Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

M/S. Associated Engg. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT546TriDel

1. Appellants filed these appeals against order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle parts and were availing the benefit of MODVAT credit. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for recovery of MODVAT credit and for imposition of penalty on the grounds that they availed the benefit of credit on the basis of forged invoices of M/s. Steel Tubes of India Ltd., Ludhiana. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty on the appellants.Appellants filed appeals and the same were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Learned Counsel submits that in this case benefit of MODVAT credit was availed on the invoices issued by M/s. Steel Tubes of India Ltd., Ludhiana on 17.6.94 and 28.6.94 and a show cause notice was issued on 30.9.96 by invoking the extended period of limitation under Rule 57(I) of Central Excise Rules on the ground of fraud. He submits t...

M/S Jai Bhawani Concast (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that in view of the Misc. Order No. M/232/00-NB (S) dated 6.11.2000, the misc.application, now listed for hearing, becomes infructuous, hence the application is dismissed as infructuous. The registry is directed to list the stay application on 23.2.2000 for arguments. (Dictated in Court)....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Raja Steel Works and M/S Gopa ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue seeks reference of the following question of law stated to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order dated 20.8.98. "Whether the Hon'ble CEGAT is correct in extending the deemed credit benefit under Ministry's Order No.TS/36/94-TRU dated 1.3.94 to a Unit availing of exemption in terms of Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.2.93 even after it crosses the exemption limit of Rs.75 lakhs and starts paying duty at the normal rate?" 2. The brief facts leading up to the filing of the reference application are that both the assessees herein are availing the benefit of exemption under Notification 1/93 dated 28.2.93. They availed deemed credit facility under Ministry's Order No.TS/36/94-TRU dated 1.3.94 even after crossing the exemption limit of Rs.75 lakhs, although under the above mentioned order, benefit of deemed credit was available only to rerollers, eligible to benefit and availing benefit of exemption under Notification 1/93. Hence demands were raised by denying deemed cred...

M/S. Laxmi Steel Rolling Mills Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case the annual capacity of appellants was provisionally determined under Rule 5 of Hot Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Thereafter, the annual capacity was determined finally vide impugned order. No opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the appellants before passing the present impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order, in respect of the appellants, is set aside and the Commissioner will pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing and after taking into consideration the Larger Bench Decision of the Tribunal reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 46. The appeal filed by the appellants is disposed of by way of remand. (Dictated in Court)....

C.C.E., Kanpur Vs. M/S. Brij Iron Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue filed this reference application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court: "Whether, credit can be availed without filing declaration under Rule 57 G, for the rejected goods, which is a statutory requirement." When the case was called, none appeared on behalf on the respondents, in spite of notice. Therefore, the reference application is being taken in the absence of respondents.3. The Tribunal in the Final Order held that the respondents received back the damaged castings, which are waste and scrap. The manufacturer had declared that waste and scrap as an input to be used in the manufacture of final product. In view of thus factual position, the Tribunal held that the manufacturer is entitled to take credit on the defective goods, which are cleared by the respondents on payment of duty and returned by the customers on reversal of MODVAT Credit. In the impugned order, no finding in respect of question of law, now raised that the credit can b...

M/S. M.P. Tobacco Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Raipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty.2. The contention of the applicants is that the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the applicants to deposit the penalty amount for hearing of the appeal without granting them an opportunity of personal hearing and, thereafter, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of Sec. 35 F of the Act. The contention of the applicants is that the plea of financial hardship raised in the applicants for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty is not considered by the Commissioner while passing the interim order.3. The appellants filed an appeal against adjudication order alongwith an application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and in the application the applicants specifically pleaded the financial hardship.Without considering this plea of the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals), without granting an opportunity of personal hearing, decided the application for waiver of pre-deposit and, thereafter, wit...

M/S. M.J. Engg. Vs. Cce Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants availed modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,29,143/- on the basis of the challans dated 2.6.94 issued by M/s SAIL, New Delhi.These challans were initially issued in the name of M/s J.K. Iron and Steel manufacturing company but, subsequently were endorsed in favour of the appellants. The appellants, thus, availed the modvat credit of the aforesaid amount on the strength of endorsed challans. the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise(MOD-II), New Delhi, vide her order dated 30.7.99 held such challans as invalid documents and disallowed the credit to them under rule 57I of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi in order 11.7.2000 observed that the Larger Bench of CEGAT in Balmer Lawrie & Co. Vs CCE, Kanpur 2000(116) ELT 364(T) has held that the invoices endorsed after 1.4.94 are not valid documents for availing modvat credit and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the party.2. In the present stay petition, against the above order of Co...

M/S. Murcury Lamps (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application for restoration of appeal on the ground that on the date when the appeal was listed for hearing, the matter was first listed before one Member which was subsequently transferred to another Member of the Tribunal and that by the time, the Counsel came to the second member, the matter was already disposed of. It has, therefore, been prayed that since an opportunity was not provided to the appellant to defend his case, the appeal may be restored.2. I have heard Shri Swatantra Kumar, Ld. DR for the respondent. I have also perused the order dismissing the appeal. I find from the records that Modvat credit was taken on the strength of original copy of the invoice. I note that Larger bench of this Tribunal held that Modvat credit could be taken on the strength of original invoice only in cases where the loss of duplicate copy of the invoice was taken up before the Asstt. Commissioner concerned for permitting to take Modvat credit on an invoice other than the duplica...

Ct. Mahipal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, a Constable in the Delhi Police, was previously dismissed from service on 10.1.92, The said order was challenged before the Tribunal in OA-735/93 and vide order dated 21.7.97 the OA was disposed of by issuing the following directions: "11. In the result, we are constrained to conclude that the enquiry held against the applicant was not in accordance with the statutory rules and, therefore, the enquiry proceedings, the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities are quashed and set aside. As observed by their Lordships in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy, (1996) 9 SCC 322. It is now a settled law that when the enquiry was found to be faulty, it would not be proper to direct reinstatement with consequential benefits. Matter requires to be remitted to the disciplinary authority to follow the procedure from the stage at which the fault was pointed out and to take action according to law. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to hold a fres...

The Management of DDA thr' Its Executive Engineer Vs. the P.O., Indust ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)861

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Respondent No.2, Shri Mange Ram(hereinafter referred to as 'Workman') is working with DDA. He was appointed w.e.f. 26th September, 1981 as Non-technical Supervisor on daily wage basis. Thereafter, order dated 13th March, 1984 was issued appointing him as Beldar. He started working as Beldar. However, in the year 1990 i.e. after a gap of six years after his appointment as Beldar, he made a grievance that his appointment as Beldar from the post of Non-technical Supervisor amounted to reversion. Industrial dispute was raised. Conciliation proceedings started and these culminated into reference of the dispute by the Secretary(Labour) Delhi Administration vide order dated 24th December, 1990 in the following terms: 'Whether the reversion of Shri Mangey Ram from the post of Non-technical Supervisor to Beldar is illegal and or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? 2. The workman appeared and filed statemen...