Delhi Court April 2000 Judgments

Shri M.L. Khanna Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Two mistakes in the above mentioned Final Order are pointed out by the applicants: 1. Date of Final Order has been mentioned as 27.11.2001 instead of 27.11.2000. 2. Reduction of penalty on applicant to Rs.25 lakhs instead of Rs.5 lakhs.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records. We agree that the date of Final Order has been wrongly mentioned and accordingly correct the same to 27.11.2000. A perusal of the Note Sheet Order dated 27.11.2000 when the appeal was heard and operative portion announced, also shows that the penalty on the above applicant was redsuced to Rs.5 lakhs. Hence we correct the error in the quantum of penalty on the applicant and substitute the figure of Rs.5 lakhs for the figure of Rs.25 lakhs. the application is hereby allowed....

Divine United Organisation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT762TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Divine United Organisation against the impugned order in appeal dated 26-11-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals); vide which he had reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- and set aside the personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- as imposed on them by the Additional Commissioner of Customs through the order-in-original dated 16-10-1999, but maintained the duty amount as assessed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs.2. The appellants M/s. Divine United Organisation (in short, DUO) are a non-Commercial organisation being run on donations. The organisation performs non-comercial activity and had been exempted from Income Tax under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The goods in question i.e. 5 used Video Cameras with accessories, were not imported by the organisation but were sent by a member from a foreign country as a donation. The appellants could not refuse the donation in order to avoid any hurt the feelings an...

Rajiv GosaIn Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2000Delhi431

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the disconnection of his telephone connection bearing No.6960893 and has instituted the present writ petition seeking its restoration. The respondent/MTNL proceeded to disconnect the above telephone connection on account of unpaid dues in respect of telephone connection bearing No. 6868457 registered in the name of the petitioner's real sister. Two telephone connections are installed at E-31, Avi, Saket, New Delhi. The dues are amounting to nearly Rs.1,50,000/-.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that there are no dues in respect of the petitioner/subscriber's telephone. He submits that the disconnection of his telephone on account of the unpaid arrears of telephone of his sister, who is an independent subscriber having a separate telephone connection bearing No.6868457, was unwarranted and contrary to Rule 2, pp, and 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules. Learned counsel also sought to urge that the petitioner'...

S.M. Goel Vs. University of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ119

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule. Since short question is involved in the matter, with the consent of the parties the matter is taken up today and finally disposed of at this stage. 2. Petitioner was working with Delhi University-respondent no.1 herein, on daily wage basis as Work Assistant (Electrical). He worked on daily wage basis for number of years. He is a qualified diploma holder in electrical engineering as well. As he was not regularised, he filed the present petition and the relief prayed for in the petition is that he should be regularised as Junior Engineer as he fulfills the qualification for the post of Junior Engineer. 3. Admittedly during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner has been appointed as Work Assistant (Electrical) Vide appointment letter dated 23rd July, 1999. He joined the post of Work Assistant on regular basis pursuant to the aforesaid appointment given to him. He was appointed to the aforesaid post after his case was considered for selection pursuant to...

Sh. Karan Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)831; 86(2000)DLT199; 2000(54)DRJ719

ORDERA.K. Sikri,J.1. Rule. Petitioner was working with Army. On 24.8.1994 he was arrested for allegedly committing offence under section 376 of IPC and handed over to civil police by the unit authorities where he was posted, for investigation and trial. Case under sections 376/323 of IPC was registered against him and challan was filed before ADJ, Delhi. After the trial, petitioner was held guilty of the offence and by judgment and sentence order dated 19.11.1996, he was sentenced for 5 years rigorous imprisonment and also fined Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner filed appeal against the aforesaid conviction before this Court and the appeal was admitted and sentence was suspended by order dated 25.3.1997. Petitioner was released on bail. 2. Based on the conviction by the criminal Court, petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 15.4.1997 under the provisions of para 423 of Regulation for Army and section 20(3) of the Army Act read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules. Petitioner has filed th...

Usha Rectifier Corpn. (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC771

1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Usha Rectifier Corporation Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal No. 549/92, dated 29-10-1992.2. Briefly stated the facts are that a show cause notice dated 29-9-1992 was issued to the Appellants for demanding duty on the plant and machinery including testing equipments manufactured by them and as reflected in Note 6 of Schedule 'Q' of the balance sheet for the year ending 1987 and Director's report appearing at page No. 2 of the Annual Report for the year ending December, 1987 (para 2 Technology Absorption). The Additional Collector, Central Excise, under Order-in-Original No. 6/92-93, dated 27-5-1992 confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 4,92,566.28 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- holding that in view of the documentary evidence in the balance sheet it had been proved beyond doubt that they had manufactured plant and machinery/testing equipments worth Rs. 31.26 lacs; that the facts disclosed in the balance sheet had to be accepted as tr...

Engineers and Consultants (P) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT942TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Engineers and Consultants P. Ltd is whether the bogie side frame manufactured by them is classifiable under Heading 73.08 of the Schedule to the CETA as claimed by them or under Heading 86.07 as confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), under the impugned order.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants. We also notice that on the earlier date of hearing also, none appeared on behalf of the appellants nor made and request for adjournment of the matter.3. We, therefore, heard Shri R.K. Sharma, learned SDR and perused the records. Learned SDR submitted that the issue involved in the appeal is no longer res integra as in a number of cases the Tribunal has held that the goods used in the Railway coaches would be classifiable under Heading 86.07 and he relied upon the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Sri Ram Metal Works reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 616 wherein the Tribunal hel...

Samcor Glass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT846TriDel

1. These are two appeals arising from the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, denying to the appellants Modvat credit on two items, namely, (i) Rubber Sleeves and (ii) Wool felts. The Asstt. Commissioner had adjudicated four Show Cause Notices and held that the said items are not inputs for purpose of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the said orders.2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants, Shri M.P. Devnath submits before us that the two items are essential for the manufacture of the final products, namely, glass shells manufactured by the appellants. He explains that manufacture of glass shells is a technologically intensive and complex operation and the manufacturing process is subject to rigorous quality control parameters so as to ensure that the finished product is completely free from all defects and to see that the glass shell is capable of performing its role as an important component of Television Picture Tubes. Glass ...

indra Processors Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT519TriDel

1. The appellants are manufacturers of man-made fabrics who manufacture their products using hot air stenter and steam. They are working under Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZQ read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. They filed the required declaration under Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 for the purpose of determination of annual capacity of production.The annual capacity was determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Their factory remained closed from 16-12-98 to 23-12-98 for which period they applied for abatement of duty under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules. One of the requirements of this Rule was that an independent processor whose factory remained closed for a continuous period of not less than 7 days and who wanted to claim abatement of duty on account of that fact must inform the Assistant Commissioner the closure of his stenter at least 3 days prior to the date of closure. In the case of the...

U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT741TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. U.P. State Electricity Board an undertaking of the Uttar Pradesh Government, the matter relates to the duty liability in respect of the excisable commodity 'Electricity' during the relevant time. This matter had come up earlier before the Tribunal and the Tribunal under order Nos. E/280 to 292/94-D, dated 27-5-1994 had remanded the matter with certain observations as indicated in para 8 of the said order. The Tribunal had, however, given a finding that the appellants were not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 51/78-C.E. as the conditions specified therein were not fulfilled. The Tribunal had also held that the Department was justified in invoking the larger period of five years. The matter was remanded as certain demands were beyond the extended period of five years and the appellants had pleaded that there were certain over-lapping in the demands etc. On readjudication, the Commissioner of Central Excise dropped the demand of Rs. 25,64,514.2...