Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

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. Punsumi India Ltd Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s. Punsumi India Ltd., the issue involved is whether the rebate of central Excise duty is available to them in respect of Aluminium Electrolytic Capacitors exported through Exporters.2. Shri Randhir Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that they had exported Capacitors to Bangladesh through Merchant Exporter, M/s. Pekon Electronics Ltd., on payment of excise duty; that the Assistant Commissioner rejected their rebate claims on the ground that the description given on the Shipping Bills was Black and White T.V. in C.K.D. condition which description did not tally with the description given on AR-4 and as such the goods exported were not the same as those initially cleared by them. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Black and White T.V were exported in 'completely knocked down' condition, that is, unassembled kit of T.V. as described in the Shipping Bill of the Merchant Exporter; that the capaicators are the essential parts of T.V. set; th...

M/S Buddha Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prasar Bharati

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi241; 2002(63)DRJ285

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Through this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the petitioner has sought interim injunction by way of restraining the respondent from super-imposing any Logo, commercial and branded graphics which is not supplied by the petitioner on the telecast of the cricketing match during the term of the contract and to telecast only such Logo, commercial and branded graphics which are supplied or provided by the petitioner. 2. The short controversy involved for determination is whether the website address www.dd.now.com displayed during the domestic telecast of the cricketing events which admittedly is in the form of super-imposition and passes through on the bottom of the screen every half an hour is merely a graphic without any commercial value or is a branded graphic with commercial value. The facts germane for the aforesaid contentious issue lie in moderate compass. 3. The Board of Control for C...

Mukul Dalmia and ors. Vs. Kiran Pal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)282; 91(2001)DLT65

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the order dated 17.7.1999 summoning the petitioners under Section 50 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 in the complaint filed by respondent No.1 (hereinafter the complainant); on the ground that no valid cognizance could be taken without recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. Petitioners have also placed on record the subsequent summoning order dated 8.2.2000 urging that the same is also illegal and without jurisdiction.2. Brief facts are : that on 14th February, 1998 at 12.00 noon the complainant went to the petrol pump-M/s. Mukul Diesel of the petitioners, to buy 90 litres of diesel in the two containers and paid price for the same against receipt. Petitioner No. 3 delivered the diesel but he containers were not filled up to a particular level. The complainant asked the petitioners that 90 litres of diesel wa...

Bank of India Vs. Deepak Jaiswal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Since the above mentioned appeals, filed by the appellant Bank under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are directed against a common order dated 23.1.2001 passed by District Forum No. 1 in four Complaint Cases bearing No. 1188/2000, 1482/2000, 1483/2000 and 1484/2000 entitled Smt. Saroj Sharma and Ors. v. Bank of India, have common facts and also raise common questions for consideration, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeals, lie in a narrow compass. In all the above mentioned appeals, the respondents had filed separate complaints before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, averring that the respondents had deposited money in the appellant Bank under the Double Benefit Deposit Scheme, floated by the appellant Bank and were issued Double Benefit Deposit Certificates. The amount, so deposit...

C.C.E. Kanpur Vs. M/S. Lalji Board Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This Reference Application is filed by the Revenue in respect of Final Order No.A/94/99/NB(SM) dt. 12.2.99.2. The brief facts in this case are that the appellants M/s. Lalji Board Industries had availed the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.31,310.87 in respect of the capital goods - wire cloth and felt during the period from 11.8.94 to 29.8.94. This modvat credit was denied to the party by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Agra on the grounds that the modvat credit on these capital goods was availed on the strength of the invoices without filing intimation regarding receipt of the said capital goods in their factory premises but before installation or use they are required under Rule 57-T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and particulars regarding full description of capital goods, its brand, name, identification marks or number, if any and particulars of Gate Passes or Bills of Entry as the case may be.3. The party finally succeeded in their appeal before the...

C.C.E. Jaipur Vs. M/S. Rathi Alloys and Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This Reference Application is filed by the Revenue in respect of Final Order No.A/702/98-NB dt.22.6.98. It is observed that the impugned order subject matter of the present Reference Application is passed under the second proviso to Section 35B (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since the appeal is dismissed as not admitted. The Reference Application can be filed in terms of Section 35G (1) in respect of the orders passed under Section 35C. Admittedly, since the impugned order of the CEGAT is not passed under Section 35C, therefore, the present Reference Application is mis-conceived and the same is accordingly, dismissed....

C.C.E., Bhopal Vs. M/S. B.S.i. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC695

1. Revenue filed this Reference Application referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court : "Whether the items Panel Board and PVC Cables which do not participate in the manufacturing process can be said to fall within the definition of Capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, at the relevant time and accordingly availed as provided under the said Rule." 2. Ld D.R., appearing on behalf of the revenue, submit that Panel Board and PVC Cables are not participating in the manufacturing process and are, therefore, not covered under the definition of the capital goods.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that in the Order-in-appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) gave a specific finding in respect of Panel Board and PVC Cables that these are used in the factory for supplying electricity to the various machines and also to control the electricity supply through Panel Board. The use of these items is a fact on record and also no...

M/S. O.N.G.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicant filed this application for recalling the Final order No.996/98-C dated 6.10.98 whereby the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed for want of clearance from the Committee on Dispute.3. The contention of the applicant is that now the Committee on Dispute in their meeting held on 10.12.1998, granted the permission to the appellant to pursue the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, the Final Order be recalled. In view of the fact that now the Committee on Dispute had granted the permission to pursue the appeal, the Final Order No.996/98-C dated 6.10.98 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. Registry is directed to list the Stay application on 17.4.2001....

C.C.E., Jaipur Vs. M/S. H.R.M. Chemicals (P) Ltd.

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 : "1. Whether Tribunal can allow credit in respect of undeclarared input, not declared under Rule 57-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; and/or 2. Whether the Tribunal can allow Modvat Credit on a document not prescribed under Rule 57-G(2) or by the Board." In this case, the contention of the revenue is that the assessee cannot avail the credit in respect of inputs, which are not declared by the assessee in his declaration under Rule 57 G of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal in the final order held that the assessee has declared acetone as an input and they have received the item di-acetone alcohol, which is also classifiable under the same heading and the Tribunal held that di-acetone alcohol is a derivative of acetone and is classifiable under the same tariff heading. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents had not filed any declaration in respect of ...