Delhi Court April 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 8 of about 143 results (0.021 seconds)Sunil Kumar (Ex. Constable) Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ22
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. The petitioner, an Ex-constable in Delhi Police, challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (for short 'the Tribunal) dated 14th May, 1999 in R. A.No. 114 of 1999 in O.A. 1437 of 1993 whereby the Tribunal chose not to interfere with its earlier order dated 11th March, 1999 by which it had dismissed the O.A. by a detailed order even though without assistance of counsel for the petitioner who chose not to be present. The review application was primarily based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Bakshish Singh, but the Tribunal rejected the review on the ground that this is clearly an after-thought. 2. Being aggrieved of the order of the Tribunal dated 14th May, 1999, the petitioner has moved this court by way of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the Original Application No. 1437 of 1998 befor...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Jalani Enterprises Vs. Cce Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT422TriDel
1. This order will dispose of two appeals filed by the appellants, one bearing bearing No.E/2521/2000-V, which has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.4.2000 of the Commissioner(Appeals), vide which he had upheld the order in original of the Veputy Commissioner dated 27.9.99 classifying the product in question jaljira of the appellants under Chapter 21 of the CETA and the other bearing No.E/2541/2000-V directed against the impugned order in original of the Commissioner dated 12.5.2000 confirming demand of Rs.22,78,788/- and imposing penalty of Rs.19.34,246/- under Section 11-AC and of Rs.5 lakhs under Rule 173-2 of the Central Excise Rules alongwith the interest, on the appellants.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of branded as well as unbranded jaljira classifiable under Chapter 21 of the CETA. They filed classification declaration under Rule 173-B of the Rules effective from 6.7.98 clasifying this product under Chapter 9 (sub-heading 0903.10(branded) a...
Tag this Judgment!Rajnath Motors (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT598TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Rajnath Motors P.Ltd. is whether the tyres imported by them were freely importable without licence as tyres meant for truck and whether tyres were under valued.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants filed a Bill of Entry 924527, dated 10-10-1995 for clearance of a consignment of 65 Bridgestone tyres of assorted sizes. In their letter dated 26-10-1995 the appellants declared that tyres of Rim size 15" were suitable for DCM Toyota Swaraj Mazda, Canter and Tyres of Rim sizes 15" and 16" were also used on light trucks, Tata 407 and vans of various make and other commercial vehciles. The Additional Commissioner, Customs, in the Adjudication order dated 19-12-1995, after referring to the Pattern Digest 94-95 of Bridgestone Brand of Tyres and the specification as observed from the inscription on the tyre as also on the text attached thereon, came to the conclusion that none of the tyres imported had been classified as bus or tru...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Plastics Ltd. and Indian Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC242
1. These five appeals have been referred to the Larger Bench. When these matters were called both sides submitted that the issue involved in these five appeals has already been referred to the Larger Bench earlier and in turn, the Larger Bench has answered the question as per Order No. 315-23/96-NB dated 2.2.96 in Appeal No. E/72/88 and 8 Others in the case of Machine Builders v. Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur, .2. Shri Devnath, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellants M/s.National Winders. Appeal No. E/1003/96-NB, submitted that this batch of appeals would also have been tagged up with the matters which have already been decided as cited above. Inadvertently these matters have been left out. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava appearing for the Revenue concedes this position.3. In all these cases, the manufacturers of various products utilizing certain inputs claimed Modvat credit on the basis of Government order issued under second proviso to Rule 57G(2) of the Rules. The case of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Triveni Castings (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT129TriDel
1. The matter relates to the availment of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 33,883.75 by the respondents. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Shimla in the Order-in-Original dated 31-3-1997 allowed the Modvat credit to the party. The applicants in the declaration filed under Rule 57 Q had given the description of the item as C.I. Ingot moulds falling under Chapter Heading 84.54 but in the modvatable documents the description given is as 'slag pot' under the same sub-heading. The original authority in his order has observed that in a catena of judgements it has been held that Modvat credit should not be disallowed for minor technical lapses; that since the chapter subheading stands declared specifically hence the demand raised on that account does not stand.2. On appeal filed by the revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) Chandigarh in his order dated 29-10-1999 has relied on CCE v. Rattan Industries - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 573 (T) in which it is held that even if description and tariff ...
Tag this Judgment!Ceravit Sanitaryware (i) Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT125TriDel
1. The appellants were availing Modvat credit facility up to 28-3-97.With effect from 1-4-97, they opted for availing complete exemption on their end-products under Notification No. 7/97, dated 1-4-97. In accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule (7) of Rule 57H, they reversed the entire credit in balance in their RG 23A Pt-II account on this date and further paid an amount of Rs. 62,647/- in respect of the inputs lying in stock and those contained in the finished goods by debiting this amount in their PLA. However, they filed a refund claim of Rs. 62,647/- contending that there is no provision for payment of the credit availed on the inputs lying in stock and those contained in the finished goods with a manufacturer on the date of opting out of the Modvat scheme in this rule. This contention of the appellants has been rejected both by the original and the appellate authority in their respective orders. Hence this appeal.2. When the matter was called, no one is present for the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Dynamic Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT886TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Dynamic Industries, the matter relates to the classification of the outer casing for air-conditioners. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that they were parts of air-conditioners and were classifiable under Heading No. 84.15 of the Central Excises Tariff and as Heading No. 84.15 was excluded from the scope of small scale exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, the appellants were not eligible for the benefit of small scale exemption.3. On going through the facts on record, we find that the outer casing for air-conditioners were meant for installing the air-conditioners in the wall, windows, etc. and there is finding of fact by the appellate authority that without the help of these parts, the air-conditioners could not be installed.4. No material has been placed to contradict these findings of the appellate authority.5. On going through the facts on record, we do not find any merit to disturb the findings of fact of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Pca Eiectricals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC93
1. These appeals involve common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein filed Classification List No. 30/83 effective from 26.4.83 for Domestic Electrical Appliances (Grillers) at SI. No. 4 of the list, as excisable goods under TI-33-C of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. They also declared at SI. No. 5, Domestic Electrical Appliances (Electric Stoves) and claimed exemption from duty on this item, in terms of Notification No. 33/69-CE dated 1.3.69 as amended. The Department was of the view that the item at SI. No. 5 had an in-built heating system designed to operate instantaneously when connected with mains or with electric power and was therefore, an electric cooker, which was excluded from the benefit of the notification under SI. No.14 of the table annexed thereto.3. Hence, a show cause notice was issued on 3.10.83 proposing to classify the product as Electric cooker li...
Tag this Judgment!Rohini Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT729TriDel
1. This appeal is against imposition of penalty of Rs. 93,214/- by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ghaziabad under rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The brief facts are that the appellants imported Acetic Anhydride and cleared the same under Bill of Entry No.11053, dated 22-9-1997 from ICD, Tuglakabad. In this B/E under the column 'Additional Duty' two amounts viz. Rs. 1,30,596.73 and Rs. 93,214.20 were reflected but the amount of Rs. 1,30,596.73 was only payable and paid as CVD. However, the party took the credit of Rs. 2,23,8117- in the Modvat account which included the inadmissible amount of Rs. 93,214/-.2. The proceedings were drawn against the appellants and vide show cause notice dated 2-3-1998 they were called upon to show cause why the aforesaid in-admissible amount should not be recovered from them and also why a penalty equivalent to this amount should not be imposed on them under Rule 57-I (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the Order-in-Orig...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Auto International Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT745TriDel
1. The appellants were holder of a value based advance licence under Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992. One of the condition of the notification was that no inputs stage credit is obtianed under Rule 56A or 57A of the Central Excise Rules 1944. However in violation of the stated condition, the appellants availed the credit on inputs used in the production of finished goods exported subsequently. They, however, themselves calculated the irregularly availed credit and reversed/debited a total amount of Rs. 1,52,441/- on 29-3-1995 and 29-9-1995. Subsequently the Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh issued a Public Notice No. 3/97, dated 14-1-1997 prescribing the formula for quantification of irregularly availed Modvat credit under DEEC/VABAL scheme. The Public Notice also provided that an interest @ 20% on the credit determined on the prescribed formula was also liable to be reversed. In the case of the appellants the irregularly availed credit and interest was calculated...
Tag this Judgment!