, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act originally filed, the requirement for the minor daughter (present respondent) has not been averred and that the grounds of ejectment only suggested that the husband of the petitioner had to receive friends and associates from all over the country who come and stay with him and one guest room with the petitioner is not enough for this purpose and more accommodation was required; that the petitioner has a younger sister Smt.Prabha Sharma who has brought up and educated by the petitioner since she was six years old as the father of the petitioner died of Tuberculosis leaving behind small daught...

Vardhman Spg. and General Mills Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT369TriDel

1. This stay application is filed by the applicants for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 1,37,51,576.49 and stay of the recovery proceedings.2. Heard Shri R. Santhanam, ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants and the department was duly represented by Shri Sangia, ld.S.D.R.3. It was brought to our notice that the similar issue had come up for consideration for the earlier period in Appeal No. 2131-2135/97-D, Stay No. 930-934/97-D and the Tribunal after taking into facts and circumstances, directed party to deposit a sum of Rs. 25 lakh.4. In the present case also, the benefit in terms of Notification No.35/95, as amended, has been denied on the ground that two units were not separate but they were one and the same. The relevant notification was amended on 18-5-1995, but we find that the process was taken place bifurcating the units as well as in April, 1995 by passing a resolution and apply for a new registration in respect of the second unit in the month of May, 1995 and the sa...

Luxco Electronics Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT450TriDel

1. These two appeals involve substantially the same issue as to whether the show cause notices issued were barred by limitation as they were issued beyond a period of six months from the relevant date. We are accordingly passing this combined order disposing of these appeals after hearing both sides.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant states as far as Appeal No. E/4296/89-A is concerned, the show cause notice did not contain any charge of suppression or wilful mis-statement or any of the ingredients specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and accordingly the order confirming the duty demand raised in such a show cause notice cannot stand. In this connection, he relied on the Supreme Court decision in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. HMM Ltd. As regards the next appeal, he stated that though the show cause notice did raise allegation of suppression of facts, this allegation is not correct since they filed the invoices whe...

C.C.E. Vs. Gujarat Co-op. Oil Seeds Growers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT455TriDel

1. The above appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of vanaspati ghee falling under Sub-heading 1504.00 of the CETA, 1985 and availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty of Rs. 1900/- PMT in terms of Notification 12/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989 for goods specified against Sl. No. 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification. Since the Department was of the view that the concessional rate of duty under the above mentioned Notification was applicable to certain products of inedible grade, while the product manufactured by the respondents was admittedly of edible grade, a show cause notice demanding differential duty of Rs. 43,83,671.40 on goods cleared during the period September, 1989 to February, 1990 was issued and the Assistant Collector confirmed the duty demand. The lower appellate authority, however, set aside the order of the Assis...

Ballarpur Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT370TriDel

2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri Trideep Pais, ld. Advocate submitted that the period of dispute in this case is from 1-3-1988 to 11-4-1988 and show cause notice was issued on 20-9-1988. He submitted that prior to 1-3-1988 reel cores was classified under Heading 48.18/4818.19 and chargeable to nil rate of duty. The item was put under Tariff Heading 4822.00 from 1-3-1988 and chargeable @ 12 per cent. Subsequent to the period in dispute also further notification was issued exempting the goods. He said that in the circumstances, there was no intention on the part of the Government to levy duty as notification was issued subsequently exempting the goods. He said that apart from the merits, the demand was also barred by time, since show cause notice was issued on 20-9-1988 for the period 1-3-1988 to 11-4-1988, out of 42 days, 20 days were clearly barred by time.3. Shri H.K. Jain, countering the arguments submitted that in view of the description in the tariff in 4822.00, it was clear th...

Yomika Fabrics (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT172TriDel

1. Heard Shri Satnam Singh, ld. S.D.R. for the Revenue. The party requests to decide the case on merits.2. The issue involved in this case is whether items are entitled to benefit in terms of Notification 223/86.3. The SDPE sacks were classified under Chapter 63 of the Tariff and the department denied the benefit in terms of the aforesaid notification. It was brought to our notice that the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken the view that items SDPE sacks, etc. are classifiable under Chapter 39, as reported in the case of Raj Packwell Industries reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 201 and since then the Tribunal has been remanding the matter to the concerned authorities for de novo consideration. In view of the consistent view, we are remanding this matter to the concerned jurisdictional authorities to decide the issue afresh in the light of the verdict given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case referred to above and during the re-adjudication proceedings, the party is at liberty to ...

Wekcast Steels Ltd. Vs. Cement Corporation of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)1130; [1998]91CompCas859(Delhi); 70(1997)DLT783; 1998(44)DRJ50

K.S. Gupta, J. 1. The Cement Corporation of India Limited, respondent has filed this application under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, alleging that K. C. Sodhia was appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes relating to purchase order No. 4/81/6(14)/81 - MMO, dated June 12 1981, regarding supply of grinding media and he gave his award, dated June 30, 1992, directing the respondent to pay Rs. 1,34,283 within 30 days to the petitioner. On receipt of the notice of filing of the award, the respondent filed objections under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the aforesaid award. It is alleged that respondent is a Government company and was referred to the BIFR under section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. By a letter dated August 8, 1996, the Board has declared the respondent a sick company and the IFCI has been appointed as operating agency. It is prayed that under section...

S.P. Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - This appeal together with the application for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty has been filed against Adjudication Order No. 4/Adj/97-DD/(AKA)/779, dated 12-2-1997 under which a penalty of Rupees ten lakhs has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, on the allegation that he, as managing director of Jasai Exports (P.) Ltd., has failed to realise the proceeds of exports made under the cover of 23 GRIs as listed in Annexure A to the show-cause notice dated 15-10-1996. 2. Nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of the notice. On earlier occasions also the notice of hearing was received undelivered with the remark that the addressee out of India for unknown period. The notice of todays hearing has also been received undelivered with the remark of the postman that the addressee is not available inspite of repeated visits. It is seen that the postman had gon...

Killick Nixon Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT436TriDel

1. M/s. Pelican Paints Pvt. Ltd. manufactured paints which were marketed by their sole selling agents M/s. Killick Nixon Ltd. The paint was sold in tins which bore the logo both of Pelican and Killick. M/s.Pelican were availing of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. A show cause notice was issued on 16/23-1-1990 alleging that inasmuch as the container bore the trade name or brand name and logo of M/s.Killick Nixon who were not eligible for benefit of the aforesaid notification, by virtue of Paragraph 7 of the notification read with Explanation (viii) thereof, Pelican Paints Ltd. were not eligible to the beneift of the aforesaid notification. The show cause notice alleged that duty on goods cleared during the period 1-10-1987 to 28-2-1989 as also from 1-4-1989 to 31-7-1989 was short levied. Rule 9 and proviso to Section 11A was invoked and the allegation was also made that both M/s. Pelican and M/s. Killick Nixon were liable to penalty.After hearing both respondents, the impugn...