Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ramco Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT117TriDel

1. These appeals No. E/396-397-A are at the instance of the Revenue. In appeal 396/93 correctness of Order-in-Appeal No. 754/APPL/IND/92, dated 17-11-1992 is in dispute. In Appeal No. E/397/93 Revenue challenges the Order in Appeal No. 757/APPL/IND/92, dated 25-1-1992 passed by the Appellate Authority. The main appeal is 396 of 93. The question in Appeal 397 of 93 is whether the cost of Rubber Rings, nuts and bolts should be shown in the price list submitted by the manufacturer. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals as follows :- 2. M/s Ramco Industries Ltd. are engaged in the manufacturer of Asbestos pipes and Couplings falling under Chapter Heading 68.04 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They supplied Rubber Rings together with bolt and nuts which are bought out items. The value of these items was not included in the assessable value of the Asbestos Pipes and couplings manufactured by them. Therefore Show Cause Notice dated 15-2-1991 was issued requiring ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kothari Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT85TriDel

1. This appeal is at the instance of Revenue. Respondents, manufacturer, filed an application for refund of a sum of Rs. 51,279/- alleging that duty at a higher value was paid while the value realised was lesser. The contention is that instead of taking the assessable value of the goods for Bhiwandi the manufacturer wrongly took the assessable value of the goods meant for Hyderabad which was higher. On account of this, Rs. 51,279/- happened to be paid in excess. This claim was negatived by the adjudicating authority by refund Order No.27-Refund/ACK/III/97 dated 28.05.1997. On the grounds that the party's claim for different assessable value for different regions is not acceptable to the department, in view of the Board's letter F. No.6/25/93-CXI (Order No. 24/14/93-CXI) dated 31.12.1993 and that duty incidence had been passed on by him to the buyers. Manufacturer took up the matter in appeal. Appellate authority by order-in-appeal No.161-CE/KNP-I/98 dated 26.06.1998 allowed the appeal...

Hughes Escorts Communications Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT416TriDel

1. The facts of the case are that the appellants herein, entered into a licence agreement with the Department of Telecommunication in August, 1994 to establish, maintain and operate closed user group domestic 64 kbps Data Network via INSAT Satellite system and have been providing Satellite Communication Service through VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal) from February 1995. The Department of Telecommunication has licensed the appellants to provide the electronic link through satellite media to the user organisations for inter-connecting only offices for the purpose of transferring electronic data between the locations. The electronic link is provided with the help of an earth station (called Hub) located at Gurgaon - DOT has provided the appellants the satellite space on rental basis to provide the link to the user organisation. In addition to transmission of data through satellite, the appellants also provide the facility to transmit data through fascimile. However, since fax machine...

L.M.L. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT710TriDel

1. The applicants filed this application for rectification of mistake apparent on record in the Final Order No. 1312/99-NB (S) dated 1-12-1999.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that in the Final Order, a part of refund was wrongly held to be time-barred.He submits that the refund claim was filed within six months from the date of payment of duty. Only some enhancement on the ground of variation of figures of refund already claimed, was filed after six months. Therefore, the subsequent claim cannot be considered as the fresh claim.3. He, further, submits that in the present case, question of unjust enrichment does not arise and the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mafat Lal Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247, is not applicable and the submissions, made by the applicants, were not considered while passing the final order.5. In the Final Order, a part of refund claim was held to be time-barred and the remain...

Crompton Greaves Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT119TriDel

1. The appellants manufactured EPABX system according to the specifications of their customer, viz., M/s. Ranjita Enterprises and cleared the same to the said customers on payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 90,619.13 under invoice dated 21-3-1997. M/s. Ranjita Enterprises who had ordered for supply of the said goods for the purpose of certain project, informed the appellants by letter dated 14-7-1997 that on account of cancellation of project, they were returning the goods to the appellants. The appellants on receipt of the returned goods cleared the same on payment of duty of Rs. 1,47383.94 under invoice dated 26-12-1997, after necessary modification (reconditioning of the goods in accordance with the specifications of the new customer). Such clearance was done by the appellants after D. 3 intimation to the Central Excise authorities under Rule 173-L of the Central Excise Rules. The party filed refund claim for the amount of duty originally paid amounting to Rs. 90,619.13, with th...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dlf Cement Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT498TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed the above application under Section 35F(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for reference of the following question of law purported to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order No.A/510/99-NB, dated 24-6-1999 holding that transformers used in ESP Section of the assessee's factory are capital goods eligible to Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules: - "Whether the Tribunal has the power to overlook the statutory provisions of the law by allowing Modvat credit on the goods which were otherwise not capital goods under the definition of capital goods provided under explanation 1 of Rule 57Q(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 during the relevant time." 2. We have heard Shri M.M. Dubey, learned DR and Shri M.P. Dev Nath, learned Advocate.3. We find that a similar issue has already been referred to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Three M Paper Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2000 (37) RLT 820. ...

Smt. Poonam Mulwani Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the action and order passed by the respondents is not awarding him the benefit of the ad hoc service rendered as Stenographer Grade 'D' in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 during the period from 5.4.1989 to 16.6.1993, vide order dated 28-7/3-8.1995. By this order the respondents have rejected her request for consideration of the promotion service w.e.f. 17.6.1993 to 20.4.1994 as also counting her ad hoc service from 5.4.1989 to 16.6.93 for the purpose of pay fixation, leave, pension, seniority and Bonus etc.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant had applied for a vacancy of Stenographer Grade 'D' against the advertisement issued by the respondents on 8.10.1988. She was selected through a test for recruitment held by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for this post but was offered the post on ad hoc basis which she had accepted w.e.f. 5.4.1989. The applicant continued in that capacity till 16.6.1993 when her services were termina...

Virinder Bhatia Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against block assessment orders under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961. These cases belonged to one group/family in which search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act were conducted on 24-8-1995 and were concluded on 28-8-1995. This group was engaged in the business of garments export, purchase and sale of farm houses etc. Since they are connected cases and common grounds are involved, they were heard together and are decided by this consolidated order.2. The first common ground of contention of the assessee in these cases except in the case of Mrs. Lavina Bhatia is that the search and seizure operations conducted in their cases under Section 132 of the Act were improper invalid and illegal because there was no information in possession of the Director of Income-tax (Inv.)/Dy. Director of Income-tax (Inv.) for reasonable exercise of powers under Section 132 of the Act. It is also contended that since the search was invalid...

Satish Khosla and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)225; 2000(56)DRJ637

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. In this suit the Plaintiff has prayed for the issuance of an Injunction restraining the Delhi Development Authority from dispossessing from or interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs in respect of property or demolishing the gate or the boundary wall. On 12.12.1995 when the application for ex parte ad interim injunction came up for hearing, the injunction prayed for was granted. This application comes up for final disposal. 2. Ms. Geeta Mittal, learned Counsel for the DDA has stated that she will confine her case to the averments contained in the Written Statement. In para 2 thereof, it has been stated that the iron gate and the rooms with boundary walls falls in Khasra No.460/368/36 and 461/368/36 min which were acquired vide Award No. 90/80-81 and, thereforee, possession under Section 22(1) of the DDA Act was taken vide Notification No. F.9(2)/78-L&B; dated 3.2.1981. Accordingly, the Defendant is entitled to remove encroachments on the land under i...

Kranti Kumar Parekh Vs. Burmah Shell Oil and Storage Company and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)697

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the defendants under Order XIII Rule 2 CPC. The present application seeks to produce the original lease deed dated 26.8.1963 with the annexed plan which lease deed is said to be executed between M/s Urban improvement Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the defendants. This application further pleads that the original lease deed was already filled by the plaintiff and was admitted by the defendants and marked as Ex. P-7 and the plaintiff had failed to file a complete document as the copy of the site plan annexed with the lease deed was not filed. It is pleaded that these documents were not filed earlier as the plan was mixed up with the old records since the office of the defendants Corporation shifted from one place to another several times. It is also stated that the said documents was traced out only recently. 2. The above application has been opposed on behalf of the plaintiff as an abuse of the process of law. It has been pleaded that the c...