Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

M/S. Indo Gulf Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the applicants inspite of notice.2. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of s.5,000/-. Heard learned SDR and perused the appeal papers. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.1,06,555/- and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/-. Out of this demand, appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,06,555/- and Rs.5,000/- vide T.R.-6 No.2 & 3 Challans dated 6.9.95. As the major amount of the duty and penalty is already deposited by the applicants, the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- is waived for hearing of the appeal. To come up in due course....

M/S. Air India, Capt. H.P.S. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All the appeals are filed against the same impugned order, therefore, they are being taken up together. The appeals filed by Capt.H.P.S. Kahlon, Capt. A.N. Godbole and Shri T.D. Dogra were filed after the period of expiry of limitation. The applicants filed the applications for Condonation of Delay on the ground that the impugned order was not served upon them till today and they had come to know about the penalties imposed upon them from their employer i.e. Air India. This factual position is not disputed by the Revenue. Hence the delay in filing the appeals is condoned.2. In the impugned order a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs was imposed on M/s.Air India and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each is imposed on Capt. H.P.S.Kahlon, Capt. A.N. Godbole and Shir T.D. Dogra. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that in the impugned order there is no finding that applicants acted in a mala fide way in bringing the consignment from Hongkong. He submits that in the impugned order the...

Mohinder Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In the present OA the bone of contention is regarding counting of ad hoc service towards the seniority of Group 'C' employees working as LDCs/ MCC for long periods. The brief facts leading to the present OA are that the applicants. 59 in number, had been appointed as Class IV employees during the period 1974-81. The applicants have been promoted as LDCs/MCCs at various dates on ad hoc basis after adjudging the suitability from 1981-87 against permanent vacancies. The detail of their service as ad hoc Clerk/MCC is at Annexure A II. The applicants appeared for qualifying examination for promotion to Class III in thequota of 33.33% and qualified the same during 1981-85. Applicants being aggrieved of their non-regularisation, filed OA No. 807/87 before the Tribunal and vide an order dated 13.11.1992 applying office order dated 31.12.1990 their of General Manager. Northern Railway the respondents had been directed to regularise the services of the applicants therein. Subsequently vide o...

M/S. M.M. Products Ltd. Vs. Jyoti Vansapati and Allied Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)226

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. The plaintiff is a limited company having its registered office at F-117, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi and has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.8,41,122.50 against the defendants.2. It is averred that the plaintiff is carrying on the business of manufacturing plastic/tin containers used for the packing of ghee etc. It is further averred that the defendant company deals in and manufacture vanaspati ghee and the same is being sold in the market in the brand name of LADLA.3. Summons of the suit were ordered to be served upon the defendants. However the defendants after filing the written statement wherein they had contested the claim of the plaintiff inasmuch as they accepted having received the goods but pleaded that they were defective, were subsequently proceeded ex parte.4. The case of the plaintiff has received support and confirmation by way of affidavit filed by the Shri Shiv Kumar Jindal. Managing Director of the plaintiff company who has been authorised by th...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohd. Masoom

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR596(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN499(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), in ITC No. 279 of 1979, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D ('the Tribunal' in short), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had enough material to come to the conclusion that Mohd. Masoom was not the owner of the gold which was confiscated from the car which admittedly belonged to him ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1974-75.3. The factual position as indicated in the statement of case is as follows :4. The assessed at the relevant point of time dealt in plastic beads and was carrying on business in the name and style of Bombay General Stores. The beads used to be purchased from Bombay and received by train. The Revenue intelligence authorities received information that gold was being smuggled along with beads in the b...

M.J. Singh and ors. Vs. Samara Enterprises

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)1083; 2001(58)DRJ614

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Admit.2. With the consent of parties the matter has been heard and is being disposed of finally.3. Plaintiff filed suit for recovery under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the allegations that four cheques issued by the defendant for a total sum of Rs. 1,82,373/- were dishonoured on presentation to the bank and as such the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for the said amount with interest.4. In his application for leave to defend the suit, it was contended by the defendants that they had already made payment of the amount covered by the cheques and consequently no amount was due to the plaintiff from the defendant. The Court after hearing the parties on the application of the defendants for leave to defend the suit, granted leave to the defendants to defend the suit subject to the defendants furnishing bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Court. The bank guarantee having not been furnished the Court deeming the allegations made in the plaint to be co...

M/S. Jindal Polymer Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Jindal Polymer, the issue involved is whether the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on Furnace Oil is to be restricted to 10% adv. In view of notification No. 5/94/-CE(N.T.), dated 1.3.1994, as amended.2. Shri Narshimhan, learned Advocate, mentioned that the appellants manufacture polysterchip and avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs: that during the period from August, 1997 to January, 1998, they took Modvat Credit of the entire duty paid on the furnace oil used by them as fuel; that the Additional Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No.8/98 dated 30.4.1998 disallowed the Modvat Credit amounting to Rs.9,30,566.66 paise and imposed a penalty of equivalent amount, holding that the modvat credit in respect of furnace oil was restricted to 10% adv. and that in view of the amendment to Explanation to Rule 57B made on 2.3.1994 which was clarificatory in nature the restriction of 10% adv would be applicable to Credit taken under Rule 57B of the ...

M/S. Monnet Ispat Ltd. Vs. Cce, Raipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Monnet Ispat Ltd. for waiver of predeposit of Rs. 3,41,007-52 paise which has been disallowed as Modvat Credit and penalty of Rs.15,000/- imposed on them.2. Shri K.K.Gupta, learned Advocate submitted that the Modvat Credit has been disallowed in respect of Boric Acid which was used along with ramming mass for lining of the furnace; that it has been held by the Tribunal in CCE, Chandigarh vs. Bhusan an Industries Ltd., 2000 (119) ELT 129 (T) that Modvat credit is available in respect of ramming mass, foundry fluxes and chemicals; that similar views were expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Kalyani Steels Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune, 1998 (99) ELT 620; that Boric Acid is also a chemical used in the furnace along with ramming mass and, therefore, Modvat credit is available to them.He further, submitted that Modvat credit has also been disallowed to them in respect of H.R.sheets which are used along with refractories to protect refractory lining from dam...

M/S Shivagrico Implements Ltd Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, M/s Shivagrico Implements Ltd. have requested for setting aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order No. 446(KDT),CE/JPRI/2000 dt.10-5-2000.2. Shri Bipin Garg, Ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants purchase waste & scrap of iron and steel from the market and under bonafide mistaken belief had taken the deemed Modvat Credit amounting to Rs. 3,09,377/- during the period from, September 1998 to January 1999 under Notification No. 58/97-CE, dt. 30-8-97; that they bonafidely believed that the Modvat Credit was available to them on the basis of Board's Circular No. 331/47/97-Cx. dt. 30-8-97; that after issue of show-cause-notice, they came to know that the Modvat Credit has been availed of by them wrongly and accordingly even before the matter was adjudicated, the Appellants repaid the entire amount in June,99.3. Countering the submissions,s Shri S.C.Pushkarna, ld. D.R., submitted that a perusal of the sai...

M/S Garlon Polyfab Industries Vs. Cce Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Today the matter is posted for hearing the Stay Application filed M/s Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd. As the issue involved is violation of principles of natural justice, the recovery of dues as confirmed, under the impugned Order is stayed and the Appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. Shri R. Santhanam, Ld. Advocate, submitted that show cause notice dt. 21-4-95 was issued to the Appellants for denying Modvat Credit on the ground that the invoice did not contain the printed marking of 'Duplicate for transporter'; that they had requested the Deputy Collector, under their letter dt. 2-5-1995, to furnish the copies of the relied upon documents; that the same had not been supplied to them; that they also did not have their own copies as all their records had ben resumed by the Central Excise Officers on 27-10-1994 in connection with another case. In this connection, the ld. Advocate referred to his own case as reported in 2000(12) ELT 439(T) (Garlon POlyf...