Delhi Court May 1998 Judgments

New Vikram Cement Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC247

1. The brief facts of this case which arises out of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise are that the appellants herein have been licenced separately to manufacture cement classifiable under Chapter 25 of the CETA, 1985. The starting raw material for manufacture of cement is lime stone which the appellants obtained from mines. The lime stone so obtained is crushed and the crushed lime stone passes through various stages and ultimately results in production of cement.It was noticed by the Revenue that the two appellants removed some crushed lime stone to one another clandestinely and without payment of duty, and hence show cause notices were issued alleging contravention of the relevant Central Excise Rules by manufacturing and removing crushed lime stone falling for classification under Heading 25.05 of the CETA, 1985 without obtaining licence, without payment of duty and without following the procedure laid down under the Rules and further seeking-to deny the benefit o...

Moonlight Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT562TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Moonlight Overseas Pvt. Ltd., the only issue.for our consideration is the imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- imposed in respect of the import of brass ingots which were found mixed in the consignment declared to contain brass scrap. The Collector of Customs, Kandla, had imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and has imposed no penalty.2. We have heard Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR for the respondents/Revenue.3. There is no dispute on the facts. The goods imported were declared to be brass scrap. On examination, it was found that the consignment contained 1 M.T. of brass ingots. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate had submitted that the total consignment was about 20 M.T. and that the quantity of the brass ingots was only 5% of the total consignment. He had also pleaded that there was no mala fides and they had placed orders only for the brass scrap. He also referred to the provisions of Section 125 of the Custo...

Popular Iron and Steel Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT178TriDel

1. After hearing the stay application for some time, it appeared that the final appeal, itself, could be heard and disposed of. With the consent of both sides, unconditional stay was granted and the main appeal taken up for disposal.2. Section 3A of the Central Excises Act, 1944, empowers excise duty to be levied on the basis of capacity of production in respect of goods notified thereunder. In exercise of the powers conferred under this section, the Central Government made "Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997"; amended later vide Notification 45/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-8-1997. These rules, inter alia, prescribed a formula for determination of the annual capacity of a mill. The formula is reproduced below : "Annual Capacity (in metric tonnes) = 1.885 x 10.4 x d x n x ix e x w x Number of utilised hors. Where: d = Nominal diameter of the finishing mill in millimetres, n = Nominal revolutions per minute (RPM) of the deive. i = Reduction ratio of the gea...

Hindustan Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT32TriDel

1. By Order-in-Original dated 5-6-1996 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad, the present appellants were denied Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 29,98,387 on inputs, Fibre re-inforced plastic rods, (F.R.P.) classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3916.90, and used in the manufacture of their final products, Optical fibre cable, classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8594.00. Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 on them.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of optical fibre cable classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8594.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They also availed credit of specified duty paid on inputs.Appellants imported one of the inputs, namely, fibre reinforced plastic rods (F.R.P. rods) in 21 'skids' amounting to 1035 Kms. of FRP.According to the Department appellants had entered the quantity in their RG 23A Part I as 500 Kms. The Department alleges that the said quantity was never taken by the appellants in the stock of inputs ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Srf Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT681TriDel

1. The above reference application has been filed in terms of Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for reference of the following questions of law said to be arising out of the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/478/97-NB, dated 15-4-1997: (i) Whether the credit of duty paid on the inputs used in products which are captively consumed and are exempted from the whole of the duty of excise under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. can be allowed to the assessee? (ii) Whether the credit can be allowed to the assessee when the assessee has not declared the final products in their declaration filed under Rule57G? 2. The brief facts leading up to the filing of the application are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of chlorofluro hydrocarbons of methane (fluoron 11 and fluoron 12) classifiable under CET sub-heading 2903.10, and mixture of fluoron 11 and fluoron 12 classifiable under CET sub-heading 3823.00, and were availing Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs us...

instrumed (India) International Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The first ground relates to confirmation of the disallowance of commission payment of Rs. 1,54,385 made by the assessee to one Ajay Kumar Gupta.1.1. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of three partners, namely, Sameer Kapoor (33 per cent), Sushant Kapoor (33 per cent) and Ajay Saxena (34 per cent). The firm deals in supply of medical/surgical equipments and instruments to medical institutions and hospitals, etc.The assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 1,27,590 on 31st August, 1989. The transitional previous year covered the period of 21 months starting from 1st July, 1987, to 31st March, 1989. The assessee claimed deduction of an amount of Rs. 1,54,384 as commission paid to one Ajay Kumar for procuring a contract for supply of surgical goods of Cimmco International (for short 'Cimmco") and also for guaranteeing timely payments from the said customer. The AO disallowed the said commission in view of the elaborate reasons mentioned in the assessment order. Th...

Satwant Singh and anr. Vs. Allied Beverages Company Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)188; 74(1998)DLT429

ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. This order shall dispose of IAs 7776/97, 8000/97, 3798/98 & 3333/98 for all the applications are inter-connected.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff No.1 claims himself to be the Chairman and Managing Director of Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Limited ('PDND' for short). Two plaintiffs seek following reliefs against defendant No.1 Allied Beverages Company Pvt. Ltd. ('ABCL' for short) and defendant NO.2 Cadbury Schweppes Beverages India (P) Ltd. ('CSBL' for short):a. pass a decree of declaration declaring that any arrangement/agreement entered into between CSBIL and Allied Beverages permitting Allied Beverages to manufacture/fill the Products in the Territory is in breach, inter alia, of Clause 2 of the Agreements dated 17th/22nd November, 1994 entered into between PDND and CSBIL; b. pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining CSBIL, its servants and or agents from supplying any concentrate to Allied Beverages so that Allied ...

Uni Steel Corporation Vs. M/S. Skoda Export Co. Ltd., and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)543; 74(1998)DLT469; 1998(46)DRJ528

J.B. Goel, J. 1. By this order two applications is No. 10166/97 of the plaintiff (Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2) and is No. 11537/97 of the defendant No.1 (Under Order 39 Rule 4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code') are being disposed of.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and injunction against invocation of performance bank guarantee given by the defendant No. 2 on behalf of the plaintiff in favor of defendant No. 1 in the sum of Rs. 7.60 lakhs (being Bank Guarantee No.43/95).3. Briefly the facts are that the work of laying of pipelines known as Kandla-Bhatinda Pipelines Project had been awarded by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (for short IOCL) to the Consortium of defendant No. 1. The latter in turn had awarded a sub-contract for supply of various steel pipes of different dimensions, length, materials, standards and class to the plaintiff, perhaps after inviting quotations and the terms and conditions for the supplies, delivery period and manner of payme...

Parmali Wallace Limited Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)335; 75(1998)DLT413; 1999(49)DRJ41

S.N. Kapoor, J.1. By this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the 'Act' for short), the petitioner company seeks (i) declaration that the respondent Railways cannot withhold, adjust and/or recover the petitioner/claimant's dues in other contracts vide their letter No. AS/S/O/Recovery dated 9th July, 1996, (ii) an injunction re-straining respondent Railways not to effect recovery and (iii) a mandatory injunction directing the respondent Railways to forthwith pay the amounts due to the petitioner/claimant in certain bills, of course, in other con-tracts.2. According to the petitioner, two purchase orders dated 10th June, 1991 and 2nd July, 1991 were placed on petitioner. The first order was for the supply of 1030 Nos. FRP Glass Shutter arrangement for BEML Coaches to item 1 to 12 except item 8 of RDSO SK No. 85166 alt.(1) Mat. & Specn. as per drg. and part drg. mentioned thereon conforming to RDSO schedule of requirement No. C-8411 a...

Kuldip Singh Suri Vs. Surinder Singh Kalra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)469; 76(1998)DLT232; 1999(48)DRJ463; 1999RLR20

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a suit for specific performance and possession.The dispute between the parties relates to property No.B-1/16, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The property is built upon plot measuring 600 sq. yards. The land belongs to the President of India. According to the plaintiff, the lease of this land along with some other plots of land were granted by the President of India in favor of the Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the society). The plaintiff is a member of this society. By a tri-partite agreement (hereinafter called the sub-lease agreement) dated April 1, 1969, executed between the President of India (the lessor), the society (the lessee) and the plaintiff, the sub-lease of the above said plot was granted in favor of the plaintiff for a period of 99 years. As per clause 6 of the sub-lease agreement, the sub-lessee was not to sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any ...