Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Aar Kay Processors Vs. C.C.E., Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of differential amount of duty.2. The applicants are engaged in the processing of fabrics and for the purpose of payment of central excise duty, their annual capacity was assessed under Rule 3(3) of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processor Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. While determining the annual capacity, the length of galleries was taken into consideration by the Commissioner in the impugned order.3. Ld. Counsel submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors, Bhilwara vs C.C. reported in 2001 (42) RLT 429 held that while determining the annual capacity of hot stenter, the length of galleries are not to be taken into account.4. Heard ld. D.R., who reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.5. In view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors (supra), we find prima facie, the balance of convenience is in favour of th...

M/S. Patiala Casting (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On 25.10.2000, the Tribunal had directed the applications to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of four weeks and posted the matter for report of compliance on 1.12.2000. ON 1.12.2000, there was no representation for the applicants, nor was any proof, on record, of compliance with the direction for deposit. Therefore, on that day, the appeal was dismissed for no-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The present application seeks to restore the appeal.2. Ld. Advocate Sh. K.K. Anand has today submitted that the applicants have already deposited the amount on 5.12.2000 and that the delay involved in the matter was on account of delayed despatch of the Tribunal's order dated 25.10.2000 from the Registry. In this connection, he has pointed out that a copy of the said order was certified by the Asstt. Registrar only on 21.11.2000 and the certificated copy was despatched to the party some time thereafter. The order was complied with by the party on 5.12.200...

M/S. Bazpur Coop. Sugar Factory Vs. C.C.E., Merrut-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT133TriDel

1. The matter was earlier called and on the request made on behalf of the ld. counsel, the matter was passed over. The matter was again taken up at the end of the cause list. The matter was called and no one is present for the appellants.2. Sh. Sumit K. Das, ld. D.R. submits that the matter is already covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar & Industries Ltd. vs C.C.E. reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 166 (T).The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had followed this decision. He prays that the appeals be dismissed.3. As the matter is already covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Industries Ltd. (supra), we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. Harshvardhan Chemicals and Vs. C.C.E., Indore-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s. Harshvardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd., the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), had not gone into the merits of the case and had rejected the appeals for non-compliance to the provisions of Sec. 35F of the Act. In Stay Order No. S/392-93/2000-NB(DB) dated 26.09.2000, the Tribunal has directed the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. two lakh, which they have deposited. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits.2. We have heard Sh. M.M. Dube, ld. D.R. and have gone through the records. As the appellants have already complied with the terms of the Stay Order, the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) to decide the matter on merits. The amount pre-deposited will remain with the department till the disposal of the appeal and no further pre-deposit will be required to hear the appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). With these observations, the appeals are allowed by way o...

M/S Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT743TriDel

1. This application, filed by the Counsel for the appellants under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, seeks to restore the appeal which was dismissed as per Order dated 20.12.2000 on the ground of non-prosecution.2. Sh. Deepak Mahajan, Advocate representing his senior Counsel for the appellants, Sh. Vivek Sood, submits that, on 20.12.2000, he happened to be absent on account of the fact that he had erroneously noted the date of hearing as 28.12.2000 instead of 20.12.2000. He further points out that he joined the legal profession only in July 2000 and, therefore, he was not conversant with the procedure of the Tribunal. He prays for allowing the present application in the interest of justice and restoring the appeal to its original number. Ld. JDR, Sh. K.Panchatcharam has left the matter to the decision of the bench in facts and circumstances of the case.3. It is noted that the present application is under the proviso to Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. But, as rightly poin...

M/S. Lath Katha Uduog Vs. C.C., Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing the present, appeal,/ the appellants, M/s. Lath Katha Udyog, Nepal, are required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by way of penalty by the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow. The goods involved were Gambier. The value of the goods seized, was worth Rs. 21,75,000/-. The goods had been absolutely confiscated.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, ld. Advocate, submits that Gambier was nothing but Katha and its import from Nepal was permissible by the present appellants. He refers to the documents on record. It is his plea that the appellants is a resident of Nepal and no contravention of law was involved. He had filed proper documents for the clearance of the goods.3. On hearing both the sides and going through the facts of the record, we waive requirement of pre-deposit of the penalty amount of Rs. 50,000/- and stay the recovery till the disposal of the appeal./ The goods have already been confiscated. the matter to come up in its own turn. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. Sigma Industries Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of duty amounting to Rs. 5,00,667.00 and penalty of Rs. 5,01,000.00.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the applicants had two units, one at Mohali and one at Chandigarh and they were manufacturing parts of cable trays and perforated trays and they were clearing these parts from Chandigarh unit to Mohali factory for punching, drilling, etc, which does not amount to manufacture, on job work basis. He submits that on the date of visit, some raw-material was found excess in Mohali factory and some shortages were found at Chandigarh factory. He submits that in view of the excess found in their factory, no duty is demanded. He submits that the duty is demanded on the shortage found in other unit and the benefit of excess found at Mohali was not given to the applicants. He submits that when the applicants were manufacturing at two units, so the benefit of excess found at one unit be given to the shortage fou...

Sh. Ram Prasad Vs. Cc, Amritsar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application filed by the appellants seeks to restore the appeal to its original number. The appeal had been dismissed as per Order dated 4.1.2001 for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act. On that day, the Counsel for the appellants had submitted that the had no instructions as to whether they had complied with the Tribunal's direction for pre-deposit of Rs. 10,000/- in compliance with the provisions of Section 129E. That, 1d. Advocate Sh.Bipin Garg submits that, in fact, he had received proof of deposit of the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, from his clients on the same day but some time after close of the bench sitting hors. He has brought on record a copy of the challan evidencing the deposit of the amount on 30.12.2000, along with the present application. Ld JDB Sh. K. Panchatcharam is satisfied about the deposit.2. It appears that the deposit was made a little beyond the stipulated time of six weeks. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ...

M/S. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT67TriDel

1. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Vanaspati falling under Chapter 15 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were issued with a Show-cause-notice dated 30.11.98 demanding differential duty of Rs.72,27,073.20 as duty on soap stock manufactured by them, during the period between 23.7.96 to 28.2.97. Action for violation of various Provisions of the rules were also contemplated in the show-cause-notice. Appellant raised a contention that during the period mentioned in the Show-cause-notice they did not manufacture or sell any soap stock. They manufactured and sold only Acid Oil. At the intermediate stage of its manufacture soapy water came into existence and the soap water is not marketable commodity. Earlier they manufactured soap stock with concentration varying from 15.98% to 33.16% and those sales were covered by 11 Invoices which were submitted to the Department. There after the alleged intermediate product of soap stock was not manufactured and sold. T...

M/S. Ashoka Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. N.D.M.C. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)106; 91(2001)DLT408; 2001(59)DRJ107

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J Rule.1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.2. Petitioner claimed to be original owner of plot No.24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No.2 for development of the plot. Counsel for both the parties point out that in terms of the agreement entered into between them 30% of the area and sale proceeds were to be retained by the petitioner and 70% fell to the share of builder.3. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari calling upon the respondent No.1 to produce its records sanctioning the electric connection in the name of respondent No.3 pertaining to portion of GL-7A in the basement of the premises at 24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order sanctioning the electric connection which appears at page 93 of the paper book. The said connection was sanctioned interalia subject to responden...