Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments

M/S. Malwa Oxygen and Industrial Vs. C.C.E. Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ratlam vide his order dt.20.10.97 has confirmed a differential duty of Rs.28,437/- on the appellants on the ground that they were availing the benefit of exemption under Notfn. No.1/93-CE dt.28.2.93. On crossing the exemption limit of Rs.75 lakhs, they paid Central Excise Duty at the concessional rate of 15% Advalorem where they were required to pay duty at full rate i.e., 20% advalorem. Therefore, he has held that these amounts of penalty (Rs.5,000) duty are required to be recovered from them under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. He has further disallowed the modvat credit of Rs.5,334/- to the party on the ground that they had wrongly availed the modvat credit of this amount on the strength of invoice No. 2382 dt. 16.1.97 issued by M/s. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. since the modvat credit is taken on Dissolved Actylene (D.A.) Gas, but this item is not declared in the declaration filed by them. It is further observed that t...

Punjab Machinery Works Pvt. Ltd Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC331

1. These appeals arise out of and are directed against the Order-in-Appeal date 29.12.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. The short point to be considered in this case is whether the value of wooden crates in liable to be included or not in determining the assessable value.3. When the matter was called, Shri Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants. It was submitted vide their letter dated 28.7.2000 that the Assistant Commissioner has decided the issue against the assessee without commenting on the decisions cited by the party [Supreme Court Jugement ].4. Arguing for the Revenue, Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, JDR submitted that nothing is on record to substantiate whether wooden crates were for the safety of the goods in transit. Furthermore, it is not clear whether they are durable or returnable.5. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that before the authorities below, it was submitted by the party that the party is using wooden crate f...

Uma Shankar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT188TriDel

1. The appellants filed the appeals against common adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. In the impugned order, the penalty of Rs. seven lakh on Shri Uma Shankar, partner of M/s. Pawan Cargo Forwarders and a penalty of Rs. three lakh on Shri Ravinder Kumar, an employee of M/s. Pawan Cargo Forwarders was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. A Matador vehicle, belonging to M/s. Pawan Cargo Forwarders, was also confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act and the appellants were given an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. two lakh.3. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Pawan Cargo Forwarders are in the business of courier/transporter of parcels/documents. On 30-12-97, the vehicle number DL-2CF-0639, belonging to M/s. Pawan Cargo Forwarders, was intercepted by the Customs authorities and on search of the vehicle, 54 cardboard boxes wrapped with paper adhesive tape alongwith other packages were recovered. On scrutiny cardboar...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. A.K. Spintex Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT552TriDel

1. The Respondents are the processors of man made fabrics. They process such fabrics on job work basis for the Merchant manufacturers. On a visit to the factory premises by the Central Excise Officers, it was observed that the grey fabric sent by M/s. Ratnagiri (I) Ltd. were processed by the appellant and sent to the Merchant manufacturers under their invoice on payment of duty. From the invoice it came to notice that the assessable value shown therein in respect of processed man made fabrics was lower than the one shown in the declaration filed by the traders under Notification No. 27/92-(N.T.), dated 9-2-1999. The proceedings were initiated against the appellants which culminated in Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise passing an order dated 10-3-1999 in which inter alia he imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q and a penalty of Rs. 2,04,060/- equal to the duty determined under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The appellants filed an appe...

Saraswati Kisan Sahkarichini Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT813TriDel

1. ROM application Nos. E/ROM/202 and 206/99 have been filed by M/s.Saraswati Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. stating that there has been a mistake on the question of limitation and praying that the mistake may be rectified.2. Arguing the case for the applicant Shri Vinay Garg, ld. Counsel submits that an argument was adduced at the time of hearing the appeal stating that the demand was barred by limitation inasmuch as proviso to Section 11A was not invoked. He submits that the Tribunal in the Final Order Nos. A/234-243/98-NB dated 15.05.1998 [1998 (103) E.L.T. 545 (T)] in para 10 did not deal with the subject of limitation under proviso to Section 11A and therefore, he prays that the mistake may be rectified and the ROM may be allowed.3. Shri Mewa Singh, ld. DR submits that there is no mistake apparent on the face of records. Therefore, he prays that the application may be rejected.4. We have heard the rival submissions. We note that in para 6 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has o...

Shanker Printing Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT163TriDel

1. The above appeal arises out of the order dated 13-7-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh in terms of Rule 96ZQ(2) of the Central Excise Rules by which he has partly allowed the abatement claim of the appellants and then adjusted the abatement amount of Rs. 1,82,023/- for the period 24-12-1998 to 1-1-1999 against duty liability as per final determination of the annual capacity of the appellants under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998.2. The grievance of the appellants is that the abatement has been allowed only for seven days and not eight days as claimed by them. In support of their contention that they are entitled to abatement in duty for eight days, they cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Singareni Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad reported in [2000 (39) RLT 474].3. The further grievance is that the impugned order has been passed without personal hearing. They also stated that t...

Aar Vee Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT393TriDel

1. Heard. The Stay application of the applicants was dismissed by the Tribunal vide Order dated 07.07.2000 as none appeared on their behalf to prosecute the same. The present miscellaneous application has been filed by them seeking recall of that order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Counsel was taken ill all of sudden due to severe headache and on that account he could not appear. There exists no reason to doubt this ground of the applicants especially when, their prayer for recall of the order, has not been seriously oppossed by the JDR. Therefore the Misc. application of the applicant is allowed and the order dated 07.07.2000 dismissing the stay application for want of prosecution is recalled.2. I have heard both the sides on merits of the stay application. The applicants were allowed to avail the Modvat credit under Rule 57H of the Rules which they claimed on the inputs lying in the stock after due intimation to the Central Excise Department by the Assistant Commissioner th...

Shravan Kapur and Others Vs. Anup Kapur and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1117; 88(2000)DLT108; 2000(56)DRJ823

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. This appeal is against an order passed by learned Single Judge on 5.8.1998 directing partition of the suit property by metes and bounds in accordance with the shares declared in the preliminary decree dated 12.1.1996. 2. Facts in brief are that Dewan Chand Kapur filed a suit for partition of property No.49/7, Rajpur Road, Delhi against his three sons, namely, Shri Anup Kapur, Shri Aman Kapur and Shri Naveen Kapur claiming that property is the Joint Hindu Family having been inherited by him and his three sons from his late father Shri Lajjya Ram Kapur. The property is in joint possession of the parties in which parties have 1/5th undivided share. After summons had been duly served on the defendants, an application under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. was filed. It was allowed and a preliminary decree was passed on 12.1.1996 declaring that of the parties have 1/5th share each in the suit property. Simultaneously, a Local Commissioner was appointed to suggest mode of par...

Association of Co-operatives and Apex Societies of Handloom Vs. State ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1119; AIR2000Delhi106; 2001(1)ARBLR19(Delhi); 88(2000)DLT101; 2000(55)DRJ531; 2001(1)RAJ368

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed by learned Single Judge on 1.9.1999. While vacating the ex parte order of adinterim injunction granted on 30.9.1997 and thereby dismissing the application for adinterim injunction, learned Single Judge dismissed the main petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Facts in brief are that the appellant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and has been constituted by Government of India with a view to take up welfare schemes in handloom sector and to assist member units in infrastructure development. The respondent through the Directorate of Handlooms and Sericulture, Department of Industries, Bihar as a part of welfare scheme floated by it invited tenders in the month of June, 1996 for supply of cotton dhoties and cotton/nylon/polyester sarees to each family in the State of Bihar living below the poverty line. Appellant's t...

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. B.R. Handa (Huf) and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1178; 88(2000)DLT64

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. By this appeal the defendant/appellant has prayed to set aside an interim order passed on 27.5.1998 by learned Single Judge of this Court in is 282/98 directing the defendant to pay arrears of rent/damages @ Rs. 85/- per sq. ft. per month to the plaintiffs/respondents w.e.f. 1.11.1997. Arrears were directed to be paid within two months. The appellant was further directed to continue to pay the rent and damages at the same rate subject, however, to the respective contentions of both the parties in the pending suit. 2. Facts in brief are that on 12.1.1998 the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant claiming a decree for delivery of vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises and for recovery of mesne profits at the rate, as may be assessed w.e.f. 1.11.1997 till date of delivery of possession. It was also prayed that in the meantime, the defendant be directed to go on paying at least a sum of Rs. 1,72,186.64, as detailed in Annexure A attached to th...