Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments

Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC474Tri(Delhi)

1(a). The above appeals have come up before this Bench on reference. In view of the differences in views held by Western Regional Bench, (WRB) and Southern Regional (SRB). Before discussing the controversial issue and the present scenario, it would be interesting to know the background of this issue with the Departmental instructions and relevant case laws in brief on the subject.(b) As per Rules 57F(4) [old rule 57F(2)] of Central Excise Rules, 1944 the inputs can also be removed as such or after they have been partially processed by the manufacturer of the final products to a place outside his factory under the cover of a challan specified in this behalf by the CBE&C, for the purpose of test, repair, refining, re-conditioning or carrying out any other operation necessary for the manufacture of the final products or for manufacture of intermediate products necessary for the manufacture of final products and return the same to his factory. (This shall be done only after debiting a...

Kamal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above application for reference arises out of Tribunal's Final order No 1159-61/99-NB(DB) dated 16-12-99.2. We note that under the proviso to Section 130 of the Customs Act, a Reference application can be filed before the Tribunal only in respect of orders under Section 129B passed before the first day of July, 1999.The cut off date of 1-7-99 was inserted in Section 130 by Section 111 of the Finance Act, 1999. The final order in the present case has been passed after that date and hence no reference lies to the Tribunal. In such cases, Reference Application lies to the High Court under Section 130-A.3. We therefore, reject the Reference application as not maintainable.Registry is directed to return the papers to the appellants for presentation before the proper forum....

Cce Vs. High Land Dye Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC323

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the adjudication order dated 31.3.92 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.3. Brief facts of the case are that the show cause notices were issued to (1) M/s. High Land Dye Works; (2) M/s. Azo Dye Chem and Ors.; (3) M/s. Pigments and Allieds; (4) M/s Konkan Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd.; (5) M/s. Polymers Chemicals Industries; and (6) M/s. Kiran Industries on the ground that the clearances of these units are to be clubbed together for the purpose of Central Excise Duty. Commissioner of Central Excise, in the impugned order held that all the firms are independent units and, therefore, the clearances cannot be clubbed. Now the Revenue filed this appeal against M/s. High Land Dye Works and wants to club the clearances of M/s. High Land Dye Works along with other co-noticees, whereas no appeal has been filed along with this appeal against other co-noticees. Therefore, in absence of any appeal in respect of other co-noticees, we cannot agree with the ...

Mohindra Agro Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT559TriDel

1. Carefully examined the records. Heard both sides. Stay application is allowed unconditionally on the ground of existence of a strong prima facie case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal itself will be disposed of finally forthwith.2. Ld. Consultant Shri P.C. Rathore for the appellants has reiterated the grounds of the appeal and has prayed for setting aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. JDR Shri Y.R. Kilania has defended the impugned order by reiterating the observations and findings of the adjudicating authority. He is, however, not opposed to a remand of the matter to the lower appellate authority inasmuch as the impugned order was passed without affording any personal hearing to the party.3. The adjudicating authority had disallowed Modvat credit to the appellants and had imposed penalty on them. The aggrieved party appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). They also filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty...

Krishna and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT68TriDel

1. In appeal No. E/1787/93-NB(S), the appellants had furnished a security of Rs. 60,000.00 through National Savings Certificate (in short, NSC) and made a cash deposit of Rs. 2,17,389.00 to meet the requirements of 35P of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as per this Tribunal's order as modified by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Later on, the appeal was allowed by way of remand as per Final Order dated 3-10-1997 of this Tribunal [1998 (97) E.L.T. 74 (Tri.)]. Pursuant to the said Final Order, the appellants filed a claim for return of the above NSC and the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,17,389.00, before the Assistant Commissioner on 18-11-1997. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground of time-bar under Section 11B of the Act as per his order dated 20-8-1998. Aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, the party filed a miscellaneous application before this Tribunal under Rule 41 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules for a direction to the jurisdictional Commissione...

Gajanana Motor Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT506TriDel

1. This is an application filed by the assessee to rectify the mistake with reference to the reference order No. 7/98-B1, dated 19.06.1998.2. When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant.However, they have requested to decide the matter on merits. It was submitted by them in their application that issue relates to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The Tribunal erred in the matter as issue involved is whether the petitioner company was entitled to the benefit of exemption of Notification No. 175/86, dated 01.03.1986 and consequently benefit under Notification No. 248/87, dated 04.11.1987 issued under Section 11C extending benefit for the period 01.03.1986 to 30.03.1986, there is no dispute or value of the goods involved. According to them the point of law was required to be referred to the High Court for its considered view since the Tribunal has not referred to rectify the mistake as crept in the order.4. We have carefully considered the matter...

Nandram and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1164; 87(2000)DLT234; 2000(56)DRJ662

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. As all these writ petitions involve similar questions of law and fact, I propose to dispose of all the 15 writ petitions by this common judgment and order. 2. These writ petitions arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 15.11.97 dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners as against the order dated 4.4.1997 passed by the Estate Officer holding that the premises in question are public premises and that the petitioners are in Unauthorized occupation of the said public premises and that they are liable to the evicted from the aforesaid public premises. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties, it is necessary to set out the background facts leading to the passing of the aforesaid order by the Estate Officer. The Chief Commissioner of Delhi by notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act acquired about 150 acres of land situated towards the south of Najafgarh ...

Rajiv Gupta Vs. State and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1127; [2001]104CompCas26b(Delhi); 87(2000)DLT411; 2000(56)DRJ473

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.5 to arrest his father (respondent No.4) in connection with the case FIR No.93/98 under Sections 380/406 IPC registered at the Police Station Nazafgarh. 2. It is undisputed that the respondent No.4, Mr. L.R. Gupta, Senior Advocate, of this Court is father of the petitioner. Respondent No.2, Sanjay Gupta is the younger brother of the petitioner and respondent No.3 is the wife of respondent No.2. On 7.3.1998, the petitioner lodged a report at the Police Station Nazafgarh charging Mr.L.R. Gupta with having committed theft of his firearms as well as the arms licenses. Consequently, FIR No.93/98 under Section 380/406 IPC was registered at the Police Station Nazafgarh. According to the petitioner, on 19.3.1998 the said firearms as well as licences were recovered from the bedroom of his father (respondent No.4). After recovery of the alleged stolen ...

Vinod Chawla Vs. M/S. V.C. Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi112

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the notices issued under section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, hereinafter called the DMC Act in short, and the assessment orders passed in respect of the property No. A-1/55, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi as also the letter of attachment issued by the respondent Corporation in respect of the aforesaid property. 2. Smt. Iqbal Devi is the recorded owner in respect of the aforesaid property in the records maintained by the Corporation. A notice under section 126 dated 27.3.1992 was issued in the name of Smt. Iqbal Devi C/o Shri Vinod Chawla proposing to fix ratable value of the said property at Rs. 8,64,000/- in response to which the petitioner filed objections on 11.4.1992. A call letter was issued by the respondent Corporation for personal hearing, in response to which the petitioner appeared and informed that the property was let out to Rajdoot Guest House on rent @ Rs. 4,000/- up to 31...

Shadi Lal (Deceased) Through Lrs. Vs. Competent Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi76; 2000(56)DRJ522

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The present petition dated 20.2.1978, had been instituted by Shri Shadi Lal on assailing the order dated 12.1.1978, passed by respondent No. 1 competent authority granting permission to the respondent/land-lords under Section 19(1) (a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. 2. Rule in the writ petition was issued on 22.3.1978 and vide orders dated 19.3.1979, the operation of the impugned order was stayed. It was further clarified by another order dated 24.10.1985, that the eviction proceedings instituted by the respondent also stand stayed. 3. During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner Shri Shadi Lal had expired and his legal heirs were brought on record. It may also be noted that respondent No. 2 also expired on 19.11.1989 and the petitioner failed to take any steps for bringing the LRs. on record. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that since respondent 2 and 4 in the instant case had relinquished their share in favor of...