Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S Dura Cell (i) Ltd. Vs. Cce Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When this matter was called no one appeared for the appellants. The notice for hearing for this date is sent to the appellants on 8.2.2001.There is no communication from the appellants, either requesting for an adjournment or giving reasons for their absence. It therefore, appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting their appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed for non prosecution....

M/S. Bhiwani Textile Mills Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter under consideration in these appeals is the availability of modvat credit on the item namely Blowing Wrapper Cloth, whether under Rule 57A as input material or under Rule 57Q as capital goods.The appellants are the manufacturers of man made fabrics falling under chapter No.55. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Rohtak vide his orders dated 27.8.98 and 31.8.98 has denied the modvat credit of Rs. 87344/- and Rs. 1,67,552/- on this item to the appellants under Rule 57I and Rule 57 U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 respectively.The original authority has further imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Rule 173Q for contravening the Rule 57 A and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- unders the same rule for contravening Rule 57Q respectively on the appellants in his above stated two orders.2. The party filed appeals against the above orders of the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide her combined order dated 8.2.2000 rejected both the appeals of the party wit...

M/S. B.R. Metals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT188TriDel

2. The appellants imported copper wire bars under a contract entered into between them and their US suppliers viz. C.N.A.Metals Inc. The material was to be supplied in 4 containers each and the place of delivery was the Inland Container Depot (in short, ICD), Tughlakabad, Delhi. The proposed date of shipment was April/May 1999. As per the Bills of Lading, which accompanied the goods, C.N.A.Metals Inc. was the consignor and the goods were to be consigned to the order of the shipper. The Port of Discharge was shown as Nhava Sheva, India. On 06.05.1999 and 08.05.1999, the Shipping Agent M/s Container Marine Agencies Pvt. Ltd. applied to the Assistant Commissioner, Import Department, J.N.P.T., Mumbai, for amendments in the Import General Manifest (in short, IGM) No.1051 dated 05.04.1999 relating to the above consignments of copper wire bars. The amendment sought for in the application dated 06.05.1999 was in relation to the weights of the containers. Such amendment would result in a chang...

M/S. Pratap Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT395TriDel

1.The impugned order has raised a duty demand of Rs. 13,444/- and imposed a penalty of Rs.2,000/-. The dispute is with regard to valuation of the steel items manufactured by the appellants. The appellants were selling the products at different prices to parties located at different locations. The Excise Authorities have held that the ex-factory price at Faridabad, which happened to be the highest price, constitutes the sole assessable value inasmuch as ex-factory price is to be the basis for assessment. The appellants submitted that sale price depended upon the conditions prevailing at different geographical locations and that each of the sale prices was a fully commercial price and that each of the varying prices to buyers located at different geographical locations should be treated as price to a different class of buyer and each one of the prices should be accepted for assessment of the goods sold to the relevant buyer. They relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CC...

M/S Kesha Sales (P) Limited Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT59TriDel

1. The appellant is a Small Scale manufacturer of weighing scales. The goods are manufactured under an agreement with Terraillon of France.Small scale units were eligible to exemption under Notification No.175/86, subject to the condition that goods bearing the brand name of another person would not be eligible for the exemption. In the impugned order, the appellant has been directed to pay duty on the weighing scales manufactured by them on the ground that they bore the brand name, "Terraillon" which belonged to the French company. This demand is under challenge in the present appeal.2. During the argument of the case today, the Consultant for the appellant submitted though it is true that the appellant was using "Terraillon" on his weighing scales, no evidence has been brought on record that "Terraillon" was a brand name of the French company. He submitted that "Terraillon" was only a house mark. The Learned Consultant also submitted that the demand in this case was beyond time limi...

Cce, Patna, Cce, Pune and M/S Vs. M/S Telco Ltd. and Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both sides submit that the main issue involved in these appeals is the eligibility of certain machinery items manufactured in a factory to exemption under Notification No. 217/86 and that issue remains covered by the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, indore Vs. M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. reported in 2001 (42) RLT 817 (CEGAT-LB). Since the cases involved several items, both the sides agree that the appeals may be disposed of by way of remand, with a direction that the cases be reconsidered and disposed of in the light of the decision in M/s Surya Roshni Ltd., and other decisions relevant to the issue. We accept the suggestion and the appeals are disposed of accordingly. Needless to say, the appellants shall be given opportunity to present their case during the remand proceedings....

M/S. Krishna Engg. Vs. Cce New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case the appellants are denied the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,10,700/- on Brass Ingots falling under Chapter 7403 during the period March,1997 as inputs under Rule 57A by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ambala city vide his Order dated 23.1.98.2. The Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, dismissed the appeal of the party with the observations that the appellants had not filed a copy of the certificate from Works Manager, Ishapore in support of their contention that brass pigs and brass ingots were the same thing. It is also observed that the appellants had not given a copy of the declaration claimed to have been filed in respect of brass ingots after issue of the subject show cause notice. It is observed that in the absance of any evidence that brass ingots and brass pigs are one and the same thing or that the appellants had filed a declaration for brass ingots,there was no ground to interfare with the findings of the original authority.3. The present appea...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001(90)FLR62]

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. In the writ petition the following prayer has been made.'In the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed, this Hon'ble Court shall be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned Award dated 4.8.1989 and the Order dated 30.8.1993 passed by the Respondent No.1 in L.C.I.D. No. 349 of 1987 with a direction to the Respondent No.1 to hear the matter afresh and then decide the same or call for the records of the case and decide the same and or pass such other or further order or orders as may be deem fit and proper.'2. A reading of the prayer reveals that when the writ petition was filed the Petitioner had not sought the relief of the case being remanded to the Labour Court. This was obviously for the reason that it was not in the contemplation of the parties that the Labour Court was not rendered functus officio thirty days after the passing of the Award as this was the then prevaili...

Nafe Singh (Deceased) Through L.Rs. Etc. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)873; 91(2001)DLT543; 2001(59)DRJ109

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the award of reference court dated 21.8.1978 seeking determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of appellants land situate at village Tikri Khurd.2. 1327 bigha 13 biswa 16 biswansi of land situate in village Tikri Khurd was duly notified through notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 30.10.1963 for being acquired for public purpose at public expense, namely, construction of Narela Township, Delhi. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 16.1.1969. Three separate awards were made by the Land Acquisition Collector. First award No.42/73-74 was made on 22.10.1973 which included land measuring 297 bigha 19 biswa. Second award No. 42-A/73-74 was made on 8.1.1974 which included land measuring 186 bigha 13 biswa. For the remaining land measuring 843 bigha 1 bids was 16 biswansi award No. 148/86-87 was made on 19.19.1986. The ...

Hari Singh (Deceased) Through L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)937; 91(2001)DLT569; 2001(59)DRJ375

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. Delhi Administration through its notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 30.10.1963 notified 2279 bighas. 5 biswa of land situate at village Bhorgarh, Delhi for being acquired for public purpose, namely, development of Narela Township. This was followed by declaration under Section 6 made on 16.1.1969. The Land Acquisition Collector made three separate awards. The first award No. 19/78-79 was made on 12.6.1978 covering an area measuring 682 bighas. It was followed by supplementary awards No. 5/79-80 dated 28.5.79 and another award No. 199/86-87 dated 19.9.1986. By the first award Land Acquisition Collector offered compensation to the claimants @ Rs. 1500/- per bighas. By the second award also compensation was offered at the same rate by the Collector Land Acquisition. The claimants feeling dis-satisfied sought references under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the amount of compens...