Delhi Court February 1998 Judgments

Polar Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT688TriDel

1. Applicants filed this stay application for waiver of duty demand of Rs. 2,27,889.18.2. Learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the applicants were receiving the components of P.D. Pumps under Chapter X Procedure and on 26th Sept. 1992, a fire accident took place in the factory in which the stock of raw materials, components, finished product and statutory records were destroyed. He submitted that intimation of the fire accident was given to the respondent on 28-9-1992. He submits that the Revenue is not disputing the fact that the goods were destroyed in the fire accident. He therefore, prays that the application be allowed.3. Heard Shri D.K. Nayyar, JDR who submits that the applicant has not furnished the account as required under Rule 192 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He further submits that the applicant also received the insurance claim in respect of the goods destroyed in the fire. He also relies upon the provision of Section 35B of the Cen...

Samarpan Fabricators Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT896TriDel

1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of tailormade packaging machinery, was paying duty on approved prices. In respect of 19 contracts, it was found that the appellant had received advances ranging from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 2 lacs as against contractual price ranging from Rs. 37,000/- to Rs. 4.8 lacs, retained for a period ranging from one month to 18 months. Show cause notice was issued proposing demand of differential duty on the notional interest on the amounts of advance. Though the appellant resisted the notice, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. This order having been confirmed in appeal, the assessee has filed the present appeal.2. The Assistant Collector indicated that deposits are similar to bank loans, that it is not acceptable that the appellant did not keep the amounts in deposit in bank and in the face of such facts it was unnecessary to establish separately nexus between deposits and the price. The above approach of the original authority is not fully correc...

Z.A. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT145TriDel

1. Modvat credit of Rs. 2,30,976/- has been denied on detergent cakes supplied along with detergent powder manufactured by the appellants herein for the reason that the cake is not an input for detergent powder. Learned Consultant submits that since the value of the cake is added in the value of the detergent powder, the cake is to be treated as an input and he also relies upon Note 6 to Chapter 34 in which packing from bigger pack to smaller pack of items covered by Chapter 34 is to be treated as a process of manufacture. Learned DR submits that detergent cake is only supplied along with detergent powder and what is material is not whether there is any value addition but whether the detergent cake is an input for detergent powder. He submits that the detergent cake is an independent item by itself and is admittedly not an input for detergent powder.2. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. On a query from the Bench, the learned Consultant fairly stated that the de...

Muzaffarnagar Steels Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT707TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the order of Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut dated 18-9-1997.2. Learned Counsel stated that the appellants are manufacturer of Steel Ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; the raw material being 'waste and scrap' falling under tariff sub-heading Nos. 7203.10 and 7203.20. The appellants filed with the Assistant Collector request for grant of deemed credit in terms of the Government order dated 7-4-1986 vide their letter CE-9/2248, dated 20-6-1986 in response to which the appellants received A.C.'s letter dated 18-7-1986 giving directions not to take credit on old and used scrap of iron and steel received by the appellants.However, according to them, deemed credit was admissible on 'waste and scrap of iron and steel' as the same fell under Heading No. 72.03 of the Tariff and which was very much included in Col. (2) and (3) of the Table annexed to the Government's Order of...

B. Kishore Vs. Union Government of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ53

K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief:a) A writ of Certiorari or any other writ or proper order quashing the findings dated 1.1.1997 and concurred on 6.1.1997 by respondent No. 2 being mala fide, arbitrary, capricious and being passed having improper motive for extraneous consideration: b) A writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to initiate proceedings in the Criminal Court being offences committed by the respondent No. 5 and 6 and triable by the Criminal Courts or c) A writ of Mandamus or any other writ or proper order directing the respondent No. 1 and 3 to refer the case for Court Martial Proceedings as provided under the Air Force Act, 1950. 2. According to him, on 27.12.1996, he was attached with respondents 5 and 6 to 8 who are against the action of the petitioner. The matter was brought to the notice of Respondents 1 to 4 and some action was taken against the 5th respondent and the administrative acti...

Ramesh C. Mehta Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - These appeals, together with dispensation applications have been filed against a common Adjudication Order No. ADJ/100-101/PKA/3569, dated 27-6-1996 under which a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each has been imposed on the appellants for contravention of section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The dispensation applications were disposed of under this Boards Order of 17-3-1997. The appellants have since complied with the directions made in that order. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, these appeals are disposed of by this common order. 2. The impugned order has been made in the adjudication proceedings held pursuant to two identical Memoranda of Show Cause Nos. T-4/4-B/SDE/PKA/96/463 and 464, both dated 19-1-1996 (SCNs). The departments case as disclosed in the SCNs is that Vinod Goel and Cirila Goel, both residents of Canada, have an NRE account No. 01SBP2363900 with ANZ Grindlays Bank, M.G. Road, Bombay; that Sanjiv ...

S.L. Tagra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 72(1998)DLT97

Devinder Gupta, J. 1. Validity of Rule 25(6) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975; (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and of communications dated 22.5.1995 and 15.11.1995 issued by respondent No. 2 declining the petitioner's request to engage an Advocate as his Legal Assistant in the Departmental Enquiry initiated against the petitioner by respondent No. 1-Company is under challenge in this petition.2. The petitioner on 18.11.1994 filed Civil Writ No. 4730/94, titled as S.L. Tagra v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors., seeking quashing of memorandum dated 4.11.1993 purporting to hold disciplinary enquiry against him and further sought direction against respondent No. 1 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against respondents 2 to 7 for the alleged illegal conspiring in settling one insurance claim and causing financial loss to respondent No. 1-Company. During pendency of the said proceedings the petitioner was served with charge sheet. T...