Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Suncity Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applications are for stay of penalty imposed. The Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw the stay applications inasmuch as the party has already deposited the penalty amount. The Learned DR has no objection. Stay application is dismissed as withdrawn....

M/S. Iti Limited Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that "In view of above I hereby confirm the demand of Rs.10,26,160.75 wrongly availed as modvat credit under Rule 57I read with Proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. I also impose a penalty of Rs.11,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Rules." Being aggrived by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of digital electronic exchange equipments.They availed modvat credit on the inputs. The Central Excise authorities observed that the appellants had taken modvat credit on photo polymer films and alumina ceramic substrates imported by them on the items which were not declared by them.3. Arguing the case for the appellants, Shri M.P. Devnath, ld. Advocate submits that insofar as photo polymer films are concerned the appellants had declared the items in the declaration as photo stencil films against serial No.27 of the Annexure to the de...

M/S Iti Limited Vs. Commissioner Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit was denied to the appellant on various grounds.2. The contention of the appellant is that credit of Rs.4615/- was disallowed on the ground that the credit was taken after six months from the issue of invoice. The submission of appellant is that the credit was taken during the manufacture of June 1995 and there was no time of limit prescribed during this period for availing the credit.Rule 57G was amended by Notification No.28/95-CE(NT) dated 29.6.95 whereby the limitation of six months was introduced for availing the benefit of credit from the date of invoice. The appellants were not pressing for the credit of Rs.1415/- which was denied on the ground that duty paying documents were in accordance with the provisions of Notification No.16/94-CE(NT) dated 30.3.94.3. Learned Counsel submits that the credit of Rs.18,24,245/- was denied on the parts of machine as the parts are not covered under t...

M/S. Shri Hargobind Steel Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Stay petitions have been filed in these five cases praying for dispensing with pre-deposit in terms of Section 35F and set aside the order.2. Arguing the cases for the applicants, Shri V.Lakshmi Kumaran and Balbir Singh, ld. Advocates submit that in the instant cases the duty has nt been quantified and, therefore the applications for stay are premature. They submit that however the department may be directed not to take coercive measure for detention of the goods etc.3. Shri S.K.Das, ld. JDR submits that since the applications are premature, therefore, they may be dismissed.4. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that the impugned order does not quantify the demand of duty and since the duty has not been quantified, the applications are premature. Stay applications are, therefore dismissed.5. However, in the mean time, the department will not take any coercive measure for detention of the goods....

Sri Assad MoIn Khan and Others Vs. Cee, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above applications have been filed for rectification of certain apparent mistakes stated to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order No. A 947-52/2000 NB dated 30.10.2000 by which the Tribuna has upheld the confiscation of foreign liquor, food stuff and cosmetics seized from the godown of M/s B.T.Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and from the residence of Shri S.S.Bindra,Managing Director of M/s B.T.Agencies Pvt.Ltd.under the provisions of Section 111(j) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs.2 lakhs, and reduced the penalty on applications herein.2. Shri Abhinav Vashist appearing with Ms Sumit Dutt Ld. Adv. contends that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that statements of Shri Bindra, Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain,Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma are voluntary in nature and hence form reliable pieces of evidence. Ld.counsel states that the statements of above mentioned persons were recorded under duress and coercion and their retractions w...

M/S. Charkha Chemical and Soap Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are manufactures of soap and detergent. Brand name "Farisha" which belonged originally to M/s Charkha Soap Mills was fixed on the soaps. On account od this reason, the impugned orders have desired the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No.1/93 (para 4 of the notification).2. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned Counsel representing the appellant submitted that the dispute raised in the present appeal is specifically covered by Final Order No.18/2001-C dated 5.2.2001 of the Division Bench of this Tribunal. The Counsel therefore, submitted that this appeal should be allowed following the Division Bench order. As against this, learned DR has submitted that in the instant case though the original agreement was w.e.f. 16.8.93 goodwill transferred only w.e.f. 29.5.95. The DR submitted that the assigment does not take effect untill the transfer of goodwill also inasmuch as assignment has to be in unequivocal terms under Section 37 of the Trade M...

Shri Parimal Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)679; [2001(91)FLR317]

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner was recruited into the C.R.P.F. on 24.4.1991. After over seven years of service he has been dismissed in terms of the impugned order dated 8.12.1997 of the Commandant 81 BN CRPF. The salient part of this Order reads as follows:'I have carefully gone through the proceedings of departmental enquiry, reply of the delinquent in response to enquiry officer's report and agree with the findings of enquiry officer that No.913128305 Ct Parimal Singh submitted fake education certificate in order to get himself recruited in CRPF. It is clearly evident from defense document No.1 that said delinquent No. 913128305 Ct Parimal Singh not only tried to submit fake education certificate but his date of birth is also falsified to gain service benefits. The delinquent has tried to cheat the department by furnishing false facts. I could have taken a lenient view but the intentions of the delinquent are purposeful and hence with all due reasonable thinking, I, under ...

Shri Anil Mehra Vs. M/S. East India Weaving Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)622; 91(2001)DLT535; 2001(59)DRJ84; 2001(2)RAJ323

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Though application moved by the judgment debtor is under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking direction to the decree holder to deposit the decretal amount recovered by him any way of execution petition but the plea raised therein are in the form of objections as to the validity of the decree. In support of this contention that the decree is void ab initio and a nullity, he has raised the following points:-i). East India Weaving Company had purchased the goods from the decree holder but there was no arbitration agreement between the two nor was any legal liability or obligation binding the judgment debtor by way or arbitration as the judgment debtor by way of arbitration was the judgment debtor by way of arbitration as the judgment debtor was not a member of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association. ii). That the award and proceedings are wholly and in gross violation of the law's mandate and thereforee both of them are a nullity and non est.2. Admittedly the appli...

Mr. Jalil Ahmed Ansari and anr. Vs. the Development Commissioner and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)838; 91(2001)DLT747; 2001(59)DRJ9

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the election to the Carpet Export Promotion Council on the ground that the notification issued by respondent-Carpet Export Promotion Council notifying the schedule of election, date of issue of the list of valid nominations and issue of postal ballot papers were on 1.12.2000 and last date of the receipt of the postal ballot papers in the office of respondent-Carpet Export Promotion Council was 21.12.2000 and date of polling was 22.12.2000. It was contended that the employees of Department of Post and Telegraph went on strike from 15.12.2000 which continued till the filing of the writ petition i.e. 19.12.2000. It was contended that on account of strike the postal ballot papers which were issued on 1.12.2000 could not reach the voters and as per the Rules of the respondents, there was no provision for extension of time. On that account the prayer was made to quash the notification dated 30.10.2000 by which the election of responden...

M/S. Vidyawati Construction Company Vs. M/S. Rail India Technical and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)846; 91(2001)DLT538; 2001(59)DRJ126; 2001(2)RAJ334

ORDERDevender Gupta, J.1. The order passed on 11.2.1999 by learned Single Judge dismissing the application of appellant filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is under challenge in this appeal.2. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the appeal on behalf of the respondent. It has been urged that under Section 37 of the Acct legislature has restricted the right of appeal. Appeal is maintainable only against the orders as are specified in the said provision making it clear that appeal shall not lie from any other order. Order being one passed on an application moved under Section 11(6) of the Act appeal is not maintainable.3. The facts in brief are that work of construction of Government Girls Polytechnic Hostel at Allahabad was awarded by respondent to the appellant on 6.3.1999. Stipulated date of completion was 5.3.1993. Disputes are stated to have arisen between the parties in respect of ...