Delhi Court May 1997 Judgments

Vijayaprakash Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT78TriDel

1. Arguing for the appellants, Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the following issues are involved in this case :- (1) Whether cost of bought out items is to be included or not in the assessable value; (3) Deductions as envisaged under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act; and He submitted that the appellants M/s. Vijayaprakash Industries are manufacturers of machineries which were classified under T.I. 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff and under Chapters 82 and 84 of the new Central Excise Tariff and were availing exemption under Notification No. 77/85, dated 17-3-1985.2. It was submitted by him that the appellants in reply to the show cause notice have specifically stated that they have purchased goods namely Bearings, Gearwheels, Pulleys, Rollers, Vacuum Pump, Ridge Presses etc. valued at Rs. 12,32,500/- which were supplied along with the manufactured goods. He submitted that some of the items are essential and integral part of the machinery which are to be included but othe...

Koyna Cement Vastu Nirmiti Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT213TriDel

1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing but sent a request for decision on merits. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of pipes and undertakes contracts for manufacture and supply of pipes and transport and laying of pipe lines according to the schedule of the buyers. The dispute relates to six different contracts. Appellant had filed price lists showing the assessable value of the pipes and the value referable to transport and laying of pipe lines separately and claiming deduction of the latter value and the price lists have been approved. Pipes were being cleared after paying proper duty and after approving assessable value.3. Subsequently it was discovered that towards the cost of transportation and joining of pipes and laying pipe lines appellant incurred expenditure less than the corresponding figures shown in the price lists and thus failed to determine the duty liability on account of pipes transported...

B.T. Steels Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT130TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. B.T. Steel Ltd. challenging the imposition of tax penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on them by the Collector Central Excise, Chandigarh by his order dated 30-8-1994.2. Appearing for the appellants Shri Kulvinder Singh, Adv. submitted that the Department had alleged that the appellants had wrongly availed Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,06,990/- on a quantity of 206.990 MT of M/s. Steel Scrap on the basis of documents, which were allegedly bogus/fake or fictitious. The Department had also alleged that the endorsed gate passes shown as duty paying document had been issued by non-existent units or issued in favour of non-existing firms. The appellants were therefore charged with failure to take reasonable steps as contemplated under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Rules and the explanation appended thereto in as much as they had failed to satisfy themselves about the identity and bona fides of the manufacturers and suppliers. Ld. Advocate submitted tha...

Tricky Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT158TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Trichy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., the order-in-appeal dated 30-9-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, is under challenge.2. Before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, two issues; one relating to classification and the other relating to limitation had come up for consideration. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had stated that the issue regarding classification had already been decided by the order-in-appeal No. 39 to 41 /88 (T), dated 29-4-1988 (Appeal Nos. 3 to 5/88 (T)) in which it had already been held by him that the subject goods i.e. Buffer Plungers and Buffer Casings were classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 8607 of the Tariff. With regard to limitation also, he had held that the demand could be raised for a period within six months from the date of the show cause notice.The quantum of the demand of duty was also disputed by the appellants and the same was also found unsubstantiated by the appel...

Ram Piyare Satish Kumar and ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessees in all these appeals are carrying on their business as wholesale dealers of cloth in Shori Market, Rohtak.2. The President, Rohtak wholesale Cloth Merchant Association, Rohtak submitted application dt. 8th January, 1997 before the Tribunal stating that appeals in the cases of various dealers of cloth of Shori Market, Rohtak involving consideration of similar grounds based on identical facts may be consolidated and heard together. It was also stated in the said application that the main order in such group of cases has been passed by the learned CIT(A) in the case of Ram Piyare Satish Kumar (ITA No. 361/Del/1994), which has been followed by him in the similar appeals of other dealers. All these appeals were, therefore, consolidated and heard together.Facts relating to the main grounds in all these appeals and the findings given by the Departmental authorities thereon.3(a). The facts relating to the main grounds raised in all these appeals are as under : The Investigati...

Than Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)231; 67(1997)DLT519; (1997)IILLJ436Del

Devinder Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was a Vaccinator Inspector in Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He has approached this Court against the impugned act of the respondent in withholding retiral benefits including Pension, Provident Fund, Leave, Salary, Group Insurance and C.D.S. Amount. 2. The facts in brief are that on October 27, 1990 the petitioner was appointed as Vaccinator and was promoted on September 26, 1972 as Vaccinator Inspector. On July 27, 1990 an application, Annexure A, was submitted by him seeking voluntary retirement with effect from October 27, 1990. It is the petitioner's case that during the period of July 27, 1990 to October 27, 1990, the respondent did not communicate to him refusal of his request for voluntary retirement from service. As such, in terms of the provisions of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, the notice for voluntary retirement will be deemed to have been accepted by the respondent-Corporation and the petitioner will be deemed to have retired with e...

Rajiv Aggarwal Vs. Om Prakash Soni

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)985; 67(1997)DLT783; 1997RLR379

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Petitioners sought eviction against the respondent herein basing their claim on the fact that they purchased the tenanted property consisting of three bed rooms, kitchen, bath, balcony and open terrace i.e. the entire first floor with the facility of staircase. Tenanted property was purchased by the petitioners jointly vide registered sale deed dated 13th August, 1990. After the lapse of statutory period of five years provided under the Act the petitioners sought eviction of the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement. That the petitioner No. 1 had been residing in a rented accommodation. The petitioner No. 2 had been living in the house of his father on which he had no legal right. Both the petitioners have no other suitable alternative residential accommodation available to them in Delhi. In the tenanted premises they have got mezzanine floor consisting of one hall and one small store. Except the mezzanine floor the petitioners have no other accommodation....

Mast Ram Vs. Suresh Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)517; 68(1997)DLT362; 1997RLR475

Usha Mehra, J. (1) The respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar, sought eviction against the present petitioner, on the ground of bonafide requirement. This prayer was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) vide the impugned order dated 1st April, 1995. Petitioner herein felt aggrieved by the impugned order because according to him the respondent was not the owner of the premises nor filed any title document to prove his ownership. In the absence of which his petition ought to have been dismissed. Moreover, by family settlement, the respondent could not become the exclusive owner. After the demise of his father, his brothers became co-owners of the property in question. Even his father was not the owner nor any title deed in the name of his father produced. In the absence of ownership proof there was no question of inheritance by the respondent of this property nor by the purported family settlement respondent could inherit the property. Reliance by the learned Arc on the alle...

Shree Acids and Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT114TriDel

1. This is a stay application filed w.r.t. the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants have been denied Modvat benefit on account of procedural and technical deficiencies in the document produced and taken into account for taking the benefit. There is no dispute that the goods were not duty paid or not declared or were not utilised in the manufacture of declared product and were even otherwise eligible for the benefit of Modvat.3. The defects are of a minor nature and remediable and the facts verifiable.4. Moreover, in respect of one of the document, an amendment to Rule 57GG has been relied upon which was not even in force during the relevant period but had been introduced subsequently.5. Furthermore a penalty has also been imposed even though they were not responsible for the defects which have been pointed out. In the circumstances he would request for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount.6. Ld DR opposed the prayer s...

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Nettur Technical Training

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT732TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 31-8-1988 passed by the Collector (Appeals) allowing the application (Appeal) filed by the Assistant Collector on the direction of the Collector (Appeals) against the order passed by the Assistant Collector dropping the proceedings initiated by two show cause notices dated 5-9-1985 and 9-2-1986.2. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of components on orders placed by customers. For this purpose, appellant manufactures moulds and dies and ultimately tools according to the specification and designs supplied by the customers. The moulds, dies and tools are ultimately returned to the customers who have paid development cost of the same. Show cause notices alleged that the cost of tools, moulds and dies are exclusive of the cost of components manufactured and supplied to their consumer industries. The show cause notices further alleged that the invoices charging the cost of tools, moulds and dies are not sent together with the re...