Delhi Court March 1998 Judgments

Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Tega India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 73(1998)DLT704

C.M. Nayar, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by which extension of time has been sought for a further period of four months to conclude the proceedings which are pending before the learned Arbitrator. The Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the matter and the proceedings continued before him as will be indicated from the orders made on 29th March, 1995 and 22nd April, 1995 which are filed as Annexure-C and D to this petition. However, as no extension of time was granted and the parties did not agree for the same before the Arbitrator, no further proceedings took place. This petition has been pending before this Court from 10th July, 1995. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that there is no valid and existing arbitration agreement between the parties and the matter could not have, thereforee, been referred to arbitration. Admittedly the Arbi...

Vinoo Bhagat Vs. General Motors (i) Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Shri Vinoo Bhagat, complainant, booked an Opel Astra white colour car with M/s. Regent Automobiles Ltd., opposite party No. 2 (OP No. 2) on 22.1.97. He gave a cheque for Rs. 7,34,244/- dated 22.1.97. The Showroom Assistant statedly assured the complainant that the fuel consumption of the car was 1012 kms. pre litre in city driving with Air Conditioner on and that the white coloured car would be delivered within 10 days. The car was not delivered within the period indicated. The complainant was persuaded to wait for longer period and ultimately informed that a red car was available. The complainant agreed to accept the red coloured car but when he went to complete the formalities to take the delivery, he was informed that a white coloured car had been arranged and he accordingly took the delivery of the same. The car was got registered as DL 3 CJ 2849. The Milometer showed that the car had run 129 kms. The complainant found some defects in the car and had a ...

Cinni Fans Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT105TriDel

1. Whether the cost of insurance charges can be included in the assessable value is an issue to be considered in this case.2. In the instant case, it was charged that the appellants have collected 0.25% of gross value from the buyers as cost of insurance charges and did not remit to the insurance companies as premium of insurance.3. It was brought to our notice that the issue involved in this case has been covered by the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.CE. v. National Winders reported 1992 (61) E.L.T.- 751. In that case, it was held that insurance charges to cover loss or damage during the transit of goods from factory to the consignee's premises being in the nature of cost of transit not to be accounted in the assessable value in terms of the Section 4 of the Act. It was also brought to our notice by the Counsel that the Supreme Court has taken a view in the case of Bombay Tyre International v. C.C.E. 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (Tri.) that insurance price charged fr...

D. Gupta Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT691TriDel

1. Shri V. Sridharan, the ld. Advocate appearing for the Applicants, at the outset submits that the Applicants were not given an opportunity of presenting their case effectively. He submitted that some dates were given by the ld. Commissioner, but since the regular Counsel of the Applicants was undergoing surgery, he had made a request for adjournment of the case to a date some time in November, 1997 as he was likely to be fit by end of October, 1997. The ld. Counsel submitted that the Commissioner in the meantime fixed 21-10-1997 as the date of hearing. He submits that, no doubt, some representatives of the Company presented themselves before the ld. Commissioner, but they simultaneously submitted a letter dated 20-10-1997 stating that their regular Counsel was undergoing surgery and was not present, they were not in a position to present their case or undertake cross-examination of the witnesses.2. The ld. Counsel submitted that there has been gross violation of the principles of na...

Collector of Customs and Excise Vs. Amrit Biscuits (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT511TriDel

1. The appellants Revenue have come in appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Jaipur wherein the common Order No. 121-C.E./JPR/88, dated 1-8-1988, he had observed as under : "Though a personal hearing was granted to the appellants on 28-7-1988, no appearance was caused. 2. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Amrit Biscuit Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur against the classification list 18/83 approved by the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Jaipur wherein the Assistant Collector allowed exemption under Notification No. 84/80 w.e.f. 22-1-1983, instead of 16-9-1982 as claimed by the appellants. On consideration of the facts of the case, I observe that the appellants filed a revised classification list only on 10-1-1983, but claimed approval with retrospective effect from 16-9-1982. I also observe that the appellants informed the Range officer Jaipur of their intention to avail the exemption under Notification No. 80/80 only on 6-12-1982. Obviously, the appellants we...

Ram Swarup Electricals Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC251

1. The short point involved in the instant appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to the Modvat credit of duty paid on the transformer oil used in the manufacture of transformers. The authorities below have denied the benefit on the ground that the transformer is not incomplete without putting the transformer oil in it and the transformer oil is a part giving functional aid in the manner of other accessories and cannot as such be regarded as input used in or in relation to manufacture of transformer which is the final product.2. Shri T.K. Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the issue has now been clarified by the Board vide their Circular No. 344/60/97-CX, dated 22-10-1997. Vide the said circular it has been laid down that the Modvat credit under Rule 57A is admissible on the transformer oil inasmuch as the value of the said oil is included in the value of the final product and the same is contained in the transformer at th...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kandivali Metal Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT18TriDel

1. In this application it has been contended that there is a mistake apparent on the face of Final Order Nos. E/397-398/97-B in as much as the Tribunal has dismissed the department's appeal with the observation that the Show Cause Notice does not contain specific allegation of wilful suppression; whereas scrutiny of the said Show Cause notice shows that the following phrase was incorporated therein :- "Whereas it appears that M/s. Kandivali Metal Works, C. P. Road, Kandivali (East), Bombay-400101, have contravened the provisions of Rule 56A of C Ex Rules, 1944, in as much as they mis-declared (emphasis supplied) the content of Aluminium in the Aluminium Dross...." 2. We have heard Shri S. Nunthuk, ld. JDR. The respondents were not present.3. In the impugned order, the Collector had made the following observation :- "In order to invoke the longer period of five years under Rule 56A there must be an allegation that credit has been allowed on account of wilful mis-statement, collusion or...

Searle (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT118TriDel

1. Both the above appeals involve a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. The details of the appeals are as under :--------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl.No.Appeal No.Period of demand Duty amount Date of show Rs. cause notice1. E/5950/92-C July 90 to Oct. 90 14,02,336 BED 29-11-1990 +70,117 SED2. E/6161/92-C 5-12-90 to 23-4-91 13,24,890.45 BED 1-5-1991 + 66,245 SED 2. The appellants herein who are manufacturers inter alia of patent and proprietary medicines manufactured CMB Acid Chloride classifiable under CET Heading 3808 on job work basis by claiming benefit of Notification No. 214/86 and cleared the product to their Unit at Ankleshwar under cover of challans prescribed under Rule 57F(2) where they were used in the manufacture of pesticides under sub-heading 3808.10 and cleared at Nil rate of duty. Since excisable goods manufactured on job work basis are exempt from payment of duty under Notification 214...

Allied Paints Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT111TriDel

1. The issue for decision in this case is the eligibility of the product described as dry distemper to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 114/73-C.E., dated 30-4-1973.2. We find, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants, that this issue has been settled by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Rako Merchantile Traders v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 522 which has been followed by the Tribunal in their own case as seen from Final Order No. 468/97-C, dated 3-9-1997. The Tribunal has held that the product is entitled to the benefit of the Notification. The order also notes the binding agent is present to the extent of less than 4%. In this appeal also there is no dispute to the claim of the appellants that the binding agent is present to the extent of less than 4%.Therefore, the ratio of the earlier orders are fully applicable and following the same, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....

Rajendra Steels Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT317TriDel

1. M/s. Rajendra Steels Limited and M/s. Rajendra Pipes Limited have filed these two stay petitions for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty imposed in the impugned order. Both these (two) Stay petitions arise out of the same order and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts leading to the present appeal and stay are that the Applicants are engaged in the manufacture of black pipes as well as galvanized steel tubes. The raw materials used by the Appellants in the manufacture of the pipes and tubes are Hot Rolled Coils (HR Coils), Cold Rolled Coils (CR Coils) and Zinc ingots. The process of manufacture of steel tubes and pipes is to take out HR Coils, slit them into regular width and thereafter forming the same into tube shape and then press at the melting machine. Some of the tubes/pipes are thereafter galvanised. The appellants identified the said coils on receipt from the market by giving running coil number and accordingly accounting for such coil in thei...