Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Cce, Meerut Vs. M/S. Modi Arc Electrodes

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both the sides agreed that reference in similar matters had already been allowed and the matter is presently before the different High Courts. In this case, the jurisdiction rests with the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and reference on this same issue have already been made to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.2. In the interest of justice, I consider that in place of making identical references, this matter may also be dealt with appropriately as and when the question is answered by the Hon'ble High Court. With these observations, the reference application filed by the Revenue is allowed. Both the sides are at liberty to mention as and when the decision of the High Court is arrived at....

Cce, Delhi-ii Vs. M/S. Sidwal Refrigeration Indus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II, had prayed that the following tow questions be referred to the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana- "(i) Whether the word "Marked" used in Rule 52A or 57GG of Central Excise Rules would mean "Pre printed" as prescribed by any method or a liberal dictionary meaning could be accepted for this terms." (ii) Whether under the scheme of Modvat rules the procedural requirements made by the CBEC could be overlooked by the commissioner (Appeals) or CEGAT on the plea that substantive benefit cannot be denied for a procedural lapse." 2. After hearing both the sides, I find the Tribunal had been consistently taking a view that when the invoice-cum-despatch advice had been rubber stamped, in the absence of any other allegation credit was not to be denied solely on this ground that the invoice-cum-despatch advice did not bear printed serial numbers.As the only allegation involved in this case was that the word original on invoice-cum-despatch ...

Vinay Kr. and Others, Sh. Ramesh Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT96TriDel

1. These matters are being mentioned by Ld. Advocate Sh. Deepak Mahajan, junior to Ld. Advocate Sh. Vivek Sood. The Advocates propose to move these Misc. Applications on behalf of persons who seek to have the captioned appeals rejected on the ground that the appeals were filed by some other persons, who allegedly impersonated these applicants fraudulently. These applicants seek to invoke the Tribunal's powers under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. Sh. Mahajan has requested for an adjournment of these matters on the ground of ill-health of his senior.2. While granting the above request, I note that the captioned appeals are all directed against a common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The said order is a voluminous document running into about 390 pages. There are 39 parties who must be aggrieved by the order. The appellants in Appeal Nos. E/2625, 2627 and 2623/2000-NB(SM) figure respectively at Sr. Nos. 22, 23 and 25 of the list of parties annexed to the impu...

Cce, New Delhi Vs. M/S Samtel India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT111TriDel

1. This application is by the Revenue claiming that the following questions of law have arisen out of Final Order No. A/42-43/99-NB(S) dated 18.1.99 passed by the Tribunal in the appeals filed by the department against Order-in-Appeal dated 3.4.98 of the Commissioner (Appeals):- (i) Whether the term "Cabinet" declared as input under rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 will encompass within itself the components of Cabinet also. (ii) Whether the rules for the interpretation of Central Excise Tariff Schedule could be invoked under the MODVAT Scheme of Central Excise Rules when it has been consistently held by appellate authorities that these Rules are relevant only for the purpose of classification and were not applicable in the matters of exemption notifications.2. The respondents, engaged in the manufacture of computer monitors, had taken modvat credit on items viz. Front Cover, Rear Cover, Swivel Base, Power Knob, S. Bar V.R. Knob etc. as inputs in October, 1996 after declarin...

Bhaju Ram and Ram Chander Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both the appeals are filed against the same impugned over honed taken up together.2. In the appeal memorandum the appellants made a request in decide the appeals on merits as they are poor persons and not in a position to attend the personal nearing.5. The appellants filed application for waiver of penalty of Rs.25,000/- each under Section 112 of the Customs Act.6. On 2.12.99, a truck was intercepted by Custom authorities and appellant Shri Bhaju Ram was the driver, driving the truck and Shri Ram Chander the appellant was the co-driver of the truck. From the truck, Silk cloth of foreign origin valued at Rs.7,45,000/- were recovered.The appellants could not produce any proof in respect of the legal import of the Silk cloth of foreign origin nor they could gave any plausible explanation in respect of the Silk cloth of foreign origin recovered form their possession. Therefore, it is not a fit case for total waiver of penalty. However, taking into consideration the financial hardship o...

M/S J.R.M. Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are manufacturers of hot re-rolled non-alloy steel products, which are goods notified under Notification No.31/97-CE(NT) dated 01.08.1997 for the purpose of levy and collection of Central Excise duty as per the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The procedure for collection of duty was laid down under Notification No.32/97-CE(NT) dated 01.08.1997, which brought into on 01.08.1997 the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 [in short, the ACD Rules]. The appellants applied to the Commissioner of Central Excise for determination of their Annual Capacity of Production [in short, ACP] by way of their application dated 08.09.1997, wherein they declared the parameters of their mill for the purpose of determination of ACP on the basis of the formula laid down under Rule 3 of the ACD Rules. These parameters included the pinion centre distance of 290 mm (d) and an RPM of 560 (n). On the basis of these parameters as declared by the...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Prince Agro and Allied

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice.2. Revenue filed this Reference application for referring the following question of law : "(i) Whether the credit can be allowed on the gate passes endorsed more than twice i.e. a document which is neither prescribed under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, nor prescribed by the Board in terms of powers conferred under Rule 57G (2). (ii) Whether Tribunal can allow Modvat credit on docment not prescribed under Rule 57G (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944." 4. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Sunrise Technofab Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 468 dismissed the reference application filed by the Revenue referring the same question of law. The Tribunal held as under : "In their judgment in the case of S.B.S. Organics (supra), the Tribunal had held that the instructions as to the permissible number of endorsements were purely administrative in...

Surya Prakash Agarwal Vs. Dean and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)204

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition filed by the petitioner is misuse and abuse of the process of law. This would become more and more apparent as I unfold the events that led to the filing of this Writ Petition. It may be mentioned at the outset that the present Petition filed by the petitioner in the year 1998 challenging termination of his service way back on 4th June, 1973 is his sixth attempt to challenge the said termination. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Office of Dean, Indian Photo-Interpretation Institute, Survey of India, Dehradun, U.P.(hereinafter referred to as IPI, for short) i.e. who is arrayed as respondent no.1. He sent letter dated 1st June, 1973 to Dean, IPI making the following request:- 'Notice is hereby given to serve on the Dean, Indian Photo-Interpretation Institute, Dehra Dun - 248 001, for favor of, after giving the terminal leave, terminating the services of Sri Surya Prakash Agarwal, a resident of 27, Pipal Mandi, Dehra Dun - 2480...

Shri J.S. Chawla Vs. M/S. Haryana Minerals Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)90; 89(2001)DLT584; 2001(57)DRJ651

ORDERA.K.Sikri, J.1.This is the second round of litigation between the same parties. Petitioner had earlier filed writ petition No.2798 of 1993 challenging order dated 24th March, 1993 passed by respondent retiring the petitioner from services of the respondent with immediate effect. Admittedly, normal age of retirement in M/s. Haryana Minerals Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the respondent- Company, for short) was 58 years at the relevant time and as per the date of birth of the petitioner, in normal course, he would have retired on 29th February, 1996. Petitioner had not attained the age of 58 years when order dated 24th March, 1993 was passed. The said order was apparently passed compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. Writ petition of the petitioner was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 8th February, 1995 primarily on the ground that power to retire the petitioner compulsorily was not there with the respondents in its rules and regulations at the...

K.K. Chhabra Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 20.10.2000, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case No. 3086/99 - entitled Shri K.K. Chhabra v. The General Manager (West-I), Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri K.K. Chhabra had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum averring that the appellant had applied for STD facility on his telephone bearing No. 5505038 on 18.12.1991 and got the said facility in January, 1992. It was stated by the appellant in his complaint that on 1.6.1999, he received a bill which showed that the respondent/MTNL had charged the appellant for ISD calls made in connection with Godrej Cricket Contest. The grievance of the appellant in the complaint, filed by him, before the...