Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Deepak Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application filed by M/s Deepak Castings Pvt. Ltd., for waiver of pre-deposit, of duty amounting to Rs. 3,44,100/- and penalty amounting to Rs. 1 lakh.2. Shri R. Santhanam, ld. Advocate, submitted that the applicants manufacture M.S.Ingots and hot re-rolled products in induction furnace and re-rolling Mills respectively; that the Commissioner provisionally fixed the Annual Capacity of Production to be 2294MT under Order dt.9-10-97; that the Joint Commissioner has confirmed differential duty and imposed penalty which has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeal) under the impugned Order; that the Commissioner had finally fixed the Aunnual Production Capacity also to be 2294 MT which was challanged by him before the Appellate Tribunal which had remanded the matter for re-consideration; that as the final order itself has been remanded, no differential duty liability on the basis of provisional Order can be fastened on the Applicants; that after the Final Order was passed the...

Cce Jaipur Vs. Guljag Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT650TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by Revenue the issue involved is whether the Respondents, M/s Guljag Chemicals (Pvt). Ltd, are eligible to avail of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs used for packing the final product on which central Excise duty is paid on the basis of MRP under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act.2. I heard Shri Bheema Shankar, Ld. SDR and Shri P.K. Mittal Ld.Advocate. I find that the lower Appellate Authority has relied upon the earlier Order in Appeal No. 360/99 dt. 29-11-99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) on the same issue in the case of the same Respondents holding that Modvat Credit is admissible on HDPE bags even when duty on the finished product has been paid under Section 4A of the Act. The Revenue had preferred appeal against the said Order which has been upheld by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/2000/2000 NB. dt.4-12-2000, holding that HDPE bags are eligible inputs whose costs is included in the assessable value of the detergents. Shri P.K. Mittal, ...

M/S. Royal Processors P. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT885TriDel

1. Today the matter is posted for hearing the stay application filed by M/s Royal Processors P. Ltd. The issue involved int eh appeal is whether length of galleries is also to be included to the length of the chamber while deciding the Annual Production Capacity of the Hot air Stenter. As the issue stands decided by the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal, the recovery of the duty confirmed is stayed and the appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. I heard Shri R.Santhanam, Advocate for the Appellant, and Shri K.Panchatcharan, JDR, for the Revenue. The issue involved in the present appeal has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in 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 purview of "any other equipment" as contemplated by Explanation I to Hot Air Stenter In...

M/S Frontier Polymers (P) Ltd Vs. Ccew Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Today the matter is posted for reporting compliance of the Stay Order No. S/778/2000 (NB) dt. 8-11-2000 under which M/s frontier Polymers (P) Ltd, Appellants, were directed to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty confirmed under the impugned Order.2. Shri Pawan, Representative of the Company, submitted that the Stay Order was passed without taking into consideration the submissions filed by them which was received by the Tribunal on 6-11-2000; that unfortunately the stay submissions were nt placed before the Bench and Stay Order was passed without considering the same. He, further, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture water tanks made of plastics and avail of modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs; that a Show Cause Notice was issued to them on 8-12-94 for dis-allowing the modvat credit of Rs. 70,200/- availed by them in June 94 on the ground that invoices issued by the consignment stockist were not prescribed documents for availment of modvat credit; that the D...

M/S. R.S. Movers Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT222TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. R.S. Movers is whether Customs House Agent Licence in their favour should have been renewed or not. Shri K. Kumar, learned advocate submitted that a Customs House Agent licence was granted to the Appellants in 1989 which was renewed in 1992 and again renewed in 1995 for a period of 5 years; that in 2000 when the Appellants applied for the renewal of the licence, the same was not renewed by the Commissioner under the impugned Order holding that the performance of the Appellants was not satisfactory as per norms during the years 1998 & 1999 and that provisions of Customs House Agent Regulations do not envisage any condonation of the norms. The learned Advocate further submitted that Regulations provide that the Commissioner of Custom,s may renew the licence, if the performance is found to be satisfactory with reference to quantity or value of Cargo cleared by such licencee, absence of instances of delay either in the clearance of go...

M/S. Perfect Refractories Vs. C.C.E., Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

These two appeals are posted today for considering the stay applications. As the issued involved in very narrow compass the recovery is stayed and appeals themselves are taken up for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. I heard Shri Monica Kapoor, learned Advocate for the appellants,and Shri K.Panchat Charan, learned D.R. for the Revenue.3. The Commissioner Appeals, under both the impugned Order, dismissed the appeals of the appellant of non compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit. He has, further, passed both the stay orders and Orders dismissing the appeals without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Further he has not considered the applications filed by them for modifying the stay order. Thus both the impugned orders have been passed on gross violation of the principles of natural justice.Accordingly I set aside both the orders and remand the matters to the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the stay applications filed by the appellants after ...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. S.A. Builders Ltd., (Now Known as S ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)441; 90(2001)DLT57; 2001(57)DRJ694; 2001(2)RLR321

ORDERK.S.GUPTA, J.1. Petitioner-Objector has filed this application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC seeking amendments in the objection petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') for setting aside the award dated 16th/18th December 1997 made by respondent No.2. The purport of the amendments sought is that the agreement executed between the Objector-petitioner and respondent No.1 was not in accordance with the provisions of sections 201, 202 and 203 of DMC Act and Byelaws made there under and, thereforee, the same was void and accordingly the arbitration clause contained in the agreement was also invalid and arbitrator did not have the jurisdiction to enter into arbitration and give the said award. 2. Needless to say that respondent No.1 has contested the application by filing reply. 3. Submission advanced by Sh.Raman Duggal appearing for petitioner-Objector was that the pleas sought to be raised in terms of propos...

M/S Lloyd Insulations (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cement Corporation of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)567; 90(2001)DLT1; 2001(57)DRJ606; 2001(1)RLR268

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. These two appeals involve same question of law to be decided which relates to interpretation of Section 22 of The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('SICA' for short). As per the provisions of Section 22(1) of the SICA where in respect of a industrial company an inquiry under Section 16 is pending or any scheme referred under Section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under Section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, among others, no suit for recovery of money shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority. It is thereforee an admitted position that in respect of such an industrial company no civil `suit for recovery of money' is maintainable and if it is pending it is not be proceeded with further. Further progress of proceedings in such a suit have to be halted and the suit...

Sh. Hari Singh Vs. Madan Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)843; AIR2001Delhi231; 90(2001)DLT268

ORDERA.K.SIKRI,J.1. Shri Hari Singh is the appellant in the present appeal which is first appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He was plaintiff in the Suit No. 862/93 filed by him against the respondents herein. The Suit was for possession and recovery of damages against the defendants/respondents. The Suit was filed by making the averments that appellant is the owner of Property No. 308, Rameshwari Nehru Nagar( Jag Jiwan Niwas), Delhi. According to the appellant he had permitted the defendants to stay in the portion of the Suit premises, shown in yellow colour in the site plan enclosed with the plaint. This permission was granted in view of the fact that defendants are the relations of the plaintiff inasmuch as defendant No.3 is the wife of the younger brother of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of the younger brother of the plaintiff (late) Sh.Bishan Dayal. The Suit was contested by the defendants/respondents herein whe...

M/S Anant Raj Agencies Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)386; 91(2001)DLT273; 2002(63)DRJ259; 2001(3)RAJ157

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. The award dated 20th November, 1997 which is sought to be made Rule of the Court, has been challenged by the respondent-DDA mainly on the ground that it is a non-speaking award and contrary to the terms of the agreement and secondly that the findings are contradictory and not based upon evidence.2. The first challenge is to the item 6.1 of the agreement. According to the learned counsel the award in this regard is contrary to the terms of the agreement particularly condition No.2, which reads as under:-'The rate for all items of work shall unless clearly specified otherwise, include cost of all labour, materials and other inputs involved in the execution of the item and shall apply to all heights and depths of the building and nothing extra shall be payable on this account.'3. This item pertains to doors and windows. According to the petitioner the respondent did not measure the weight of MS Lugs, MS flats welded at the back of the frames for fixing hinges and th...