Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments

inder Wire Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT184TriDel

1. In this case a penalty of Rs. 26,842/- equivalent to the amount of duty on goods cleared by the appellants on 20th March, 1996 has been imposed on the ground that the appellant had cleared the said goods without sufficient balance in their PLA.2. Appellants case on the other hand is that the Bank Draft has been deposited by the appellant in the authorised Bank i.e., Punjab National Bank, Ghaziabad on 20th March, 1996 itself. But by mistake the Bank Authorities gave the date as 21-3-1996 when the challan was actually handed over on 21st March, 1996. In support of this plea Id. Advocate has drawn the attention of the Bench to a certificate from the Bank (at page 16 of the paper book) which substantiates the plea of the appellants. The certificate, I find, was also produced before the lower appellate authority. Yet the lower appellate authority has discarded the certificate of the Bank on the ground that TR-6 Challan, which shows the date of receipt of the Bank Draft, being a statutor...

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Beico Electrical Insulators P.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT523TriDel

1. The issue of classification of the product "electrical grade insulating paper (film backed)" arises for consideration in these four appeals filed by the Revenue which is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad confirming the classification under CET sub-heading 4811.30 as "paper and paper board coated, impregnated or covered with plastic (excluding adhesive)" and extending the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988.According to the Revenue the product is electrical insulator and hence falls for classification under CET Heading 85.46 covering "electrical insulators of any material".2. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, learned SDR and Shri Nikhil Sanghvi, Director of the respondent company.3. One of the reasons put-forth by the lower appellate authority for holding that the product is classifiable under Chapter 48 is that the goods are in running length which is in contrast to insulators which have fixed dimensions. The other rea...

M.A. Prestressed Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT741TriDel

2. The applicant/appellant herein availed a Modvat credit of Rs. 24,090 on the strength of invoices without printed SI. Nos. issued by a dealer as required under Sub-rule 57GG of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Ld. Chartered Accountant Shri O.P. Agarwal has submitted that this is only a procedural lapse. The duty paid character of the goods is not denied and therefore, the Modvat credit should not have been denied to the appellants. He further submits that in any case Notification 32/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994 prescribing an invoice issued by registered dealer as a valid document for taking Modvat credit does not indicate that it should bear printed SI. Nos. All it stipulates is the invoice should contain the details as are prescribed under Rule 57GG of the said rules. Rule 57GG, he submits, as the title of the said rule suggests, is merely an accounting procedure and therefore, of a procedural character. The procedural lapse he submits should not disentitle an assessee of a substan...

Bhartiya Ispat Udyog Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT183TriDel

1. Ld. Chartered Accountant Shri O.P. Agarwal prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay on recovery of Rs. 36,356.20 denied to the appellant/applicant as Modvat credit. The applicants have initially applied for taking the Modvat credit under Rule 57A after filing the declaration under Rule 57G. The authorities directed that Modvat credit under Rule 57A will not be available on rolls for Rolling Mill because, these are part of the machinery. The appellants, therefore, following the said direction, filed a declaration under Rule 57Q read with Rule 57T and the Modvat credit was regularised under Rule 57Q. However, on appeal by the Revenue on the directions of the concerned Commissioner the lower appellate authority have denied the Modvat credit. Hence this appeal by the applicants.2. He submits that in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances the Modvat credit is admissible under Rule 57A in view of Tribunals judgment of Larger Bench [in the case of Union Carbide India Limited v.Coll...

Rama Bangia and ors. Vs. M/S. Pushpa Builders Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)304; [1999]95CompCas318(Delhi); 1998CriLJ4385; 1998(4)Crimes444; 1998(47)DRJ41

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. By this revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the petitioners call in question the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 22 August 1996, whereby petitioners' complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'), pertaining to cheques No. 510519, 510520 & 510521 was summarily dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation.2. Since the question falling for consideration in this petition is a pure question of law, it is unnecessary to state the facts, which led to the filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The short question for consideration is whether after the dishonour of a cheque, it is open to the payee to re-present it repeatedly, within the period of its validity, and if the cheque is dishonoured again, issue a notice of demand under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act and in case of default in making payment as demanded, file a complaint on the basis of the fresh cause o...

Geeta and Another Vs. Lt. Governor and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000ACJ109; 1998VIAD(Delhi)380; 1999CriLJ1099; 75(1998)DLT822; 1998(47)DRJ648

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a petition whereby the petitioners claim compensation from the respondents on account of the death of Sonu, husband of the first petitioner and son of the second petitioner, in police custody. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :- 2. One Deepak Deepu, an accused in case FIR No. 364/96 under sections 24/54/59 of the Arms Act, escaped from the custody of the police party belonging to police station Sarojini Nagar. A case FIR No. 374/96 under section 224 IPC was registered against him at Police Station Sarojini Nagar. It is not disputed that police party belonging to Police Station Sarojini Nagar picked up deceased Sonu, brother of accused Deepak, on August 29, 1996. On the next day, viz., August 30, 1996 the dead body of Sonu was brought to the casualty of Safdarjung Hospital by the staff of Police Station Sarojini Nagar. The body bore fifty-one injuries. These facts are not denied by the respondents. Rather they have been admitted in th...

Rameshwar Dutt Sharma Vs. Chandu Lal Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 75(1998)DLT363; 1998(47)DRJ473

C.M. Nayar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Order passed by Shri M.A.Khan, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The learned Judge allowed the appeal of the respondent landlord under the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and passed an order of eviction giving six months time to vacate the premises.2. The appellant Rameshwar Dutt Sharma is a tenant in a portion of the property No.W.Z.-72, Sri Nagar, Shakurbasti, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs.60/- besides Rs.10/- for electric charges and Rs.5/- for water charges. The respondent filed an eviction petition under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(e) of the Act. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition and held that the respondent had not made out a case under either of the provisions. The plea for bona fide requirement for additional accommodation was, thereforee, rejected. The Appellate Court examined the contentions of the parties for grounds of eviction under the pro...

Kewal Krishan Ahuja Vs. Jagdip Singh and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that a single storyed house built on a plot of 288 sq.yards bearing Municipal No. C-9, Malviya Nagar belonged to one Jesna Ram. On his death, his wife Smt. Jamuna Devi became the owner. Smt. Jamuna Devi sold the house to Jagdip Singh by sale-deed dated 4.7.1985. The house had three shops opening on the main road on the southern side of the house. Except for one store room about which we will revert a little later, the other portions were in occupation of different tenants. In one of the front shops there was electric connection K. No. (sic.) 782335 since the time of the previous owner. The same had been disconnected on 2.9.1995, apparently on account of non-payment of charges due to DESU. After purchase of the house Jagdip Singh made an application on 19.12.1985 for restoration of the said electric connection and for shifting the same to the back portion of the building. On the same date he deposited Rs. 185/- and another sum of ...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Arogya Pharma

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT454TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) extending the benefit of Notification 175/86 to the respondents herein on the ground that the brand name affixed upon the P or P medicines cleared by them belonged to a Unit which was registered as a SSI Unit viz. M/s Mayo Health Care P. Ltd. The ground of grievance is that although the registration of Mayo Health Care was only w.e.f. 7-7-1989 (the date of SSI certificate) the benefit has been extended to the respondents for the period 1988-89 i.e. for the period prior to the date on which the brand name owner became eligible to the benefit of Notification 175/86 by getting registered as an SSI Unit.2. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR and perused the records.None appeared for the respondents since the notice issued to them at the address indicated in the papers before us, has been returned undelivered.3. We find that the Collector (Appeals) while noting the date of registration o...

Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT145TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the impugned Order No. 85/Collr./94, dated 27-7-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. The expenses incurred by the dealer on account of pre-delivery inspection and the three free services on behalf of the manufacturer is includible in the assessable value and advertisement expenses incurred by the dealer to promote the market of gensets of the appellants under joint publicity scheme should be included in the assessable value.Sh. G. Shiv Dass, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the issue involved in this case has been covered by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Philips India Ltd. v.CCE, Pune 1997 (91) ELT 540 and the same has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. 1998 (25) RLT 547.3. He submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of portable gensets. Except for sales made against price list in Part II, the entire produ...