Delhi Court April 2000 Judgments

Doaba Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT800TriDel

1. This is a stay petition in Appeal No. E/525/2000-NB praying for stay of the order passed by the Id. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri J.S. Agarwal, Id. Counsel submitted that the appellants had with the permission of the authorities concerned changed the parameters in respect of factor T from 0.346 to 0.330 and requested the Commissioner to re-fix the Annual Production Capacity in terms of Rule 4(2). Ld. Commissioner after calculating the Annual Production Capacity which came to 7328.435 m.t.held that in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules for determining the Annual Production Capacity, the Annual Production Capacity in the instant case comes to 7328.435 which is less than the Annual Production Capacity actually of the re-rolling mill. He, therefore, applied Rule 5 and held that the production capacity should be 11961.135 m.t.p.a. Ld. Counsel submitted that it was not a case falling under Rule 3(3) but it was a case under sub-rule (2) of...

Prafful Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC495

1. These appeals have come up before us in Larger Bench on account of reference made by a bench consisting of two Members. The question to be dealt with in these appeals is whether relationship between the trader and the job worker will take the case of the assessee, job worker, out of the purview of the decision rendered by Their Lordships in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 as clarified by Their Lordships in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493.2. Short facts necessary for understanding the issue raised in these appeals are as follows : Appellant in E/1880/99-A, namely, Prafful Industries Ltd. are engaged in the processing of fabrics falling under Chapter 54 of the Central Excise Tariff. The grey fabrics are supplied to Prafful by several parties including concerns named Ganga Ram Synthetics Ltd., Prafful Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Prafful Exports. According to the Department, the assessee Prafful Industries Ltd. and three suppliers of grey fabrics, namely, Ganga Ram Synthetics Ltd....

Tisco Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT104TriDel

1. Notification No. 281/86-C.E., dated 24-4-1986 granted exemption from central excise duty in respect of goods manufactured in a workshop within a factory. The scope and ambit of this notification is the subject-matter in these appeals. These appeals have come before this Larger Bench on reference from Division Benches on account of differences of opinion. We read the said notification for convenience of discussion :- "Exemption to all excisable goods produced and used within the same factory or other factory of same manufacturer for repairs or maintenance of machinery. - In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts all excisable goods manufactured in a workshop within a factory and intended for use in the said factory or in any other factory of the same manufacturer, for repairs or maintenance of machinery installed therein, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon which is specifi...

Rajbir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant in the instant case was working as Head Constable with Delhi Police. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issue of Summary of Allegations on 10.12.1993 which read as under: "It is alleged that H.C. Rajbir Singh, No. 170/C while posted at P.S. Pahar Ganj, on 16.8.1993, got the service revolver 38 Bore No. 1359 along with 5 live cartridges from P.S. Malkhana and took it with him for arrangement duty in connection with independence day. He was supposed to deposit the revolver alongwith ammunitions in proper condition in the P.S. Malkhana but he failed to do so. He later reported that the said revolver has been misplaced. This is a serious lapse on his part being a member of Police force where vigorous training is given to keep the arms safely. The above Act on the part of H.C. Rajbir Singh 170/C amounts to gross misconduct, negligence, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of his official duty and unbecoming of a Police Officer which makes him l...

M/S. Jindal Paper and Plastics Ltd. Vs. M/S. Kedia Distilleries Ltd. a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIAD(Delhi)122; 86(2000)DLT473

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The present claim for a decree in the sum of Rs. 2,88,99,002 Along with pendente lite interest was filed in December, 1997. On 18.12.1997 summons in the prescribed form were ordered, returnable on 22.4.1998. The Defendant was also retrained from parting with the possession of 4 D. Light Industrial Estate, Bhilai - 490026. Eventually, after delay in entering appearance was condoned, applications seeking Leave to Defend the suit were simultaneously filed by the Defendant No. 1 (I.A. 4330/98) and Defendants 2 & 3 (I.A. 4331/98). By orders dated 10.8.1998 Defendant No. 1 was directed to file copies of letters referred to in its above mentioned application. Since these orders were not complied with the Plaintiff has filed I.A. 10357/99 under Order XI, Rule 21 read with Order XVII, Rule 3 for striking out their defense and for decreeing the suit. Despite having been served in this application for the date already fixed, that is 27.10.1999, there was no appearance e...

M/S. Babu Ram Gupta Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)90; 85(2000)DLT427; 2000(54)DRJ66

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. Arguments were addressed at length on this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the respondent Union of India, for condensation of the delay in filing objections against the Award dated 28th December, 1995. There is some controversy revolving around a so-called Second Award dated 12th February, 1996. The contention of the Petitioner in this regard is that the Arbitrator had only corrected an arithmetical mistake and that the Respondent has raised this illusion of a Second Award merely to side-track the non-filing of objections within the period contemplated by law. In the view that I have taken, this issue does not fall for determination at this juncture. 2. Suit No.146A/1996 was initiated by the Petitioner by way of a Petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act. It was prayed therein that Defendant No.2, Shri S.S. Juneja, the Arbitrator, be directed to file the original Award and proceedings in this Court. Notice was ordered...

Suvarna Fibrotech (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT141TriDel

2. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR and have gone through the records. There is no dispute on the facts. M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. were sending the Trax vehicles with seat and matting under challan prescribed under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excises Rules to the appellants herein for mounting the FRP (Fibre Reinforced Plastic) bodies thereon. The complete vehicles duly mounted with FRP bodies were returned back to M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd., who were clearing the vehicles on payment of duty on full value of the vehicles i.e. value inclusive of FRP top and job charges. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune had taken a view that as the appellants had not followed the proper procedure and as the matter was not covered by the Scheme of Rule 57F (2), they were liable to pay duty. He confirmed demand of Rs. 2,47,767/-but reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only). He observed that if the appellants were eligible for Modvat credit, they ha...

U.P. State Textile Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT126TriDel

1. Shri Lakesh Pandey, ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that a mistake has crept in, in the Final Order No. 845/99-D dated 30-9-1999. He submits that the appellants are manufacturing and clearing multifold straight cotton reels without payment of duty during the period May, 1993 to Feb., 1994. He submits that Notification No.53/91 dated 25-7-1991 was superceded by Notification No. 31/93 dated 28-2-1993. He submits that only Notification No. 31/93 was the relevant Notification during the material period and not Notification No. 53/91 dated 25-7-1991. He submits that the Tribunal ignored Notification No.31/93 and only referred to Notification No. 53/91 dt. 25-7-91 which was not the relevant notification during the material period. He submits that in terms of Notification No. 31/93, the applicants were entitled to clear at Nil rate of duty the multifold cotton yarn. He referred to the table annexed to Notification No. 31/93 and submitted that S.No. 4 which covers Heading N...

Kumar Brothers Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC531Tri(Delhi)

1. The following questions are referred to the Larger Bench for decision by order, dated 21-2-1997 by the Referral Bench. (a) Whether the issue of show cause notice to all the Partners of a partnership firm will constitute sufficient compliance with law for proceeding against the firm. (b) Whether action for confiscation of goods of the partnership firm could be proceeded with on the basis of notice issued to its partners.Hindustan Foam Industry v. Collector of Central Excise that charging partnership firm for under-valuation and short levy was unjustified in the absence of issue of show cause notice to the firm needs reconsideration.2. The Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi passed a single Order-in-Original No. 214/91, dated 11/20-9-1991 confiscating zip fasteners of market value at Rs. 4,87,250/- and C.I.F. value of Rs. 1,92,000/- under Section 111(d) and (p) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on Shri Bulaki Ram of M/s. Kumar Brothers, of which...

Diesel Locomotive Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT132TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 31-12-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).2. In the impugned order, the benefit of Notification No. 88/93-C.E., dated 4-5-1993 was denied to the appellants.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that I.C. engines was a part of diesel locomotives and under Notification No. 88/93 C.E., there is no restricti on with regard to heading in which the part should have been classifiable for being eligible for the benefit of notification. He submits that there is no dispute that the diesel locomotives are classifiable under Heading 8602 of the Central Excise Tariff. He submits that the benefit of notification is being denied only on the ground that I.C. engines are classifiable under Heading 8408 of the Central Excise Tariff. He submits that the Ministry of Finance vide Circular No. 512/8/2000-CX., dated 10-2-2000 clarified that in view of the specific provisions of subsequent n...