Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments

M/S. Tribunal Cigarettes Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture Cigarettes falling under Sub-heading No.2403.11 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They received 'Cut Tobacco' at concessional rate of duty by following the procedure as prescribed under Chapter X vide Exemption Notfn. No.356/86-CE dt.24.6.86. The party vide their applications dt. 7.11.95 and 14.11.95 applied to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad for the destruction of 100 bags, weighing 3,400 Kgs cut tobacco received on 27.10.95 and 339 bags, weighing 11,525 Kgs of 'Esquire Filter Tobacco' received on 6.2.95/13.2.95 respectively on the ground that the same had deteriorated considerably and was not fit for manufacture of Cigarettes. The respective samples were drawn from the consignments of cut tobacco and sent to the chemical examiner for ascertaining the fact whether the condition of the cut tobacco at that time was fit for manufacture of Cigarettes. The chemical examiner, C.R.C.L New Delhi in his report dt. 25.4.96 state...

C.C.E. Amritsar Vs. Shri Kaifee Faiyaz Ahmad Nomani and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The facts in brief in this case are that Shri Kaifee Faiyaz Ahmed Nomani, herein after referred to as Shri Kaifee- an Indian repatriate from Kuwait, imported a 1978 Model 'Nissan Datsun' car on 8.10.90 through Land Customs Station, Attari Road, Amritsar. The said car was released conditionally under Section 143 of the Customs Act, 1962 on execution of General Bond dt. 9.10.90 for an amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- on the condition of his producing an Import Licence/Customs Clearance Permit within two weeks or such extended period as allowed by the proper Officer. this Bond was also supported by a Surety Bond dt.3.12.90 for an amount of Rs. 90,000/- 2. Since Shri Kaifee failed to produce necessary Import Licence/C.C.P.for the legal import of the said car even after sufficient extended time was allowed to him, the officers of Customs (Preventive), Surat seized the car on 7.1.94 from Shri Shahalam Faiyaz Ahamed Nomani (herein after referred to as Shri Shahalam in his statement dt. 7.01.94 de...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sigma Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT218TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the respondents are M/s. Sigma Enterprises.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents, M/s. Sigma Enterprises. A notice for today's hearing had been received back undelivered with the postal remarks "left". It is an old matter in which the show cause notices were issued in the year 1993-94. We are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Smt. Rashida Hussain, SDR.3. The matter relates to the classification of the goods referred to as charging tubes, discharge tubes, suction tubes and discharge tube extension. The respondents had classified the same under sub-heading No. 8414.91 and the same was approved by the jurisdictional authorities. Subsequently, they revised the classification on their own and took a stand that the goods were not excisable. The proceedings were drawn and under the order-in-original Nos. 171-174/CE/'94, dated 29-11-1994 while disposing of the four show cause notices, the Collector o...

A.K. Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT209TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 30-11-99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed for not taking permission under Rule 173H of the Rules.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants is a small scale manufacturer and they are manufacturing parts of transformers and also undertaking the repairs of transformers.He submits that on 13-10-95 appellants wrote to the revenue department seeking permission under Rule 173H of the Rules for the year 1995-96 and submitted that they were having central excise licence and asked for the permission under Rule 173H for repairing the duty-paid damaged electrical transformers. On 28-8-98, the appellants again made a request to the revenue for granting the necessary permission under Rule 173H of the Rules. On 3-10-98, appellants again made a representation to the Commissioner whereby they submitted that they had already app...

Flash Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(94)LC312Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been filed against confirmation of demand of duty of Central Excise amounting to Rs. 23,56,116.33.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of "Prudent" Tooth Paste. They filed price list.Price lists were approved by the Asstt. Commissioner under his Order-in-Original No. 87/CE/91. Pursuant to this order of the Asstt.Commissioner, four SCNs were issued to the appellants alleging that their entire production was being sold to their holding company M/s.Parley Products Ltd. and M/s. Parley Biscuits Ltd. which is another subsidiary company of M/s. Parley Products Ltd. and that the appellant was paying duty at the price list at which the holding company purchased the goods and not at the wholesale purchase price charged by the holding company in the course of wholesale trade. The Asstt.Commissioner while adjudicating the price list held that the holding company is a related person as per proviso (iii)) to Section 4(1) of the...

Jamna Auto Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT181TriDel

"The case is crystal clear. Noticee No. 1 has transferred business along with all the inputs, stock in process, finished goods and plant and machinery lying with them to Noticee No. 2 on 1-1-1999. They were required to observe proper procedure and discharge the liability of payment of duty or reversal of credit as the case may be on the goods sold which they certainly failed to do".2. Pursuance to these findings he confirmed recovery of duty on capital goods under Rule 57U(4). He also confirmed recovery of duty on inputs under Rule 57-I(i). He also confirmed recovery of duty on finished goods. He confiscated capital goods and allowed them to be redeemed on payment of fine and also imposed penalty on Noticee No. 1 and Noticee No. 2. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed these two appeals.3. The facts of the case are that M/s. Jamna Auto Industries have two divisions. In one Division they manufactured Leaf Springs falling under Chapter Heading 73.20. They manufactured...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. D.K. Processors (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT802TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal dated 28.03.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order-in-original of the Addl.Commissioner confirming the duty demand of Rs. 5,74,9987- and Rs. 14,82,7637- on the respondents.2. The facts are not in dispute. The respondents are engaged in the processing of fabrics given to them by the principal manufacturers on job work basis. They undertake the process of heat setting and stentering on such fabrics sent to them by the principal manufacturers, under Rule 57F (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Revenue Department raised the duty demand for the period Dec., 1995 to June, 1996 from them for this job work by serving them two show cause notices. But they contested the correctness of the show cause notices on the ground that they being job workers were not liable to discharge the duty liability as the principal manufacturers cleared the fabrics under Rule 57...

Urvashi Film and Tv Group Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)76; AIR2001Delhi56; 88(2000)DLT502; 2000(57)DRJ148

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that directions be issued to the respondents to telecast the Seriall 'JEEVAN DARSHAN' at D.D.I in Prime Time at the earliest. Petitioner claims that the Seriall is of public importance and interest having educative value and, thereforee, these directions are called for. Additionally, petitioner seeks compensation of Rs.20 lacs plus interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and cost of the petition. 2. Petitioner had submitted the script of T.V. Seriall 'JEEVAN DARSHAN' under the new Sponsorship Scheme, in 1993. Respondents notified the petitioner vide their letter dated 27.8.1993, that as per the random computerized draw of lots for prioritization of proposals, petitioner's Seriall had been listed at priority No.32. under the Family Serialls Category. Petitioner was also informed that there was no scope to consider waitlisted proposals for...

State Vs. C.S. Rathore

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ761

ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. This reference has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara in the matter of 'State v. Amrit Lal & others' arising out of the FIR No.351/93 Police Station Trilok Puri under Sections 147/148/452/436/34 IPC for invoking inherent power and/or revisional jurisdiction of the High Court directing the Committal Magistrate to rectify the committal order to implead Mr. C.S. Rathore as an accused to stand trial. The facts of this case are that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the matter has been committed, upon going through the material found that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by the order dated 17.3.1994 had summoned the accused persons except Mr. C.S. Rathore. In the charge-sheet the SHO had submitted that 'accused C.S. Rathore who is a Supreme Court advocate if arrested there could be disturbance in the area and as per the instructions of the Officer he is not being arrested to maintain the law and order in the area. So his name h...

R.N. Bakshi and anr. Vs. Varun Kumar Datt

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ815

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By this Order I shall dispose off the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Defendant's application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 for setting aside ex-party injunction.2. The plaintiff has filed the present case for Specific performance of an Agreement for the purchase, of properties bearing No. 25 and 26, Double Storey, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The execution of the Agreement is not in dispute. Plaintiff No. 2 and the Defendant are siblings, and Plaintiff No. 1 is the husband of plaintiff No. 2 and the brother-in-law of the Defendants. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. In the Agreement dated 14th April, 1993, the total sale consideration was recorded as Rs. 20,00,000/- and an advance of Rs. l,00,000/-was given. It was agreed that Rs. 5,00,000/- will be paid within three months and another Rs. 5,00,000/- within six months from the date of executing of this Agreement. It is further agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 9,00...