Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

Neelam Jolly Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)998; 91(2001)DLT391

ORDERRule D.B. 1. This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 327/96 registered at P.S. Hauz Khas for offences under Section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with 379, IPC. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. An FIR was registered on 3rd May, 1996 alleging that a joint team of officials from Enforcement, Theft Control and Zonal Staff of Delhi Vidyut Board conducted surprise raid in the area of Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi where the petitioner was found indulging in direct theft of energy through SV mains without installation of meter. Necessary photographs were taken in the presence of police and PVC wire used for stealing electricity was also recovered. Accordingly demand was raised against the petitioner on the basis of theft committed by her. At the same time criminal case was also registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 327/96. The petitioner has paid the amount of the bill as raised by the respondent/DVB after the theft was detect...

M/S. Savitri Concast Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT133TriDel

1. The applicants are manufacturers of steel ingots etc. falling under chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Schedule. Till 31.07.97, they were availing the facility of Modvat credit on inputs under 57A of the Central Excise Rules. With effect from 01.08.97, they are covered by the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, whereunder they have a liability to pay duty of excise on the basis of the annual capacity of production (ACP) as determined by the competent authority under the relevant rules framed under Section 3A ibid.Sometime in July 1997, the applicants had taken Modvat credit to the extent of Rs.1,47,319/- on certain quantity of inputs under Rule 57A.That quantity of the inputs happened to be used for manufacture of final products after the applicants came under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The Department took the stand that any Modvat credit taken on inputs so used must be reversed. Therefore, they raised a demand on the applicants by invoking the prov...

M/S. Aarti Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application styled as one for rectification of mistake of the final order passed by a Bench of three Members on 9-6-2001.According to the petitioner, certain points were not dealt with while passing the final order. More specifically it is averred that grounds (C), (D) and (E) raised in the memorandum of appeal were not specifically dealt with.2. All the points, which were raised before the Bench, were considered and dealt with while disposing of the appeals. Counsel, who appeared at the time of final hearing, has not moved this application for rectification of mistake. Another counsel has now been engaged by the assessee to move this application. That Advocate was not in a position to state that grounds (C), (D) and (E) urged in the memorandum appeal were, in fact, pressed before the Tribunal. By change of counsel, assessee cannot be allowed to raise a contention that points, which were not urged before the Tribunal, were, in fact, urged and the Tribunal failed to consi...

M/S Auro Spinning Mills, Baddi Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants had taken Modvat credit to the extent of Rs.49,938/- on insulated cables and electric control panels as capital goods during April to June 95. Both the Lower authorities disallowed the credit so taken, holding that the items were not eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. Hence the appeal before the Tribunal and the present application praying for pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the above amount of duty.2. I have heard both sides. Ld. Advocate Shri Balbir Singh submits that both the items involved were held to be eligible capital goods for Modvat credit by a 3-Member Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Pvt Ltd. Vs CCE [1998 (108) ELT 47] and that, in a subsequent case, a 5-Member Larger Bench has approved the said decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs Surya Roshni Ltd. [2001 (128) E.L.T 293]. Ld. JDR Shri Swatantra Kumar has not contested the advocate's submission that the T...

Cce, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Anu Auto Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application, the Department claims that a question of law as framed in this application has arisen our of Final Order No.A/351/97-NB(SM) dated 12.05.1997 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No.E/2094/94-NB.2. Today there is no representation for the respondents in spite of notice. The applicants are represented by ld. JDR Shri Swatantra Kumar.3. The question formulated for reference to High Court, as stated in Annexure 'B' to this application, is as under: "2. Whether provisions of Rule 57C are attracted in cases where final product are cleared without availing of exemption from whole of duty of excise." 4. The respondents were an SSI unit, operating under Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993. During the period 01.04.1993 to 31.08.1993, they paid duty of Excise on final product, on their own volition, availing Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of the final product. The credit so taken was disallowed by the Departmental authorities, against which the assessee...

M/S. H.C.L. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT102TriDel

1. Appellants are manufacturers of photocopier. The photocopiers are sold only in retail. The issue involved in the present appeal is the valuation of photocopiers sold in retail for levy of Central Excise duty. The period involved is prior to the replacement of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on 1-7-2000.2. The appellants claimed deduction of 28% from the retail price for the purpose of fixing assessable value for their photocopiers. This was on the basis that their competitors, namely, Modi Xerox Ltd. had been allowed deduction at the same percentage. This claim of theirs has been rejected in the order-in-original as well as in the order-in-appeal.The present appeal is directed against these orders.3. Arguing the appeal before us today, the learned counsel representing the appellants submitted that during the relevant period goods were liable to be assessed at their wholesale price (Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944.)There is no dispute that the goods were being sold i...

Naveen JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When this matter came up before us for hearing, learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the same is not pressed, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to move the same before the proper forum. In view of this submission, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn....

Cc, Amritsar Vs. M/S. R.K. Machine Tools (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT389TriDel

1. In this application filed by the Department, they have claimed that the question of law stated below has arisen from the Final Order No.A/272/98-NB dated 25.03.98 passed by this Tribunal in appeal No.C/120/97-NB. "Whether in a case where duty paid imported goods have not been sold AS SUCH by the imported but used captively for manufacture of other goods, it can be said that incidence of duty has been passed on by the importer to the buyer of final product." 2. Today there is no representation for the respondents. However, they have prayed for a decision on merits without hearing them. The applicants are represented by ld. JDR Shri Swatantra Kumar.3. I have carefully perused the aforesaid final order and examined the grounds of the present application. I have also heard ld. JDR.4. Ld JDR submits that the above final order was passed by the Tribunal following the ratio of High Court judgements including the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides. He, furthe...

M/S. Data Enterprises Vs. Cc, Cochin

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC575

2. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate submits that the adjudication order in these proceedings was passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs and therefore, para-6 needs to be amended to read Joint Commissioner in place of Asstt. Commissioner. He also submits that the appellants be given opportunity by the adjudicating authority in de novo proceedings to place on record the various judgments which they have already relied upon before the Tribunal.3. After hearing both the sides, the first sentence in para-6 is amended as under:- "6. In view of the above findings, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals by way of remand to the Joint Commissioner for re-determination of the nature of goods after obtaining experts opinion about the goods under import. It is hereby also directed that since it is a live consignment pending clearance, the Joint Commissioner shall arrive at a decision as soon as possible on receipt of this order. The importers are also directed to co-operate with the i...

Cce, Meerut Vs. M/S. Glasstronics India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application filed by the Department, they have claimed that the following question of law has ariseh out of the Final Order No.A/232/98-NB(S) dated 17.03.98 passed by this Tribunal in appeal No.E/1241/97-NB. "The point of law under reference is whether gate passes issued prior to 01.04.94 but endorsed after that date would fall under the coverage of entry No 10 in the table to the Notification No.16/94 CE (NT) dt. 30.3.94 and would consequently become eligible documents for taking credit under modvat scheme." 2. I have examined the above Final Order and the grounds of the present application. Ld. JDR Shri Swatantra Kumar has reiterated the grounds of the application and has submitted that, in numerous earlier cases, this Tribunal has referred the above question of law to various High Courts.3. Today there is no representation for the respondents inspite of notice. I have examined the submissions made by ld. JDR. I have also pointed out to him that the above question of law ...