Delhi Court September 1997 Judgments

Mittal Appliances Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT82TriDel

1. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium/Magnesium Strips, unmachined parts, aluminium circles, ingots, etc., for the manufacture of aluminium magnesium strips. They were procuring aluminium scrap from the Government of India Mint at Hyderabad and Calcutta and were availing themselves of deemed Modvat credit. The Department alleged that deemed Modvat credit was not admissible to the appellants and therefore they asked the appellants to explain as to why the deemed Modvat credit of Rs. 6,52,499/- taken by them during the period 8-8-1989 to 1-12-1989 should not be denied to them. A SCN was issued on 12-7-1994. The Collector of Central Excise after considering the submissions made before him disallowed Modvat credit and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 16,000/-. Being aggrieved by this order the appellants have filed the captioned appeal before us.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants sub...

U.P. Asbestos Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT183TriDel

1. In this stay application, the applicant is seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 2,45,265/- confirmed by the impugned order on the ground that the appellants are not entitled to remission of duty in respect of waste arising during the manufacture of final product namely, Asbestos Cement Products for the period June, 1993 to Feb., 1994 on the ground that the Rule 57D is not attracted and that the broken products cannot be considered as waste. In this case, the appellants had raised several contentions before the authorities and had also relied on several judgments of the Tribunal. However, both the authorities have not dealt with all the contentions raised including the case law which is said to apply squarely on the aspect of the matter. In that regard it is contended that both the orders are not speaking orders. It was brought to the notice of the Bench that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of India Gypsum Ltd. v. Collector of Centr...

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT152TriDel

1. The assessees were manufacturing a medicinal preparation called "Softovac". Their claim for classification under Heading 3003.30 was not accepted by the Assistant Collector who classified the same under Heading 3003.10. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the contention that even if the same was sold under a Trade name, it was an Ayurvedic medicament and set aside the lower order. The Revenue have come up in appeal against this order of the Collector.2. Shri H.K. Jain, SDR amplifying on the submissions made in the appeal memorandum stated that authoritative books show the seed of Isafgol as therapeutic material and not the husk which is the major ingredient in the contested medicine. It was argued that the major ingredients were not known in the common parlance as ayurvedic medicine nor is the product manufactured exclusively as per the formula prescribed in the Authoritative Text Books. Shri C.L. Lodha, Advocate placed before us extracts from a number of Ayurvedic Texts to show that ...

Jagajit Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT523TriDel

1. Shri T.A.S. Subramanyam, Secretary to General Manager of the appellant is present before us and asks for an adjournment. Having heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR, we do not find any justification for an adjournment.2. The only question arising for consideration relates to the interpretation to be placed on the Explanation introduced by Notification No. 191/83 dated 8-7-1983 to the Exemption Notification No. 34/83 dated 1-3-1983. Appellant engaged in the manufacture of prepared or preserved food covered by erstwhile T.I. 1B used metal containers for packing prepared and preserved food. By Notification 34/83, Government exempted prepared or preserved food packed in unit containers and ordinarily intended for sale from so much of the excise duty leviable on such goods with reference to that part of the value thereof which represents the cost of metal containers at the time of removal from the factory. In other words, excise duty referable to the cost of container would be exempt. The Expl...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Integrated Organic Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT882TriDel

1. This is a Revenue appeal arising from the Collector (Appeals) order dated 4-1-1995. In the impugned order, he has partly allowed the party's claim while he rejected the claim pertaining to invoice No.199, dated 4-7-1994 on the ground that the assessee had failed to establish that M/s. M.G. Associates are registered dealer with Central Excise department. The assessee filed a separate appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after hearing them by Final Order No.A/126/97-NB, dated 14-1-1997 had remanded that issue. The other issue which was before the Commissioner (Appeals) was with regard to accepting the invoice No. 140, dated 17-6-1994 issued by M/s. M.G.Associates as being in order on the ground that the said dealer is a wholesale dealer falling within the definition of Section 2(k) of Central Excises & Salt Act and therefore, the assessees' taking credit on invoice No. 140, dated 17-6-1994 is in order. He has held that the credit taken on invoice No. 4, dated 20-9-1994 and...

Ex. Constable Mohinder Singh and Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have made a prayer for reinstatement in service after quashing the impugned orders of removal from service passed against them by the competent authority and affirmed in appeal by the appellate.2. Briefly stated, the applicants 1 and 3 were Constables and the applicant No.2 was the Head Constable in Delhi Police. From 8.00 P.M.of 21st and till 8.00 A.M. of 22nd of April 1990, they were posted at Police Check Post, Ghazipur, within the jurisdiction of Kalyanpuri Police Station. At about 5.10 A.M., Constable Mohinder Singh was alleged to have stopped one truck coming from the direction of Ghaziabad and illegally recovered a sum of Rs. 10/- as entry fee from the truck driver with the facit consent and connivance of the Head Constable Radha Charan and Constable H. Suresh. In a common enquiry proceedings, the charges were found proved and accordingly the applicants were removed from service by...

Rahees Ahmed Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 69(1997)DLT1036

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Baldev Raj Sharma was the Senior Supervisor with the Super Bazar, Mansarover Park, Delhi. On 12th October, 1992 while he was proceeding towards the United Commercial Bank, G.T. Road, Shahdara he was way laid and was robbed of Rs. 13.263.00. Allegedly, it was the appellant and his companion who were responsible for this. Whereas the companion of the appellant was apprehended almost at the spot and the bag containing the robbed currency notes was recovered from him, the appellant was arrested later on. However, since the appellant too, like his companion, was convicted and sentenced under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, he has preferred this appeal. (2) The learned Counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal principally on the ground of identification of the appellant and I do feel that the appeal deserves to be allowed on that score. (3) As already noticed by me above, the appellant was not arrested at the spot. He wa...

A.R.C. Cement Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financia ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)135; AIR1998Delhi359; [1999]97CompCas459(Delhi); 71(1998)DLT213; 1997(43)DRJ377

A.P. Mishra, C.J.(1) The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 2.5.1996 passed in appeal by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as AAIFR), and the order dated 27.4.1995 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as BIFR) and directing the Operating Agency, namely, the Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ICICI) to prepare a fresh scheme of rehabilitation/revival of the petitioner's industry. (2) The short facts are, the petitioner set up a mini cement plant at Genial Gaon in the backward district of Dehra Dun with an investment of more than Rs. 5 crore. The petitioner is a public limited company. It started commercial production from its factory in November, 1982 and provided employment to about 400 persons. (3) Later certain petitions were filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India praying for closure of industrial and mining activity in...

Indian Tourism Development Co-operative Ltd. Vs. Airports Authority of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)286; 1997(2)ARBLR609(Delhi); 69(1997)DLT370

K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) M/S. Indian Tourism Development Cooperative Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has filed the above petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for an injunction against the M/s. Airports Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). I heard the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi for the petitioner and Mr. R. Sundravaradan Senior Counsel for the respondent for a considerable length of time. (2) The point in my view lies in a very narrow compass. It is a common ground that the contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent for a period of one year from November, 1995 to November, 1996 and such a contract was entered on 31.10.1995. In that agreement there is a provision 'this agreement shall be valid initially for a period of one year with effect from 19.11.1995. This shall be renewable for a further period of four years on satisfactory performance and mutual agreed financial terms...

Hindustan Alloys Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT559TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Hindustan Alloys Mfg. Co. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the goods described in the bill of entries as Tin Alloy Dross, Tin 53% (approx.) and Lead 30% (approx.). The Revenue was of the view that it was a lead waste and not the tin alloy dross. The appellants classified the goods under sub-heading 2620.90 of the Customs Tariff. The goods were provisionally released and the matter was further examined. The matter went up to the Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court directed the Department to complete adjudication proceedings. Show cause notices were issued to the parties and after complying with the principles of natural justice, the matter was adjudicated by the Collector of Customs, who held that the imported goods were not classifiable under sub-heading No. 2620.90 and they are classifiable as Lead Alloy Waste in respect of the three Bill of Entries and as Tin in respect of the 4th Bill of Entry. The differential duty o...