Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments

Digambar Foundary Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT85TriDel

1. The matter referred to the Larger Bench in these group of appeals is as under :- "Whether in view of the Ministry's Order No. TS/36/94 TRU, dated 1-3-1994 read with Notification No. 1/93-C.E. dated 28-2-1993, and the Chandigarh Central Excise Collectorate Trade Notice No. 81/94, dated 25-7-1994, the manufacturers were entitled, or were not entitled, to enjoy the benefit of deemed credit facility after they had crossed the prescribed limit of Rs. 75,00,000/- in terms of Notification No. 1/93- C.E." 2. The background leading to the present reference may briefly be stated. Under Order No. TS/36/94 TRU, dated 1-3-1994 (effective from 1-4-1994), issued in exercise of the powers conferred under the second proviso to Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), the Central Government directed that the ingots and re-rollable materials of iron or steel purchased from outside and lying in stock on or after the first day of April, 1994 with the re-ro...

National Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1172TriDel

1. The present Appeal has been filed by M/s. National Steel Industries Ltd., being aggrieved with the Order No. 245/97, dated 11-11-1997 under which the Commissioner, Central Excise, Indore, has ordered that C.R.Coils weighing 892.716 MT. are liable for confiscation and has further ordered to enforce the Bond for Rs. 9 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. Shri C.S. Lodha, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants carry out the activity of cold rolling on hot rolled coils; that the mere activity of reducing the thickness of a coil by the process of cold rolling does not amount to an activity of manufacture, as there is no emergence of a new product having a different name, character or use; that as per Supreme Court's decision in C.C.E., Chandigarh v.Steel Strips Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 248 (S.C.), the activity undertaken by them does not amount to an activity of manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act; that in Jyoti Engg. Corporation v. C...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Keshari Steels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT92TriDel

1. This application is for referring question of law for decision by the concerned High Court as provided by Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The question sought to be referred is : "Whether Ramming Mass used for lining of furnace and Oxygen/Acetylene used as cutting device can be treated as inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944? " 3. Respondents, M/s. Keshari Steels ( a division of Reliance Ispat Industries Ltd.) are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel items, namely, continuous cast billets and bars falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also availing the benefit of Modvat scheme under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Respondents were availing credit on ramming mass which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. Department took the view that respondents wrongly availed credit on ramming mass and oxygen gas as these were not considered as inputs eligible f...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rasan Detergents Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT83TriDel

1. This is an application for referring the following questions for decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court :- "(i) Whether Rule 57-1 as it stood prior to the amendment effected on 6-10-1988 is subject to the provisions of limitation prescribed under Section 11A? or (ii) Whether it is independent of Section 11A and can be invoked for recovery of Modvat even covering the period beyond six months from the date of credit ?" 2. Revenue has stated in this reference application that the above mentioned two questions have already been referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing reference application No. 34/95-NRB, dated 4-8-1995 in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v.Raghuvar (India) under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. Brief facts of the case in which the above questions arise for decision are as follows.4. Respondent, M/s. Rasan Detergents Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of soap and detergent cakes. According to the department, respondent av...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Pashupati Acrylon Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT768TriDel

1. These two appeals are at the instance of the Revenue. They challenged the Orders-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut. Order-in-Original No. 69/95 dated 15-12-1995 passed by the Commissioner is under challenge in E/78/97. Following the Order-in-Original No. 69/95, the Commissioner passed Order-in-Original No. 15/96, dated 30-3-96. That order is questioned in appeal E/1144/97.In Order-in-original No. 69/95 the period dealt with was from November, 1994 to February 1995. Period from August 94 to October 94 was dealt with in Order-in-original No. 15/96.2. Respondents in these appeals were manufacturing Acrylic Fibre Tow and Top. They were selling their produce at different prices to dealers in wholesale sale. On the basis of the price realised from the dealers they paid excise duty under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act.Department took the view that the manufacturer was giving discount at different rates to different buyers, though the price of fini...

Rajasthan Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1152TriDel

1. This order will dispose of 11 appeals as a common question of fact and law are involved there.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of man-made blended yarn falling under Chapter 55 of the Schedule to the CETA. They were manufacturing single yarn as well as doubled/multifolded yarn. They were using single yarn for the manufacture of multifolded yarn without entering the quantity of single yarn in their relevant registers.However, they were entering only doubled/multifolded yarn in the register and discharging the duty at the time of clearance of the doubled/multifolded yarn. They were served with show cause notices wherein duty demand was raised from them. They contested the correctness of those show cause notices by alleging that there was no removal of the single yarn in terms of Rules 9 and 49 of the Rules while using the same in the manufacture of doubled/multifolded yarn.They also avered that the norm of the waste occurring during the manufacture of the doubled/mult...

Nanak Chand and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicants have challenged the inaction of the respondents in not regularising the Government Accommodation, i. e. R/O Qr. No. 588, Sector 3, M.B. Road, New Delhi, earlier allotted to Applicant 1 in the name of applicant 2.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that Applicant 1 while serving as Peon in the University Grants Commission (UGC) was allotted a Government accommodation at J-208, Sewa Nagar, New Delhi in the year 1985. Thereafter, he had applied for a change of accommodation on medical grounds which was agreed to by Respondent 1. Thereafter, the respondents had allotted the aforesaid accommodation at M.B. Road, New Delhi. According to them, they had done so after handing over the vacant possession of the previous accommodation, that is, Qr. No.J-208, Sewa Nagar, on 30.9.1995. Applicant 2, son of applicant 1 had joined services with Respondent 2 in 1989 as Peon and was sharing both the accommodations with the father without claiming any House Rent Allowance (HRA)....

Rajender Kumar Garg Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the block assessment order for the period of previous years, from 1st April, 1986 to 14th December, 1996, passed under s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961.2. The facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation in the case of assessee was carried out on 24th December, 1996, at his residence at House No. 148, M.P. Enclave, Delhi, This search was in consequence of the statement of one Shri. Kanta Parsad (during the search operation under s. 132 at his residence) that it was Shri.Rajender Garg, who was his friend who had, in fact, sold his immovable property located at 39 Chanderlok, Pitampura, Delhi. In a statement, dt. 24th December, 1996, Shri. Kanta Prasad also stated that the sale consideration in respect or the above property by way of drafts and cash was received by the assessee in question at the former's residence. It was also stated by Shri. Kanta Prasad that the brother of the assessee Shri. Satpal Garg had assisted his brother Sh...

R. Mugum and ors. Vs. the P.O., Labour Court No. 7 and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001(88)FLR92]; (2001)ILLJ420Del

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the workmen against Award dated 2.4.1996 passed by Labour Court-VII in I.D. No. 611/88. They are aggrieved against that part of the Award as per which only compensation is awarded and not reinstatement with full back wages. It is contended that when the termination was held to be illegal, the normal relief of reinstatement with back wages could not have been denied as it was not a case of the Manage-ment that these workers are surplus or the work is not available or the juniors are not retained. I am not convinced with this argument of the petitioners - workmen. it was categorical case of the management that work was not available. Moreover, workmen could not prove in Labour Court, as observed in the impugned award that persons juniors to the petitioners-workmen were retained and the Labour Court held that applicability of Section 25(G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not made out by the workmen from the evidence led...

Management of Horticulture Deptt. of Delhi Adm. Vs. Workmen Shri R. Mu ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)828; 86(2000)DLT467; (2000)IILLJ1175Del

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the Award dated 2.4.1996 passed by Labour Court-VII in I.D. No. 611/88. Vide order dated 12.9.88 dispute was referred to Labour Court for adjudication with the following terms of reference: 'Whether the termination of services of S/Shri R. Mugum, Mariappan, Raman, Ganesh, Kupati, Neru, Abhimanyu, R. Raju, Mani, Raju Mani and Sampath is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? 2. After the pleadings the Labour Court framed the following issues: '1. Whether the petitioners are not workmen? 2. As per terms of reference. 3. Issue No.1 was decided in favor of workmen holding that they were 'workmen' defined in Section- 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act as they had been working as Mali/Casual Worker on muster roll. On merits, the Labour Court returned the finding of fact stating that the petitioner Management had terminated the services ...