Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Hindustan Construction Corpn. Vs. D.D.A. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ291

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Respondent has challenged an Award dated 24th April, 1996 passed by Justice H.R. Khanna, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court. 2. On a perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Arbitrator gave ample opportunities to the Respondent to enter appearance and to contest the claims on merits. The respondent for reasons best known to it, did not bother of contest the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator. 3. Accordingly, the learned Arbitrator resolved the disputes ex-parte and published his Award. 4. The Respondent has filed objections to the Award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act). 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears to me that most of the objections that have been taken by the Respondent are on the merits of the case, which the Respondent unfortunately did not choose to contest before the learned Arbitrator. 6. It is also contended by learned counsel for the Respondent that the learned Ar...

M/S. Jhay Prestressed Products Vs. C.C.E. Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT123TriDel

1. The appellants, M/s. Jay Prestressed Products Ltd. manufactured Railway Sleepers and supplied them to Indian Railways on payment of duty. Railways had entered into a contract with the appellants in which there is a PVC (Price Variation Clause) for the purpose of future escalation/de-escalation over time to time variation in the price of goods according to weightage linked with the indices of R.B.I. Under the said PVC clause, the appellants had raised some bills for Rs.71,24,707.97 for the supplies made to the Railways and the excise duty of Rs.14,24,941.00 was charged on the same. The Railways had made the payment to the appellants but on subsequent verification, it was found by them that a sum of Rs.32,42,129.50 had been paid in excess due to wrong application of PVC clause. As such, the Railways deducted the said amount of Rs.32,42,129.50 from the payments of the Bills made to the party. The communication of these deductions was made to the appellants on 29.4.97. Consequently, th...

M/S. Sham Agro Metals and Steels Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter was called, the appellants are not represented. They were sent the notice of hearing for today on 1.1.2001. There is no communication from the appellants either requesting for an adjournment or giving reasons for their absence.It therefore, appeal that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting their appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution....

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. Cement Corporation of India

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This Revenue appeal was dismissed vide Final Order dt. 26.6.2000 of the CEGAT on account of the Revenue not obtaining the clearance from the Committee of Secretaries to proceed with the matter as the Respondents are a Public Sector Undertaking.2. The present ROM Petition is filed by the Revenue praying for the liberty to revive their appeal as and when the clearance certificate is produced by them.3. I have heard Shri K. Panchatcharm, JDR for the Revenue and Shri Gautam Acharya, Advocate for the Respondents. The ld. Counsel for the Respondents very fairly stated that he has no objection if the Order dt. 26.6.2000 is modified as per the request of the Department.Consequently, the following modification is ordered in the aforesaid Order of the Tribunal.After the sentence - "Thus the appeal is dismissed" - the following should be added - "with the liberty to revive the same as and when the clearance certificate from the Committee of Secretaries is produced"....

C.C.E., Jaipur Vs. M/S. Dugar Tetenal (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue filed this appeal against eh order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of endorsed bill of entry was allowed to the respondents.3. The contention of the revenue is that the endorsed bill of entry is accepted as valid duty-paying document for MODVAT purposes only in the case of High Sea Sales whereas int he present case, there is n o evidence that the goods were subjected to High Sea Sales.4. In this case, the bill of entry is dated 6.9.93 and at that time, the eligibility for availing the MODVAT credit is that the inputs should be accompanied by the duty-paying documents and the Tribunal, in respondents' own case vide Final Order No. A/474/96-NB dated 16.2.96 allowed the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of endorsed bill of entry other than High Seal Sales. In the case of Krishna Strip Ltd. vs C.C.E. reported in 1995 (10) RLT 650, the similar contention of the revenue was not accepted by the Tribunal. In view ...

M/S Rama Enterprises Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed demand of Rs. 11,791/- against the applicants by disallowing modvat credit of the said amount taken by them on their inputs (furnace oil) received from the Warehouse of Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) under cover of delivery challan-cum-invoice. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000/- on the party. The appeal filed by the party against the Assistant commissioner's order was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the appeal before the Tribunal and the present application for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts.3. Ld. Advocate Sh. K.K. Anand, submits that the entire modvat credit was taken on the strength of invoices issued by IOC warehouse under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, whereas the department treated the said invoices as having been issued by IOC as a dealer under rule 57GG. According to ld. Counsel, if the invoices are treated as manufacturer's invoices under Rule 52A, Notification No. 33/94-CE(NT) dated 4.7.94...

M/S. Jyoti Weighing Systems Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the applicant, in spite of notice. Therefore, the stay application, filed by the applicant, is being taken up in the absence of applicants.2. The applicant filed this stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.4. The contention of the applicant is that against the adjudication order, the applicant filed on appeal along with the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and the Commissioner (Appeals), without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, directed the applicant to deposit the duty and penalty for hearing of the appeal and thereafter, without issuing notice, the appeal filed by the appellant, was dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of Sec. 35F of the Act.5. In this situation, the contention of the applicant, in their appeal memo, is that the interim order as well as the impugned order, is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice.Suraksha Flexo Packs vs C...

M/S. Sapna Polywever(P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are the manufacturers of Plastic mats falling under chapter 46. They are availing modvat credit on the inputs under Rule 57A. On 14.9.95 they filed a refund claim of Rs.1,35,285/- with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division-II, Indore. The refund claim was made on the ground that they had filed an application dated 27.7.92 wherein they had sought for permission to avail transitional credit of Rs. 1,45,050/- in terms of provision off Rule 57 H of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. However, no action was taken by the concerned central excise authorities. It is stated that due to non consideration of the party's request for availing modvat credit under rule 57H, they had to pay duty from their PLA account on clearance of goods prior to 16.3.95. It is stated that from 16.3.95 the goods got exemption from payment of duty vide notification No. 18/95 CE dated 16.3.95. It is further contended that had their request under rule 57 H being granted in time, they could ...

Sh. Vinay Kumar and Others Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Ld. Advocate Sh. Deepak Mahajan representing the applicants in Application Nos. E/Misc./540-542/(NB(S) prays for further time for deposit on the ground that he is yet to receive response from his clients on the matter. In other words, ld. Counsel has no instructions from his clients inspite of the fact that he had duly intimated the order of the Bench to them.2. As per Misc. Order dated 5.1.2001, the applicants had been directed to deposit 50% of the respective amounts of penalty and furnish proof of such deposit, as a pre-condition for hearing on the Misc.applications. That order was passed under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. The time for deposit was further extended by the Bench as per subsequent order dated 29.1.2001. That time has also run out. It was categorically mentioned in the order dated 29.1.2001 that the Misc. applications would stand dismissed in the event of the applicants' failure to deposit the amounts. That event has come today and hence the applications ...

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S. Shantilal Kiran Lal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the present reference application, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur had prayed that the following question of law be referred to the Hon'ble Rejasthan High Court:- " Whether the penalty is imposable under the Additional Duties (goods of Special Importance) Act 1957 for the offences committed by the assessee under the Act ibid/Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules made thereunder." 2. The respondents, M/s. Shanti Lal Kiran Lal have prayed for decision on merits.3. I have heard Shri Swatanter Kumar, JDR and have gone through the records.4. It is seen from para-7 of the order dated 13.6.99 passed by the Tribunal that in so far as the demand of duty was concerned, the appeal filed by the assessee was found to be without any merits and the view taken by the adjudicating authority was confirmed. As regards the imposition of penalty of Rs.25,000/-, reliance was placed by the Tribunal on the Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U...