Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

M/S. Aster Drugs and Pharmaceutical Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh vide his Order dt. 27.4.98 has confirmed a demand of Rs.38,836.00 under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the appellants on the ground of their availing irregular modvat credit on the inputs. The party filed an appeal and Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his Stay Order dt.24.8.99 directed them to make a deposit of entire amount within 15 days. Since the party did not comply with this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), vide his Final Order dt. 21.3.2000, he dismissed their appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The present appeal is against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). The matter is listed today for hearing the Stay Petition filed by the appellants. The appellants are not represented and Shri Joy Kumar, Advocate for the appellants has sent a FAX message dt.21.2.2001, in which he had stated that he had been further advised to take rest due to surgery performed on his left leg whic...

C.C.E., Jaipur Vs. M/S. Rajasthan Tools Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this reference application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court : "Can the Tribunal exercise the powers to relex the specific and mandatory provisions of the law which the Central Excise law does not confer on it." 3. In the final order, the benefit of MODVAT Credit was allowed to the respondents on the basis of reconstructed triplicate copy of bill of entry. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing the benefit of MODVAT Credit and the respondents made import of certain inputs. The Triplicate of the bill of entry, which is a valid duty-paying document for availing the benefit of the MODVAT Credit, was lost. The respondents, applied to the Customs authorities to obtain the re-constructed triplicate copy of the bill of entry and the credit was taken on the strength of that triplicate copy. In the final order, the Tribunal had not relexed any mandatory provisions of rules. The re-constructed trip...

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....

M/S. Mapra Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Mapra Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for rectification of mistake supposed to have crept into Final Order No. 511/2000 dated 7.11.2000.2. The Applicant under their letter dated 12.3.2001 have intimated that they would not appear in person and have requested the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits. We, therefore, heard Dr. D.K. Verma, learned SDR and perused the records. The Applicants have mentioned in their application that they had disputed the contention of the Department that the control samples were not distinctly packed as per the requirement of Notification No. 171/70 and as such the findings of the Tribunal that the same was not disputed by them is not correct.They have further submitted that the decision int eh case of Bezal Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CCE, Mumbai, 1998 (103) ELT 449 squarely applies to their case and non-consideration of the same is a mistake apparent in the Order. On the other hand Dr. D.K. Verma, learned SDR submitted t...

Cce, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Jindal Strips Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT1159TriDel

1. This reference application has been filed by the Department claiming that a question of law as formulated in the application has arisen out of the Final Order No.A/672/99-NB (SM) dated 23.7.99 passed by the Tribunal in appeal No.E/915/99-NB.2. Ld. DR Shri M.D.Singh represents the applicants, while ld. Advocate Shri K.K.Gupta represents the respondents. I have heard both of them.Ld. Advocate has raised a preliminary objection that as the Final Order was passed after 01.07.1999, the present application cannot be maintained in the light of the provisions of Sections 35G and 35H (as amended as per the Finance Act, 1999) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.I have examined the provisions of law cited by ld. Advocate. I note that, after the amendments under the Finance Act, 1999, any reference application for reference of any question of law arising from the Tribunal's appellate orders passed after the first day of July 1999, requires to be filed with the jurisdictional High Court directly. I...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Vijay Dye Chem Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has filed the above reference application in terms of Section 365(1) of the Central Excise Act for reference of the following questions of law purported to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order No.978/98-C dated 6.10.98: 1. Whether Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, as it stood prior to amendment, should be read in conjunction with Section 11A of the Act and is subject to the provisions of limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944 Whether it is independent of section 11A aforesaid and can be invoked for recovery of MODVAT credits even covering the period beyond six months from the date of credit. (2) Whether amendment vide Notification No.28/88(NT) dated 6.10.88 to Rule 57-I will have retrospective effect and the Government intend to regularise the past irregular availment of credit by amending the Rule? (3) Whether deciding the instant case by the Tribunal New Deli Bench-C in r/o modvat issue after the issuance of Notification 5/95 ...

Amar N. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant challenges an order dated 27.5.98 issued by the respondents, whereby the President in consultation with the UPSC imposed the penalty of withholding of entire pension and gratuity of the applicant on permanent basis, under Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Pension Rules). The applicant prayed for a direction to the respondents to deem him as retired on 12.7.84 on the expiry of three months notice period under Rule 48 of the Pension Rules ibid and also sought entitlement for pensionary benefits since 12.7.84 along with an interest of 18%. The applicant was serving as a member of the Indian Foreign Service 'B' and during his tenure he had asked for extension of tenure for a period of one year on account of completion of his children education but the same was denied to him. On 31.12.83, the applicant was relieved of his duties. Finding no positive response from respondent No. 1 for extension of his tenure the applicant opted for volun...

Ranjit Singh Vs. Sopan Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)713

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of I.A.9943/95 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff.2. Suit was filed alleging that the plaintiff Along with Chottu is the owner of 3/4th share of land, ad-measuring 4 bighas 1 biswa and built up structure thereon comprised in Mustkil No.37, Kila No.13 in Village Samalka, New Delhi. Remaining 1/4th share initially belonged to Jamna Das, Tej Ram, Shim Singh, Ballu and Ram Kumar who sold it to one Suresh Chand and defendant No.1. There are certain disputes between Suresh Chand and defendant No.1. It is further alleged that Suresh Chand and defendant No.1 'sold their 1/4th share to the plaintiff in January 1995. Amount of Rs.3 lakhs toward sale consideration stood paid in the past by the plaintiff to defendant No.1. Towards part performance of contract of sale the plaintiff was handed over original documents of title and suresh Chand and defendant No.1 agreed to execute the sale deed at a late...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aditya Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)70TTJ(Del)953

ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.:These appeals, preferred by the revenue as well as by the assessed, are directed against Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, dated 16-1-1992, relating to assessment year 1989-90. The assessed has challenged the partial confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) whereas the revenue has challenged the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. For the assessment year in question the assessed filed its return of income showing loss of Rs. 2.36 crores and the assessment was completed at a loss of Rs. 1.21 crores. The assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income and issued notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act. The assessed submitted reply and after considering the same the assessing officer levied a penalty of Rs. 1.68 crores. On appeal Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the penalty to the extent of Rs. 56.01 lakhs and cancelled the penalty of balance amount. Both the assessed and the revenue are in appeal agains...

Dr. K.T. Shivaiah Vs. the Station Master, New Delhi Railway Station.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The above named complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) averring therein that the complainant had purchased a railway ticket on 11.7.1997 from New Delhi Railway Station for his journey from New Delhi to Bangalore. However, on 12.7.1997 the said ticket along with Rs. 300/- was lost by the complainant at Mandir Marg, New Delhi. Thereafter the complainant contacted the respondent for the issue of a duplicate ticket and was informed that a duplicate ticket could be issued only on the receipt of 25% of the cost of the ticket. It is the case of complainant that though he was ready to pay the abovesaid amount but still a duplicate ticket was not issued to him even after daily trips to the Railway Station and ultimately he was informed by the staff of opposite party that he would be issued a duplicate ticket subject to the confirmation of his seat in the final list/reservat...