Delhi Court February 1998 Judgments

H.P. Horticultural Produce M. and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC176

1. Learned Counsel for the appellant has sent a request for adjournment on the ground that she is out of station for personal reasons. We consider that this ground for adjournment is not adequate. We reject this request. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant engaged in the manufacture of fruit juice was clearing the same on payment of duty on approved price treating the fruit juice as falling under erstwhile T.I. IB. The balance sheet and other records showed that during the period from 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1985, the appellant had realised certain amount as "service charge" besides the approved price without disclosing the same to the department. Show cause notice dated 7-11-1987 was issued proposing demand of differential duty on "Service Charge" collected invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of C.E.T. Act, 1944. Though the appellant resisted the notice, the Additional Collector confirmed the demand.3. The dealers...

India Glycols Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC358

1. This appeal pertains to non-grant of the Modvat credit in respect of the following capital goods : 2. Electrical Goods (Switch Board/Panel Boards) Switches, Electrical Capacitors) 3. Shri S.N. Sridhar, Company Secretary filed a written submissions along with a chart showing that the issue in respect of the Item Nos. 1 to 8 were covered by the following judgments:Kanoria Chemicals v. C.C.E., Allahabad -1997 (95) E.L.T. 301 (Tribunal) 3. Ashoka Synthetics v. C.C.E., Bhubhaneshwar -1997 (96) E.L.T. 190 (Tribunal) 4. Century Cements v. C.C.E., Raipur -1997 (95) E.L.T. 655 (Tribunal) 5. Modern Petrofils v. C.C.E., Baroda -1997 (96) E.L.T. 404 (Tribunal)Jaypee Rewa Cements v. C.C.E., Raipur -1997 (96) E.L.T. 167 (Tribunal)Uttam Indl. Engg. Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. 1996 (86) E.L.T. 498 (Tribunal)Mahindra & Mahindra v. C.C.E.4. In respect of Item Nos. 9 to 13, he relied on the Circular M.F.(D.R.) Circular No. 276/110/96-TRU, dated 2-12-1996. Later, the representative conceded that they are ...

Precision Gears Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC168

1. In both the appeals common question of law and facts are involved hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. In Appeal No. E/649/89, the main charge was that besides their manufacturing unit at Bombay, they also owned a wholly subsidiary manufacturing cement at Indore; that they suppressed this fact and never disclosed it to the department; that they made wilful mis-statements and also suppressed the facts about existence of subsidiary manufacturing unit wholly owned by them with an intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty, and that they wrongly availed the exemption benefit based on value of clearances separately in respect of their two factories, that in the years 1982-83 and 1986-87 they availed benefits not admissible to them, that they thereby, paid short duty and excise amounting to Rs. 3,25,494.84 during these years and hence the same is recoverable as duty paid short under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(1) of Central Exc...

Escorts Tractors Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC178

1. These appeals are directed against the common Order-in-Appeal Nos.403 to 422/90, dated 19-7-1990 passed by the Collector (Appeals) confirming the several orders passed by the Assistant Collector on 20 price lists filed by the appellant.2. Appellant, M/s. Escorts Tractors Ltd. was selling the entire production to M/s. Escorts Ltd. till 31-12-1980. With effect from 1-1-1981 appellant started selling to other wholesale dealers also, the volume of such sales being 20% and the rest was being sold to M/s.Escorts Ltd. Even during the period prior to 1-1-1981, the department was treating the two concerns as related persons and demanding duty on the basis of the prices charged by M/s. Escorts Ltd. wholesalers. This controversy was settled in favour of the appellant by the High Court of Delhi.3. The dispute in these appeals relates to various price lists effective from 1-12-1982 till 24-7-1989. During the entire period about 80% of the sales were to M/s. Escorts Ltd. and 20% to other indepen...

Pre-stressed Concrete Poles Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC325Tri(Delhi)

1. Appellant, an undertaking of the Himachal Pradesh Government was engaged in the manufacture of pre-stressed concrete poles (PCC) for supply to Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board as per contract dated 22-6-1984. Appellant paid duty on the price shown in the contract in respect of clearance effected during the period 23-11-1984 to 19-4-1986. The contract contained a clause for escalation of price. As in cases of the price of raw materials, appellant issued debit note dated 6-1-1986 for Rs. 1,10,148.45 in respect of the goods manufactured and supplied during that period. Show cause notice dated 14-9-1989 was issued to the appellant proposing demand of duty on the differential price and alleging deliberate concealment of the contract and issue of debit note with intent to evade duty. Appellant resisted the notice pleading that all along the duty on the differential price was being paid only after realisation of the differential price on the raw material and this was within the kn...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Taparia Tools Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC317Tri(Delhi)

1. Respondent engaged in the manufacture of Hand Tools and goods falling under erstwhile T.I. 51A was selling 90% of the production to wholesale dealers allowing approved discount and clearing 10% of the production to a consignment agent for Gujarat State and allowing discount equal to 4% less than the approved discount. Four percent differential discount was being paid to the consignment agent. Demand was proposed for differential duty on the element of 4%. Though the respondent resisted the notice, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. Collector (Appeals) set aside the demand by an order which disposed of three appeals. This order is now challenged by the Department.2. Single appeal will not be maintainable against common order passed by the Collector (Appeals) in three separate orders.3. Even on merits, Department has not been able to make out a case. It is true that commission paid to an agent cannot be deducted from the assessable value. In the present case 90% of the pro...

Madhukar Goel Vs. M.S. Goel

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1998Delhi257; 1998(45)DRJ238; 1998RLR516

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Petitioner has filed is No. 8099/95 alleging that with the mutual consent of the parties Sh. V.G. Baliga was appointed as an arbitrator and he made the award on 9th May, 1993. Petitioner thereafter filed petition under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act for the following reliefs:-(1) the sole arbitrator-respondent Np. 3 herein be directed to file original award in this Court and the same be made rule of the court in accordance with law. (ii) the arbitrator be directed to lodge the award for registra- tion.,2. By the order dated 4.6.93 notice was ordered to be issued to the said arbitrator to file the ward and the proceedings returnable on 29.7.93. Arbitrator sent the award by registered post on 24.7.93 and the same was received by the Registry on 26.7.93. It is further alleged that the award involves the following immovable properties:-a) Two godowns situated at Nabi Karim Delhi. b) One godown situated at Kalkaji, New Delhi. c) Three godowns situated at 10498, B...

Prayag Chand Agarwal Vs. M/S Mayur Plastics Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 72(1998)DLT1; 1998(44)DRJ667

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. This order will dispose of plaintiff's application (IA 3830/97) under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for interim injunction as well as defendant's application (IA 4408/97) under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of interim injunction granted in favor of the applicant/plaintiff. On 30.4.1997, an ex parte injunction was issued in favor of the plaintiff which order was modified to the extent that defendant was permitted to market and sell its shoes with its upper portion design even though it may be similar to the upper portion design of the plaintiff's shoes registered with No.168908 under Designs Act. However, the defendant was directed not to have the same design on the sole of its shoes as that of plaintiff's shoes.2. Mr.S.K. Bansal, learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that once the registration of design was in his favour, injunction has to follow as a natural corollary. He has further contended that no case has been made out by the defendant that there w...

C.P. Abdul Latheef Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)76; 1998CriLJ2805; 1998(45)DRJ242

1. This writ petition for habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Consti-tution of India has been moved by C.P. Abdul Latheef for issuance of writ/order or direction calling upon the respondent UOI and others to forthwith set the petitioner at liberty. It has further been prayed that the detention order dated 9.1.1997 passed under section 3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA and the declaration dated 11.2.1997 under Section 9(1) of the said Act be quashed and set aside. The facts of the case appearing from the petition and not disputed are that the impugned detention order under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA was passed against the petitioner by respond-ent No. 3 namely, State of Kerala through Shri M. Mohankumar, Additional Chief Secretary, Home and declaration under Section 9(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA was passed on 11.2.1997 by respondent No. 2 namely, Shri S.D. Mohile, Additional Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Finance.2. Besides other grounds taken by the petitioner to challenge the a...

Pankaj Kapahi Vs. Benzo Petro International Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Mr. Pankaj Kapahi, complainant for short, an NRI applied on 25.10.1994 for 40,000 shares and deposited Rs. 4.00 lacs as application money. After waiting for 10 weeks he wrote to the Registrar, opposite party (OP) No. 2. The complainant was advised to contact the Company directly as RBI had not by then given permission for allotment of shares to the complainant. The Company was addressed directly but there was no response. Legal notice dated 14.8.1995 was sent. The complainant took up the matter with SEBI and instructed Counsel to file a suit. For the purpose, he paid Rs. 11,000/- fee to the Advocate and Rs. 5,985/- for purchasing Court fee stamps. The suit was prepared by the Counsel on 8.1.1996. Two days earlier on 6.1.1998, Registered A.D. was received with 14,100 equity shares and a refund order for Rs. 2,59,000/-. In view of the receipt of the shares and refund order, the proposed suit was not ...