Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

F.C.i. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant in these appeals is a public sector undertaking. The matter has stood adjourned from time to time (SIC) of clearance from the Committee on Disputes as required in terms of the directions of the apex Court in the judgement in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission. Today, there is neither any evidence of COD clearance on record nor any representation for the appellants. The apex Court had issued the directions in 1992 [vide 1992 (61) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. The Court clarified them in 1994 [vide 1994 (70) E.L.T. 45 (S.C.)].Accordingly, a PSU should apply for COD clearance within one month from the date of filing appeal with CEGAT. There is nothing on record to show whether the appellant applied for COD clearance within the said period. The appellant or Counsel is not present also. I note that the period so stipulated has already run out....

M/S Modern Syntex (i) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Matter called. No representation for the applicants. Ld. JDR, Sh.Swatantra Kumar represents the Revenue.2. Upon examination of the records and hearing Id. DR, I find that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage.3. The appellants have challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby their appeal was rejected on the sold ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. It appears from the impugned order and the memorandum of the present appeal that the Commissioner (Appeals) had by "Interim Stay Order" dated 26.7.2000 directed the party to deposit an amount of Rs.2.25 lakhs for purposes of Section direction, and the former rejected the appeal as per the impugned order without giving any opportunity of being heard to the appellants. A copy of the Interim Stay Order is also available on record, which indicates the appellants had admitted liability for payment of duty of excise to the extent of Rs.2.25 lakhs. Th...

C.C.E., Aurangabad Vs. M/S. Tigrania Metal and Steel Indus

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT103TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Original dt. 6.12.93 vide which the Collector had dropped the duty demand of Rs. 69,73,171.81 against the respondents.2. The respondents were served with the Show Cause Notice dt. 29.7.88 vide which duty demand of Rs. 69,73,171.81 on the 'ship breaking scrap' obtained and re-rolled and cleared by them at 'nil' rate of duty after wrongly availing the benefit of Notfn. No.208/83 dt. 1.8.83 during the period 1.8.83 to 31.3.86, was raised. After getting their reply, the Collector confirmed the demand and held that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of the said notification, as their inputs were not duty paid, vide his order dt. 31.1.89 and imposed penalty on the partner and Manager of the respondents. That order of Collector was however, challenged by the respondents before the Tribunal and the Tribunal affirmed the findings of the Collector with regard to the non-availability of benefit of Notfn. No....

M/S. G. Tex Dyeing and Printing Mills Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are 3 appeals. Since the issue in these appeals is the same, therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the processing of man made fabrics with duty aid of hot air stenter. They are liable to excise duty on the basis of capacity of production determined in terms of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Production Determination Rules, 1998 framed in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. While deciding the production capacity, the Commissioner included the length of gallery also to that of chamber of stenter. The appellants have questioned this method of determination of production of capacity. According to them the galleries have no production use and did not contain any plant or machinery and that they are meant for prevention of pollution surrounding environment that might cause on account of chemical fumes.3. None appears for the appellants. ...

M/S. P.C. Cosma Sope Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT642TriDel

1. This application is for condonation of the delay of over 5 years and 9 months involved int eh filing of the appeal. The applicants have submitted that they had filed an appeal within time against the impugned order on 29.11.94, that the said appeal papers were returned by the Registry for rectification of certain defects under cover of letter dated 30.11.94, that, upon receipt of the said letter, they re-submitted the required number of sets of appeal papers to the Registry by Regd. post under cover of letter dated 7.12.94, that ever since then they were awaiting notice of hearing in the matter from this Tribunal, that there was no response for over 5 years, that they have filed fresh appeal on 9.10.2000 upon getting information to the effect that the earlier appeal papers were not traceable in the Registry and that the present application has also been filed for condonation of the delay involved in the filing of the fresh appeal.3. I find that the aforesaid submissions of the appl...

M.P. Tobacco Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this stay application, the applicants have prayed for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed on them by the Commissioner under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules as per Order dated 28.12.99.3. Ld. Advocate, Sh. R.L. Lamba has reiterated the grounds of this application as well as those of the appeal. He submits that there is no specific finding against the applicants by the adjudicating authority to call for any penalty under Rule 209A. He submits that the allegation raised in the show-cause notice against the applicants has not been established. The only finding against them is that the applicants and M/s G.T.C. Industries Ltd. had adopted a modus operandi for evasion of duty by suppressing material facts and making mis-statements and that the applicants had made an attempt to cover up clandestine removal of cut tobacco by M/s GTC Industries. The goods actually received by the applicants under cover the Challan also. The goods were entered in th...

M/S Shankra Fab Processors (P) Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On examination of the records and hearing both sides, I find that the appeal itself can be finally disposed of (SIC) I therefore, allow the present application and processed be dispose of the appeal finally.2. The appellants are manufacturers of specified textile fabrics falling under Chapters 52, 55 and 60 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and are working under the Compounded Levy Scheme under section 3A of the Central Excise Act. Under the said scheme, they have to discharge the liability of Central Excise duty on the basis of the Annual Capacity of Production [in short, ACP]determined by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise under the provisions of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. When the Commissioner Determined the ACP, he took into account the length of galleries also in addition to the parameters of the two chambers of the Hot Air stenter declared by the appellants and, accordingly, confirmed the AC...

M/S. Raj Cement Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Arguing the case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.45,708/-, Shri B.L.Narshimam, ld. Advocate submits that the appellant had already deposited a sum of Rs.24 lakhs. He submits that the demand is on the capital goods, some of which were used outside the factory but in the factory precincts. He submits that since the appellants have deposited about 50% of the duty, deposit of further amount of duty may be waived.2. Shri S.K.Das, ld. JDR submits that most of the items in this case were used outside the factory and that the larger bench of this Tribunal has already decided that no modvat credit will be admissible on the goods used outside the factory premises. He, therefore submits that the applicant may be directed to deposit the entire amount of duty.3. We have heard the rival submissions. We note that the applicant has deposited 50% of the duty amount and that the issue that some goods were partly installed outside the factory but were also used inside the factory is...

Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Shri Sudhir Oberoi, Sole Properietor, e ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)193

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.6,04,109.00 based upon unpaid invoices and the statement of account. Put briefly the claim of the plaintiff is that the defendant has been its customer since 1992 and had been purchasing adhesive Vamicol of various specifications from time to time and had been maintaining two regular running accounts bearing Np.E-0134 and E-0144 with the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company has also been entering the details of invoices cum challans by which goods were supplied and the payments received in the said running accounts. After taking into account the payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff it was found that the defendant owes to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,94,327.00 towards the cost price of the goods supplied. Since the defendant failed and neglected to make the payment despite repeated reminders and requests the instant suit was filed. As per custom, trade usage and practice the plaintiff has also claimed the interest at...

Kamana Gupta Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(2)JCC61

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. Admit.This revision petition under Sections 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 29.8.1997, passed by Ms. Indermeet Kaur Kochar, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi summoning the petitioner as an accused in the case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short NI Act).2. Brief facts are: that M/s. Saksham Financial Services (respondent No. 2) filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against Mr. Ashok Gupta, (Accused No. 1) and M/s. Intex India through its proprietor Smt. Kamana Gupta (petitioner) alleging that they owed to the complainant company Rs. 2,91,469.41; that Ashok Kumar Gupta issued a cheque No. 169059 dated 21.12.1995 for Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on the Canara Bank, Pitam Pura, Delhi towards part-payment of the dues; that the said cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds and despite legal notice dated 10th January, 1996 cheque amount was not paid wit...