Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S Baba Garibdas Vharmarth Nyas Vs. Cc. New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants M/s. Baba Garib Das Dharmarth, Mayur Vihar, Dehradun, U,P against the impugned order in original dated 13.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (ICD) who approved the value of imported goods at the rate of Rs.30/- per Kg., ordered confiscation of the goods covered by Bills of Entry Nos.316262 and 316256 both dated 15.4.2000 with option to get the same redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs.3 lakhs on them.3. The appellants as Charitable Organisation received from M/s. Comac Inc.,2835E, 26th Street, Verron ,CA 90058 by way of donation, two consignments of old used clothing one containing 100 bales and the other 103 bales for free distribution to the poor and needy persons without any distinction of caste, creed or race. They filed two Bills of Entry Nos.316262 and 316256 both dated 15.4.2000 to seek the Customs clearance of those consignments and in those bills of entry, they declared the goods classi...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Machine Plastics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT71TriDel

1. In this case, the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi who has extended the benefit of Notification 217/86 to iron and steel trollies manufactured by the respondents herein for use in handling and transportation of auto parts manufactured by them (material handling equipment).2. We have heard both sides and carefully perused the recent decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vs. M/s.Surya Roshni Ltd. reported in 2001 (42) RLT 817 which has confirmed the earlier Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s.Jawahar Mills Ltd. and others vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 1999 (32) RLT 379 in the context of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules wherein it has been held that the expression "used for producing or processing of any goods for the manufacture of the final products" occurring in the first leg of clause 1(a) of the Explanation to Rule 57Q is not synonymous with the expression "used fo...

M/S. Ajnala Coop. Sugar Mills Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC667

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Ajnala Coop. Sugar Mills for waiver of predeposit of duty of excise amounting to Rs.3,86,088/- confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.2. Shri B.S. Bhangoo, learned Advocate, submitted that the issue involved is the determination of assessable value of the unreserved quantity of molasses sold by way of open auction; that they had sold this unreserved quantity of molasses @ Rs.17/- per quintal whereas the Revenue determined the assessable value to be Rs.85/- per quintal which was fixed in a meeting held by Chief Secretary, Punjab with the Officers of the Excise and Taxation Department and Cooperative Department for the molasses to be supplied to the distilleries during 1996-97. The learned Advocate submitted that the issue stands decided by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Rana Sugar Mills vs. CCE, Chandigarh, 3. Opposing the prayer Shri P.K. Jain, learned SDR, reiterated the findings given by both the lower authorit...

M/S. U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Cce Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Burhwal, Distt. Barabanki, the matter relates to the admissibility of modvat credit in respect of the gunny bags that were received under an invoice on which the serial number was written in hand and was not pre-printed as required under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The gunny bags were received from the sister unit of the appellants - M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Siswa Bazar, Maharaj Ganj, U.P. while admitting that the serial number was not printed on the invoice, the appellants pleaded in response to the show cause notice that the modvat credit should not be denied on technicalities/procedural lapses. The Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, who adjudicated the matter held that the pre-printing of the serial number on the invoice was a mandatory requirement under Rule 52 A (6), and non-compliance with such a mandatory requirement would render...

M/S. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT108TriDel

1. The above application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.1,14,236/- and penalty of Rs.11,423/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has confirmed the Assistant Collector's order holding that coal ash cinder is an excisable commodity classifiable under CET Sub-heading 2621.00 and chargeable to appropriate rate of duty, and imposing penalty fro clearing excisable goods in contravention of the Rules.2. On hearing both sides and noting the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. and another vs. Union of India reported in 2000 (39) RLT 902 (Guj), in which it has been held that coal ash cinder, which is a residue or waste of coal burnt in boiler is not a manufactured product and hence not excisable, we dispense with the predeposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal....

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT970TriDel

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts and special purpose machines falling under Chapters 84 and 87 as well as tools/dies and gauges falling under Chapter Heading 82.02 and 90.31.They claimed the benefit of Notification 217/86 dated 2.4.86 for tools, dies and gauges manufactured and cleared for captive consumption during the period 1.8.86 to 27.10.88. A show cause notice proposing denial of the benefit on tools, dies and gauges and proposing recovery of duty and proposing imposition of penalty was issued in July 1991. The Collector of Central Excise dropped the demand raised on tools and dies by extending the benefit under Exemption 58/86 dated 10.2.86; however, he disallowed the benefit of Notification 217/86 to gauges, holding that they are measuring and checking instruments in the nature of machines, equipment, appliances, tools or apparatus used in processing or producing excisable goods ...

M/S. Craftsmen Vs. Cc, Icd Tughlakabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to 46,42,480/- and penalty of Rs.4 lakhs.2. Narrating the facts of the case Shri Rajesh Chibber, Ld. Counsel submits that the applicant applied for an advance licence. According to the terms and conditions of the licence, they were required to fulfil an obligation of export of goods worth Rs.1.24,80,003/- and a quantity of 202.800 m.t. He submits that the applicants obtained the advance licence; that although they had exported the goods valued at Rs.1,37,37,568.44 but in terms of quantity the total export quantity could not be achieved; that the applicants applied to the joint Director of Foreign Trade for extension of time which was granted that another extension was sought under their letter dt.28.6.2000 requesting for allowing them time to fulfil the export obligation upto 31.3.2001; that they have not received any intimation from DGFT so far; that the Department issued a SCN asking them to explain as to why duty...

M/S. La Chem Pharmaceuticals (P) Vs. Cce, Delhi-iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Arguing the stay petitiones filed by M/s. La Chem Pharmaceuticals & Others and Shri S.S.Nandwana Shri V.R.Sethi, Ld. Counsel submits that in so far as the duty demand is concerned, the applicants have already deposited the entire amount of duty and have deposit penalty amounting to Rs.4,97,125/-. He submits that since even a part of penalty has been deposited by the applicant's firm, no further deposit may be directed and prays that stay petitions maybe allowed.2. Shri Mewa Singh, Ld. DR submits that penalty imposed on the appellants has not been deposited in full and no amount of penalty has been deposited on behalf of the Director. He, therefore, prays that the applicants may be directed to deposit the full amount of penalty.3. We have heard the rival submissions. We not in the instant case that no doubt the applicants have deposited the entire amount of duty and have already deposited a part of the penalty also but no amount has been deposited by the Managing Director. Havin...

Smt. Harnandi Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)420; 91(2001)DLT54; 1999(59)DRJ561

ORDERKhan, (J)1. Petitioner's husband, a gunner, enrolled in Army in 1961 returned home on two months' sanctioned leave on 13.5.1982. He failed to report back on duty on the expiry of leave period. An apprehension warrant was issued against him on 17.7.82 and a court of inquiry was held on 16.8.82 and he was cleared a deserter on 25.8.82.2. Petitioner's version is that her husband came back home in a failing health condition and later died as a result on 6.11.84. She informed the concerned authorities about his death and made representations thereafter claiming family pension which were rejected on the ground that he was declared on deserter and was struck of the unit strength on 14.7.82.3. Petitioner's case is that her husband had died in harness as competent Army authority had failed to pass any order of dismissal or discharge to do away with his service. Even if it was accepted that he was validly declared a deserter, that by itself could not terminate this services and he continued...

M/S. Siemens Limited Vs. M/S. BhasIn Associates Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)477; 92(2001)DLT397; 2002(62)DRJ264

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 22,01,591.60p. The plaintiff, a Public Limited Company has preferred the suit for recovery of Rs. 22,01,591.60 against the defendant which also is a Public Limited Company. The facts giving rise to the case are as under:2. Vide letter dated 28.12.89 the defendant company invited the plaintiff company to submit their offer for the requirement of Programmable Logic Controller for WWTP Project in Uran (Maharashtra) for ONGC (i.e. Oil and Natural Gas Commission).3. In pursuance of the aforesaid invitation the plaintiff company submitted its competitive offer on 12.1.90 but later on at the request of the defendant company the plaintiff company also submitted their revised offers dated 15.2.90. The defendant accepted the quotations of the plaintiff company and placed upon it the quotations of the plaintiff company and placed upon it the detailed purchase order dated 17.3.90 for engineering,supply, installation, testing and commissioni...