Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Premier Plastic Pipe Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT68TriDel

1. This order will dispose of ROM application moved by the appellants seeking recall of the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/1335/99-NB(S) and stay order No. S/573/99-NB(S) both dated 25.10.99 vide which the appeal and stay application filed by them, against the Order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) who declined their stay application for the pre-deposit of the duty amount firstly and later on dismissed their appeal for non-deposit of the amount, vide order dated 17.6.99 were rejected.2. The ld. Counsultant appearing on behalf of the appellants has sought the recall of the stay as well as Final Order of the Tribunal on the ground the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the stay application of the appellants without hearing them and as such the Order-in-appeal passed by him dismissing their appeal under Section 35 F of the Act was illegal and improper. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on 1. Ceat Ltd. vs. Union of india 1995 (109) ELT 336 Bombay High Court. 2. Jesus...

M/S. Ajay Gupta and Sanjeev Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against impugned order-in-appeal dated 23.7.98 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in Original of the Additional Commissioner ordering the confiscation of the gold of the value of Rs.3,67,416/- under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act and imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- each , on them under Section 112 of the Act.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under: On 23rd August, 1996 on receipt of prior information, the customs officers intercepted on jeep coming form Toothibari Nichnaul Road in the presence of two witnesses and apprehended both the appellants who are traveling in that geep. On conducting their personal search, six gold biscuits of foreign origin valued at Rs.3,67,416/- were recovered and the same were seized. They on interrogation confessed, in their respective statements, of having brought gold biscuits from Katmandu for delivery to a person known as 'Guru' of Govi...

M/S. Paras Jalan Plasto and Oils(P) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against Order-in-Appeal dated 9.12.98 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the Order-in-Original dated 22.9.97 of the Assistant Commissioner, declining the modvat credit of the disputed amount of Rs. 21007.07 to them.2. The appellants claimed modvat credit of Rs. 21007.07 in respect of the inputs received by them in their factory premises, on the basis of the disputed invoices. The Assistant Commissioner through Order-in-Original disallowed the modvat credit of that amount by observing that the disputed invoices generated through computer did not carry printed Serial Number, address, central excise number of the registered person issuing the invoices name of Range/Division/Commissionerate, Income tax, Sales tax numbers etc. as required under Notification No. 23/95/-CE(NE) dated 30.5.95 read with Trade Notices 32/95-CE and 42/95-CE. He also imposed penalty amounting to 10% of the wrongly availed modvat credit amount under R...

Uttam Bharat Electricals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None for the appellant. The appellants were directed vide Order dated 8.12.2000 by the Tribunal to make pre-deposit of Rs.20,000/- within four weeks and compliance was to be reported today. But today none has come present on behalf of the appellants to report the compliance of the said order of the Tribunal. There is also nothing on record to suggest if they had deposited the amount of Rs. 20,000/-.Therefore, the appeal of the appellants is ordered to be dismissed under Section 35 F of the Act for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order. However, they will be at liberty to get the appeal restored if they were able to produce evidence regarding the compliance of Tribunal's order within stipulated period....

M/S. B. Raj Steel and Agro Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT712TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Appeal dated 13.6.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue relates to the entitlement of the modvat credit on ingots scrap. The Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the Order-in-Original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 1.5.96, disallowing the modvat credit of Rs.25,284/- on the ground that the ingots scrap was covered under sub-heading 7204 of the Tariff and could not be used rerolling material.2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants were using only defective ingots for rerolling purposes in the mill and had availed modvat credit of the disputed amount which had now been disallowed by the authorities below, to that extent. He has further submitted that the case of the appellants stands fully covered by the ratio of law laid down in 'Munoth Industries vs. CC Hyderabad' (1996 (84) ELT 285) but the authorities below had not applied that same without any cause.3. Ld. SDR on the other ...

M/S. Atma Tube Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has come present for the appellants Earlier this appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 14.10.99. However later on the application of the appellants it was restored by the Tribunal vide order dated 10.11.2000 and the appeal was directed to be posted for regular hearing for today. Today again none has come present on behalf of the appellants nor there is any request for adjournment.Therefore the appeal is order is order to be dismissed for want of prosecution....

M/S. Pragati Paper Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order in appeal dated 13.6.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner confirming the demand of Rs.1,19,226/- and imposing the penalty of Rs.15,000/- on them.2. The facts giving rise the this appeal are briefly summed up as under: The appellants availed the modvat credit of Rs.1,19,226/- without filing any prior declaration as required under Rule 57 T of the rules, in respect of the capital goods received on 25.7.94. They filed the declaration only on 18.10.94 after the lapse of 85 days. They however requested for condonation of delay on the ground that they were ignorant of an appropriate law regarding filing of declaration, but the same was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20.6.96. The appellants were issued show cause notice for recovery of Rs.1,19,226 the credit of which was taken by wrongly and penalty was also propo...

Shri Gurbachan Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Ld. Counsel has stated that the applicant had already received the gold in compliance with the Tribunal's order and that the Misc.application filed by the applicants be dismissed as withdrawn.2. I have also perused the file. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed on 17.10.2000 for want of prosecution by the Tribunal as they failed to produce evidence to show the date of receipt of the impugned order in order to ascertain if the appeal filed by them was within time or not. Thereafter, the appellants applied for return of the seized gold from their business premises and the Tribunal vide order dated 15.9.2000 directed the Assistant Commissioner Customs (Preventive) to release the gold. On the last date of hearing, the Tribunal passed the order directing the Assistant Commissioner Customs (Preventive) to release the gold. On the last date of hearing, the Tribunal passed the order directing the Assistant Commissioner (Preventive) to show cause as to why action be not taken against him...

M/S. Gobind Parshad Jagdish Parshad Vs. Shri Hari Shankar and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)528; AIR2001Delhi121; 89(2001)DLT675; 2001(57)DRJ575

ORDERVIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.1. An eviction petition on the grounds of subletting was filed almost three decades ago, on 21.11.1972. It was decided in favor of the Landlord by the Additional Rent Controller in 1985. The Tenant's appeal was allowed by the Rent Control Tribunal in July 1987. The present Second Appeal was admitted on 15.12.87. Thereafter, although this Appeal was listed on 24 occasions, not once has anyone entered appearance for any of the Respondents. A vakalatnama was filed on behalf of Respondent No.1 presumably in February 1988. Respondent No.4 had to be served through publication in the Statesman for the hearing scheduled for 11.3.1996 at 11 a.m. (Actual), but there was still no appearance for this Respondent or any of the other Respondents, on that date. 2. The case set out by the Respondents in these applications is that their Counsel did not appear on 11.9.2000 since their names were not mentioned in the Cause List for that date. They came to know of the passing of the ...

Shri R.K. Sharma and Others in Rfa(Os) No. 32/2000 Shri Vishnu Kumar G ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)797; AIR2001Delhi272; 90(2001)DLT583; 2001(57)DRJ722

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. Points arising for determination in these two appeals are identical, thereforee, the same are being disposed of by common order, Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length both on question of condensation of delay in filing appeals and on merits of the appeals and we propose to dispose of the same by a common order.2. Facts in both the appeals are almost identical. Wherever necessary reference will be made to individual case, otherwise facts are being narrated from the record of RFA (08) No.35 of 2000 and the civil suit out of which this appeal has arisen.3. Ashok Nagar Welfare Association claiming to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 filed two separate suits in the Original Side of this Court in the month of January, 1991. Suits were registered as Suit No.544 of 1991 and Suit No.597 of 1991. In the first suit (S.No.544/91) decree for possession was claimed against 48 defendants alleged to be unauthorised occupants of...