Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Jaipur PolyspIn Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(79)ECC544; 2001(134)ELT346(Del)

ORDER1. Heard.Petitioner seeks for reference of certain questions, stated to be questions of law, arising out of the order of the Customs Excise and Gold Appellate Tribunal (in short CEGAT) in Appeal No. E/1413/94-D dated 9th August, 1999.Following are the questions in respect of which petitioner seeks reference.'1. Whether in face of material evidence on record to establish that the burden of duty of Central Excise had not been passed on by the Applicant Company to its customers, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has erred in law in holding that the claim for refund of duty of Rs. 9,24,526/- filed by the Applicant Company is admissible on merits as well as on the ground of payment of duty under protest, but directed the credit of the same to the consumers welfare fund on the ground that the bar of unjust enrichment will operate against the Applicant Company?2. Whether the affidavits of the customers declaring that the applicant Company had charged and they had paid the duty at...

J.K. Dhingra Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the District Forum-III dated 10.6.1997 passed in Complaint Case No. 214/97 entitled J.K. Dhingra v. General Manager, D.E.S.U. 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had been sanctioned a new connection K. No. 213/DL/149365 of 1 KW, for the first floor, of his house on 16.6.1995 and the said sanction order together with order for installing the meter was sent to the A.E. (Ramesh Nagar) Zone on 24.6.1995. But, despite the efforts of the appellant, the electricity connection could only be energized on 20.9.1995, i.e. after a delay of about three months from the date of sanction. The appellant had, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum, praying for the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- ...

M/S. Oswal Fats and Oil Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s Oswal Fats & Oil, the issue involved is whether they were eligible to avail of Modvat Credit on the strength of invoice which did not fulfil the requirement of Notification No.15/94-CE(N.T.) dt. 30-3-94 and were issued by the supplier who was not registered with the Department.2. Shri R.S. Saini, Ld. Consultant, submitted that the suppliers got themselves registered with the Department before 31-12-1994; that the scruitny of the invoices reveals that particulars of payment of duty by the manufacture had been duly mentioned on the invoices. I also heard Shri S.C. Pushkarna, Ld. D.R., who reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned Order.3. I have considered submissions of both the sides. The Assistant Commissioner, who adjudicated the matter, has himself observed in the Adjudication Order No. 83/CE/AC 196 Dt. 25-9-95 that "the suppliers of raw material who issued invoices have got themselves registered with Central Excise Department subseque...

A.Y. Enterprises Vs. Cce Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s A.Y. Enterprises, the issue involved is wether the length of gallaries is also to be included t o the length of the chamber while determining the annual production capacity of the Hot Air Stenter.2. I heard Shri Y.K. Kumar, Ld. Advocate, for the Appellant, and Shri A.K. Jain, Ld. DR for the Revenue. The issue involved in the present appeal has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal is the case of M/s Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. CCE Jaipur, Final Order No.16/2000/NB (DB) dt. 4-1-2001, wherein it was held that the gallery which is having no fans or radiators attached to it cannot come within the perview of "any other equipment " as contemplated by Explanation I to Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Dtermination Rules, 1998. Accordingly Tribunal Held that the view, expressed by the Tribunal in the case of R.M. Gupta Textile, 2000(40) RLT234 to the effect that galleries are not to be included in the dimension of...

M/S Pvp Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appeal was dismissed for default in appearance. The restoration application submits that appellant had not received any communication about the hearing. It is also submitted in the appeal that the appellant is a sick unit. They have submitted that it against natural justice to dismiss the appeal for want of appearance.2. The restoration application is allowed. The case is posted to 8.3.2001 for final hearing. Registry to issue notice immediately. The appellant may be informed that if they do not make use of the opportunity for arguments on 8.3.2001, the case shall be disposed of based on the record....

M/S. British Scaffolding (i) Ltd. Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants have filed this appeal against the order in appeal dated 24.2.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who affirmed the order in original of the deputy Commissioner dated 27.8.99 disallowing them modvat credit on the invoices in question on the ground that these were not valid and proper documents under the law.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of shuttering and allied products. They claimed modvat credit under Rule 57-A of the Rules on the strength of disputed six invoices Nos. .09 dated 16.4.96 of Rs. 33,415/-, 42 dated 10.6.96 of Rs. 43,962/-, 63 dated 5.7.96 of Rs. 45,135/-, 64 dated 9.7.96 of Rs. 44,818/-, 70 dated 19.7.96 of Rs. 45,345/- and 75 dated 20.7.96 of Rs 48,981/-, but only first two invoices bore rubber stamp of 'Duplicate for transporter' while the other did not. The appellants were issued show cause notice for the recovery of the amount as the modvat credit on these invoices was no available to them under the law being not valid doc...

Cce, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Shubh Coatings (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1.This is a reference application filed by the Department under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944.2. The question of law for reference is not forthcoming from this application. It appears that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III who filed this application did not himself look for, or attempt to formulate, any question of law for reference. Such an application presented in an apparently haphazard manner would not appeal to this Tribunal. A reference application filed under Section 35G(1) of the Act should specifically state the question of law alleged to have arisen from appellate order of the Tribunal. The applicants should then state valid grounds for referring such question to the jurisdictional High Court. This has not happened in the instant case.3. Ld. JDR Shri A.K.Jain representing the applicants has sought time for framing the question of law. I cannot accede to this request. It ought to have occurred to the Commissioner who presented the application. Any ...

Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Today the matter is posted for hearing the stay Application filed by M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd.. As the issue involved is in very narrow compass, I stay the recovery of the dues and take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. Shri Shekhar Vyas, Ld. Advocate, submitted that they had received certain inputs under Invoice No. 997135 dt. 16-5-94, issued by M/s Thakur Dass & Company and took Modvat Credit; that the Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings against them for disallowing the modvat credit holding that the Annexure attached to invoice contained all the particulars as required under Notification No. 15/94-(NT) dt.30-3-94 and M/s Thakur Dass & Company, the stockist of manufacture, were eligible to issue the invoices; that, however, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order, disallowed the modvat credit holding that the invoice did not contain particulars as per Notification NO. 15/94 (NT). The ld. Advocate, further, submitted...

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cce Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s U.P.State Sugar Corporation Ltd, is whether any penalty is imposable on them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, when entire Modvat Credit has been allowed to them by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Shri Bipin Garg, Ld Advocate, submitted that Dy. Commissioner has disallowed capital goods credit amounting to Rs. 2,32,236.89P in repsect of certain capital goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on them; that on appeal preferred by them the Commissioner (Appeal), under the impugned Order, allowed the capital goods credit entirely but reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000/- only ; that as no capital goods credit has been availed of by them wrongly, no penalty need by imposed on them.3. Shri A.K.Jain, Ld. DR, reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeal) as contained in the impugned Order according to which there were certain irregularities/lapses and non observance of procedures.4. I have considered the subm...

Shri Mauji Vs. Uoi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)176; 90(2001)DLT184

ORDERKhan, (J)1. Appellant's land in Asalatpur Khadar village was acquired pursuant to Section 4 Notification dated 20.6.1966. Collector categorised the land of this village in two blocks and awarded Rs.3,000/- per bigha for block-A and Rs.2500/- p.b for block-B. Reference court enhanced it to Rs.1100/- p.b. in block-A and Rs.1600/- p.b in block-B. Appellant filed RFA 89/1976 for further enhancement and first Appellate court relying upon the reasoning given in RFA 59/71 (Chunni Lal and another v. UOI) awarded him Rs.7000/- p.b. He has filed this LPA and demands Rs.10,000/- p.b. 2. Learned Counsel for appellant Mr. Singh pointed out that a DB of this court had already enhanced the compensation to Rs.8000/- p.b. by judgment dated 20.6.1993 in RFA 224/1968 while dealing with acquisition matters under Section 4 Notification dated 20.10.1961 and as such appellant also deserved to be awarded more. He submitted that this court had consistently granted 12% p.a. escalation in a number of judgme...