Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Cce, Raipur Vs. M/S. Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is Revenue's appeal. Ld. SDR Shri Swatantra Kumar submits that there is a communication from the Commissioner stating that the Central Board of Excise and Customs has found this case not to be a fit case to be pursued in this appeal. He has brought on record a copy of the said communication. I have perused the documents and have found ld. JDR's submission to be correct.2. Since the Department does not want to pursue this appeal, I reject the same....

M/S. AustIn Circuits Ltd., Bhopal Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs.67,044/- and penalty amount of RS.1,000/-.2. I have examined the records and heard both sides. The applicants had take Modvat credit to the extent of Rs.87,044/- on imported inputs on the strength of Bill of Entry on 10.11.1995. The credit so taken was reversed by them on 23.05.1996 allegedly on oral advice receive from the Departmental authorities. On 23.05.1996, the party took re-credit of the duty in their RG 23A Pt.II allegedly on the strength of some order passed by Additional Commissioner of Central Excise in similar matters in favour of the party. The Department, by show cause notice (SCN), challenged the assessee's action. The party contested the Department's proposal for disallowing the credit. the Assistant Commissioner adjudicated the dispute and disallowed the entire credit and imposed penalty of Rs.1,000/- on the assessees. The appeal filed against the Assistant Commissioner's order was rejected by the ...

M/S Eicher Tractors, Faridabad Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT544TriDel

1. Carefully examined the records and heard both sides. Having regard to the fact that the applicants have been able to establish a strong prima facie case and that the issue involved in the appeal lies in a very narrow compass, I allow this application and take up the appeal itself for final disposal.2. The lower authorities disallowed Modvat credit to the extent of Rs.26,780/- taken by the appellants on certain inputs during the period 01.08.1996 to 31.08.1996 on the strength of two invoices, one of the m issued by a dealer and the other issued by a manufacturer. The Modvat credit was disallowed on the ground that the dealer's invoice did not contain the necessary particulars and the manufacturer's invoice contained certain clerical corrections not duly authenticated. The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- on the party, but the lower appellate authority reduced the quantum of penalty to Rs.10,000/-.3. Ld. Advocate Shri V.Swaminathan for the appellants has to...

Food Corporation of India Vs. Laxmi Narain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(58)DRJ2

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. By this judgment we propose to dispose of aforementioned appeals arising out of the judgment dated 31.3.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The controversy involved in all these appeals is of identical nature. thereforee, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by this judgment. 2. The relevant facts which are necessary to decide these appeals are as under:-3. The respondents in the aforesaid LPAs are ex-servicemen. After completing their tenure, they were released from service and, thereafter, they were re-employed by the Food Corporation of India (for short hereinafter referred to as FCI). The FCI is a body created under a statute, namely, the Food Corporation Act, 1964 and the service under the FCI is governed by the Staff Regulations and other policy decisions framed by the FCI. 4. Rule 85 of the Staff Regulations lays down that the pay of such employees shall be regulated in accordance with the principle applicable to similar appointme...

National Council for Cement and Building Materials Vs. Subhash B. Rath ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)811; 2001(58)DRJ223; 2001(2)RAJ553

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J. 1. These are Objections the Award dated 27th April, 1987, passed by the Arbitrator in pursuance of Clause (O) of the Agreement dated 18th April, 1985 entered into between the petitioner-National Council for Cement & Building Material and respondent-Subhash B. Rathod. The said Clause (O) reads as follows:- 'ARBITRATIONExcept where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and dispute relating to the meaning of any of the clause of this contract and as to quality or workmanship or the quality of materials used or supplied or as to any other question, claim, right matter or thing whatever, in any way arising out of or relating to the contract or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the contract or after the completion or abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed solely by the Director General, National Council for Cement and Building Materials. There will be no objection...

Rajdhani Cycle Rickshaw Operators Union Vs. Municipal Corporation of D ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)190; 91(2001)DLT412; 2001(59)DRJ72

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. CM.7586/20001. This is an application for intervention moved by Delhi State Cycle Rickshaw Operators Association (Regd.), seeking permission to intervene in the above write petition. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the same. 2. Application is allowed and stands disposed of.CW.No.1148/98Rule.With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal. 1. Rajdhani Cycle Rickshaw Operators Union and Delhi Cycle Rickshaw chalak/Malik Sangharsh Association (Regd.) are the petitioner in this writ petition. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to identify 900 cycle rickshaw stands/halting points, prior to issuance of license of licenses over and above the earlier limit of 50,000. Petitioners have also sought to assail the direction of MCD, confining the license for a rickshaw to only one owner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, do not press the letter prayer and has confined the relief to identific...

Cce, Jaipur-ii Vs. M/S. Laxmi Iron and Steel Re-rolling

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are five appeals against the common order-in-appeal No.524-528 (KDT)CE/JPR-II/2000 dated 24.5.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. The matter relates to the classification of the iron and steel products. The Revenue had sought classification of the goods in question as hoops falling under sub-heading No.7211.30 and flat rolled products falling under sub-heading No. 7211.19 of the Cental Excise Tariff. The respondents had claimed classification under sub-heading No. 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff as bars and rods.2. The Revenue has filed one appeal against the impugned order in which the notices were M/s. Laxmi Iron and Steel Re-rolling Mills and four of its parties. The main appeal was filed in time.3. When it was pointed-out that there were five noticees, the Revenue filed supplementary appeals. As per practice of the Tribunal, the delay in filing the supplementary appeals is condoned.5. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in hi...

M/S Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Ld. Advocate Sh. J.P. Kaushik representing the party in the stay application submits that the only issue involved in the case is whether modvat credit was admissible to the applicants in respect of the stock of inputs as on 12.3.96 (date of taking credit) under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules and whether such credit could be denied on the ground that the declaration under Rule 57H was filed after that date.Ld. Counsel has further submitted that, in earlier cases, the Tribunal has held such credit to be allowable to the assessees. In this connection, he has cited the decision in the case of Narbheram Motors Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2000 (38) RLT 291]. He, therefore, pleads a strong prima facie case in favour of the applicants for the purpose of complete waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts. He has also canvassed a strong prima facie case on another count. The adjudicating authority had denied modvat credit to the extent of over Rs.44,000/- and imposed on ...

Arunodaya Foundries Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Ld. Advocate Sh. A.L. Mathur, reiterating the facts of the case and the grounds of the appeal, submits that the demand of duty involved in the case was raised by the department in show-cause notice dated 1.9.99 in respect of goods cleared from the applicant's factory on 24.1.96 and 9.4.96 and, further, that the show-cause notice did not invoke the extended period of limitation provided under the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act. He submits that the entire demand is hopelessly barred by limitation and, in view of this position, the applicants have a strong prima facie case warranting complete waiver of pre-deposit.3. Ld. JDR Sh. K. Panchatcharan has opposed complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts, on the strength of the findings of the lower authorities.4. On a careful examination of the above submissions, I note that the applicants seem to have a fairly good case on limitation inasmuch as the show-cause notice dated 1.9.99 demanding duty for 1...

M/S. A.K. Marbles Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri B.B. Khare, Advocate submits that the Tribunal's Stay Order dated 19.12.2000 has already been complied with during the time given by the Tribunal. He produces a copy of the challan dated 29.1.2001 in support of pre-deposit of Rs.12,620/-.3. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and had not gone into the merits of the case.Both the sides submit that this matter could be sent back for re-adjudication on merits and the pre-deposit made by the appellants will remain with the Department till the disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).5. As the appellate authority had not gone into the merits of the case, we agree with the submissions of both the sides and take-up the matter for final hearing and remand the same for de novo consideration by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on merits.6. The pre-deposit already made will remain with the Department till the disposal of the appeal....