Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 8 of about 261 results (0.009 seconds)Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT283TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order the benefit of Modvat credit was denied in respect of minor oil on the ground that the appellants had not made entry in their RG-23B Part I in respect of receipt of the goods. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellants on receipt of the goods taken the credit in the RG-23B Part II Register but due to mistake quantity of goods were not entered in their RG-23B Part I Register. He submits that goods were duly received in their factory which were reflected in their record and there is no allegation against the appellants that goods were not received or not used for the manufacture of the final product. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.2. Heard learned JDR who reiterated the finding of the lower authorities.3. In this case the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs was denied only on the ground that no ...
Tag this Judgment!Vandana Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT273TriDel
1. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 22/28-4-98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The brief facts of this case are that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Units, New Delhi passed an order dated 6-3-96 in which he confiscated the Car imported by the appellant under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the appellant was given an option to redeem the Car on payment of a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs. A personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed on the appellant.2. The appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi on 18-9-97. The appeal of the party has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi observing that the appeal has been filed after more than 1 1/2 years of passing of the adjudication order.It is further observed in the appellate order that the appellant submitted the date of communication of the decision of the order appealed against as on or after 24-6-97. It is observed that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Nec Switchgears Vs. Cce Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT107TriDel
1. The appellants manufactured Electric Panel and Board falling under Chapter 85 of Central Excise Tarrif Act, 1985. They availed modvat credit of Rs.78,053/- during the period from October,94 to December, 94 on the strength of invoices issued by the Traders/Dealers. They were issued a showcause notice dt 6.3.95 calling upon them to showcause why the aforesaid amount should not be recovered from them under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as the said amount of credit had been availed on the strength of the invoices issued by the Dealers/Traders which did not contain the particulars as prescribed in notification No.33-94-CE(NT) dated 4.7.94. The particulars of the invoices were given at Sl.No.1 to 14 of the Annexure to the showcause notice.2. The notice replied to the showcause notice and also submitted certificates of additional particulars in respect of the invoices in question. The certificates were also verified by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. On consideration ...
Tag this Judgment!Superior Air Products Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(94)LC410Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Superior Air Products Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Superior'), the matter relates to the classification of the product which the manufacturer sought to classify under sub-heading No. 9402.00 of the Central Excise Tariff (CET), as Anaesthetic Trolley--steel furniture made partly or wholly of steel.The Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, who adjudicated the matter classified the said product under sub-heading No. 9018.00 of the CET as an anaesthesia machine. Sub-heading No. 9018.00 covered the instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,23,682.77 and Rs. 18,224.25 (total Rs. 3,41,907/-). He had disposed of 2 show cause notices by a common order. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').2. The matter was heard on 25.9.2000 when Smt. Reena Khair, Advocate appea...
Tag this Judgment!Pooja Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT564TriDel
1. Appellant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 4,41,235/- and penalty of like amount under Rule 57-1(4) of the Central Excise Rules. A penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was also imposed on appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. The allegation against the appellant is that during the period 12-5-93 to 21-8-93, the appellants availed the benefit of Modvat credit of Rs. 4,41,2357- on the strength of GP-Is issued by M/s. Bankura Steel Industries (P) Ltd. and on investigation it was found that M/s. Bankura Steel Industries Ltd. stopped its production from 19-8-89.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the Unit of the appellant is lying closed and the appellant had received this adjudication order on 12-8-99 and filed the appeal before the Commissioner within the period limitation. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is time bar is not sustainable. He, therefore, submits that the Unit of the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Luman Metal Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT338TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order in appeal dated 28-2-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the order in original dated 30-9-1993 of the Assistant Collector classifying their product (air cleaner assembly/oil bath assembly) under Heading 84.09 by rejecting their classification under Heading 84.21 of the CETA.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of air cleaner assembly/oil bath assembly and its parts. They initially due to some misunderstanding classified their product as parts of IC Engine falling under Heading 84.09 of the CETA. However, after knowing that their product was an independent product classifiable under Heading 84.21 of the CETA, they accordingly filed their classification list w.e.f.28-2-1993 but the Assistant Collector did not accept the same on the ground that their product was part of IC Engine of the motor vehicles and as such was classifiable under Heading 84.09 and not 84.21 of the CETA, as cl...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhag Polymers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT142TriDel
1. The respondents manufacture excisable goods falling under sub-headings 3902.10, 3901.90 and 3206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff.They filed a classification list w.e.f. 1-4-1993 in which they opted to pay duty on the goods manufactured by them inspite of their eligibility to exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 upto the clearance value of Rs. 30 lakhs. They also declared to avail the Modvat credit under Rule 57A. They were issued a show cause notice dated 30-6-1994 by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, MOD-VI, New Delhi, calling upon them to show cause why they should not avail the exemption under the aforestated notification and why the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,36,285/- taken by them during the period from 1-1-1994 to 31-3-1994 availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of their final products should not be disallowed in terms of the provisions of Rule 57C. After considering the reply of the party, the Asstt. Commissioner vide his order da...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC148
1. This order will dispose of two appeals bearing No. E/4105/92-D and E/682/89-D filed by the appellants. A. No. E/4105/92-V had been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 31.3.92 of the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the Order-in-Original dated 21.4.89 of the Assistant Collector classifying the product in question (book binding cloth) under Heading 52.06 of the CETA. The second Appeal No.E/682/92-D has been directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 27.12.88 of the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the Order-in-Original of the Assistant Collector dated 24.7.87 classifying the product in question; under Heading 59.01 of the CETA. The issue involved in both the appeals is common i.e. whether the book binding cloth manufactured by the appellants is classifiable under Chapter 59 (Heading 59.01) or Chapter 52 (Heading 52.06) of the CETA and as such both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts giving rise to both these appeals may brie...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Aggarwal Vs. Bhagwan Das Arora
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi107; 2000(57)DRJ241
K.S. Gupta, J.1. Out of six issues framed on 27th January 2000 issues 1 & 5 which were treated as preliminary issues, are as under :--'1. Whether the present suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC by virtue of a previously instituted suit for injunction in the District courts having been dismissed? OPD5. Whether the specific performance of the contract cannot be granted in view of the specific stipulation in the contract providing for forfeiture of the earnest money paid by the purchaser and seller's liability to pay double the earnest money in case of refusal to complete the bargain? OPD'ISSUE NO. 12. It is admitted case of parties that the plaintiff before instituting this suit had filed suit No. 673/89 which was dismissed in default under Order IX Rule 8 CPC on 28th September 1992. Application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff for setting aside that order was dismissed in default on 3rd April 1995. Application filed for restoration of the said applica...
Tag this Judgment!indofil Chemicals Company Vs. Om Carrying Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi106
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. M/s Saraswat Fertilizers, defendant No. 2 filed this application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC for dismissing the suit and striking out its name from the array of parties which the plaintiff has contested by filing reply.2. Suit for recovery of Rs. 11,21,084.69 was filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, alleging that defendant No. 2 was appointed as distributor by the plaintiff vide distributorship agreement dated 15th December, 1993 initially for a period up to 31st December, 1994 which was extended up to 31st December, 1996 by the letter dated 24th May, 1995. Defendant No. 1 is a transporter while defendant No.3 is the C&F; agent of plaintiff-company. It is stated that defendant No. 2 used to place orders on the plaintiff for agricultural Chemicals pursuant to which Chemicals were dispatched to it through defendant No.3 and delivery thereof taken by defendant No. 2 on presentation of documents with the transporter. In December 1995 the defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!