Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 13 of about 277 results (0.021 seconds)R.K. Electronics Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC128
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. R.K. Electronics (India) Ltd., the matter relates to the demand of Central Excise duty for the period 25-7-1989 to 31-8-1989 on the ground that during this period the appellants' premises were not recorded in the relevant registration certificate issued by the Small Scale Industrial Directorate. The duty of Rs. 50,483/- has been demanded by the Department and had been confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad.2. Shri B.C. Saxena, Consultant, submitted that due to difficulties in getting the adequate space the unit had to shift to new premises in the same city and in fact under the same postal zone. When the show cause notice was issued, they shifted back to their old premises and even before the shifting and after shifting back to the old premises, the Department has treated them as Small Scale Unit eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. It was his submission that even during this interim period, they have applied for L-4...
Tag this Judgment!Sail Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC159
1. The present appeal is against the orders of the Commissioner classifying the "Pitch Creosote Mixture" (PCM) and Road Tar under sub-heading 2708.11 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff and "Pitch" under 2708.19 and consequent confirmation of demand of duty Under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of CEA, 1944 and a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs Under Rules 9(2) and 173Q (2) of the Central Excise Rules on M/s. SAIL, BHILAI Steel Plant Bhilai 490-001 M.R who are primarily manufacturers of steel for which they use coal and in the process of converting the coal for use in the manufacture of steel, they obtain products, inter alia, Pitch Creosote Mixture (PCM), Road Tar and Pitch.2. The SCN was issued, as it was alleged that in order to avail the benefit of NIL or lower rate of duty they had declared their products as Pitch blending with Tar Oils like Creosote oil, Anthracene oil etc.and in respect of PCM and Road Tar they declared it as 'Tars/reconstituted t...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT319TriDel
1. A demand of duty of Rs. 3,06,364/- has been confirmed against the appellants who are manufacturers of MS bars and rods on the ground that they are not eligible to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 202/88 dated 20-5-1988 since they purchased unserviceable rails, sleepers; fishplates, etc. (rail scrap) during auction from Railways and used the same as raw material which was clearly recognisable as non-duty paid and that therefore, they should have paid appropriate duty. The period in dispute is August 1992 to February 1994 while the show cause notice is dated 26-8-1997. Penalty of amount equal to the duty has also been imposed.2. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that on merits, the issue has been decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Re-rolling Mills v. C.C.E., [1994 (73) E.L.T 660] which has been followed subsequently in the case of Rehal Industrial Corporation v. C.C.E. wherein the Tribunal has held that b...
Tag this Judgment!Narender Kaur Vs. Arun Sheoran, I.O., Narcotics Control Bureau
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ553
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') challenges the legality and propriety of order dated 3.3.1998 passed by learned Addl. Session Judge whereby two applications, one filed by Smt. Narender Kaur (Present petitioner) for return of Maruti Car No.DL-SC 0657 and the other by Smt. Daya Kaur for return of the currency of Rs. 2,44,900/- and some other articles which were seized by Narcotics Control Bureau (for short 'NCB') during investigation were dismissed. Only Smt. Narender Kaur has filed this petition. 2. Briefly, the facts are that on prior secret information received on 25.3.1997, the officers of NCB formed two surveillance teams, one was deputed near House No. B-7/1 Mianwali Nagar belonging to one Ved Prakash Manchanda (accused in the main case) where accused Amar Pal Singh along with his son Tarvinder Pal Singh reached in the aforesaid Maruti car, where said Manchanda had handed over to Amar Pal Singh a packet w...
Tag this Judgment!Dinbandhu Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4875; 2000(55)DRJ96
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 226/99 registered under Sec-tions 420/406/409/120-B IPC. It is not disputed that the petitioner is in custody for more than 26 months (since 6th May, 1998). 2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under : A complaint was filed by Major General Ranjit Singh (complainant) with the Police Station Prasad Nagar, Delhi. In the complaint, it is alleged by the complainant that he was enticed by the Directors and officials of the Hoffland Group of Companies to deposit the money. It is also alleged that after maturity of deposits, repayments have not been made despite persistent demands, though he was given categoric assurance that the money would be refunded after the maturity of deposits. It is also alleged that like the complainant hundreds of other investors had deposited their life time savings with the Hoffland Group of Companies. In most cases neither the principal nor the inter...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Mohan Vs. Indian Oil Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT746
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner's grievance is against the non-consideration of his tender. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been excluded from consideration on the ground that in his bid out of the eight trucks offered by him, one of the trucks was functioning under contract with M/s. Madhukar Road carriers, who, in turn, had a contract with M/s. Hindustan Petroleum. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Nandrajog, submits that as per the tender conditions, petitioner's bid could not have been excluded. 2. The relevant terms and conditions, as regards the present controversy, may be noticed : (i) There is a prohibition on a bidder for quoting in respect of trucks which are under contract with either the corporation or other transporters. (ii) The bidders were required to give an undertaking incorporating, inter alia, 'that the vehicles under reference are not attached with any other contractor and have not been withdrawn without their written ...
Tag this Judgment!Margra Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT783TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the importer against imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 14 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported marble blocks. When the goods arrived at the port, the appellants prepared an in-bond Bills of Entry for warehousing the goods. The department did not allow warehousing the goods and since the appellants did not produce the import licence at the time while presenting the in-bond Bills of Entry, the goods were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 14 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs was also imposed on them. The case came up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded back to the authorities below for considering the point taken by the importer. The Commissioner while passing the order in remand observed that the appellants may present in-bond Bills of Entry along with the goods which may be accepted by the customs authorities.Against this requirement and against imposition of p...
Tag this Judgment!O.K. Play India Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC752
1. Appellants engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Water Storage Tanks of capacities ranging from 150 Litres to 200 Litres, since 1990 installed pulverising machinery to obtain 'moulding-power' from LDPE, HDPE granules and Master Betch etc. and thereafter used it in moulding the articles being manufactured and sold by them including the Water Storage Tanks and other products introduced subsequently viz. Baby Car, Swing, Rocker, Slides, Play Table, Play Pool, Baby Chair and Desk.2. On 24-4-1997, Anti-Evasion Branch officers visited the factory and pursuant to the enquiries made by them a Show Cause Notice dated 1-5-1997 (herein after referred to as first SCN) demanding duty amounting to Rs. 18,82,080/- in respect of moulding powder prepared by them and consumed captively in the manufacture of exempted final products during the period October, 1996 to March 1997 was issued by Commissioner (Central Excise), New Delhi. This was adjudicated vide O/o No. 32/97-D-III, dated 18-11-1997 where...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC484Tri(Delhi)
1. This matter has come up before this Larger Bench on the basis of order dated 29-10-1999 passed by a single Member Bench of the Tribunal (WRB) in Appeal No. E/3173/99-NB in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. 2. Single Member in Para 3 of the aforesaid order had observed : "The ld. Single Member in the said judgment allowed the case of the Department. There is conflict of decisions between the order in the appellants' case and the case of Chandigarh Bottling Company. It is to be mentioned here that in the Chandigarh Bottling Company case, the judgment of the appellant company was not cited. In the judgment of the appellants' case, the very ground of distinguishing each other has been referred to in Para 4 thereof. There is a divergence of opinion between two Members. Therefore the matter is placed before the President for constituting Larger Bench to look into the correctness of the judgments".3. We have heard Shri M.C. Sharma, ld. CDR for ...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT776TriDel
1. The dispute to be resolved in this appeal is whether the word 'or' used in Sub-clauses (3)(a) & (3)(b) of Section 35D of C.E.A. 1944 should be read as 'or' or as 'and'.2. Arguing the case for the appellants, Shri J.S. Agaiwal, ld. Counsel submits that sometimes the word 'or' is to be read as 'and' when it comes to exercising jurisdiction. He submits that in ordinary usage 'and' is a conjunctive and 'or' is disconjunctive. But to carry out the intention of the legislature it may be necessary to read 'and' for 'or' while interpreting the statute. He submits that in the instant case, the intention of the legislator appears to be to give an overall power taking the fine and penalty together. Ld. Counsel submits that Sub-clause (3)(a) of Section 35D speaks of duty also. He submits, therefore, that the word 'or' used in Sub-clause (3)(a) and Sub-clause (3)(b) of Section 35D are to be read as a whole and not independent of each other. He submits that in the instant case duty 'or' pena...
Tag this Judgment!