Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Vinod Kumar Dudeja Vs. Appolo Computers Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 24.3.2001, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case No. 443/2000entitled Shri Vinod Kumar Dudeja v. Appolo Computers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had purchased a computer system on hire purchase basis from respondent No. 1 on 5.4.1999. It was stated that at the time of installation of the system it was noticed that the components, which were fitted inside the CPU, were without the original packing and certain items, which were to be provided by the respondents free of cost, as per the agreement, had not been provided. The grievance of the appellant, in the complaint, filed by him, was ...

M/S. Flex Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut - Ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This order will dispose of three appeals arising out of Order-in-appeal No. 753-CE/MRT/99 dated 6.9.1999 passed by the Commissioner (appeals), Ghaziabad.2. the controversy involved in these appeals centres around the question as to what whether the dispute goods fall within the definition of 'Capital goods', for availing modvat credit or not.3. The Assistant Commissioner did not accept the plea of the appellants that these are Capital goods and disallowed modvat credit thereon. The Commissioner (appeals) has also not differed with the order of the Assistant Commissioner in any manner. He has only referred to the arithmetical mistake in the calculation of the amount, as pointed out before him in his impugned order.4. The question as to whether the disputed gods fall within definition of 'Capital goods' under rule 57-Q read with explanation-I appended thereto, or not, requires re-determination as contended by both the sides, in the light of the latest Larger Bench decision in the cas...

M/S. Bhel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For reasons recorded below, we dispense with the predeposit of total duty of Rs.3,68,396/- and a total penalty of Rs.lakhs and stay recovery thereof and proceed to hear and dispose of the appals themselves with the consent of both sides.2. In this case 3 separate adjudication orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the duty demands on off-cuts of different sizes arising in the course of manufacture of electric stamping and lamination out of silicon steel sheets, holding them to be classifiable under CET Sub-heading 7212.50 attracting duty at the appropriate rate, and imposed penalties on the appellants. Aggrieved by the levy of duty and imposition of penalty, the appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), along with applications for waiver of predeposit. The lower appellate authority passed exparte stay orders directing predeposit of the entire amount of duty within 3 weeks. On receipt of the interim stay order, the appellants filed a miscellane...

Shri Mahabir Prasad Goenka Vs. C.C., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This miscellaneous application seeking modification of the stay order has not been pressed by the counsel as the counsel states that he would move an application for rectification of the stay order.Therefore, the present moscellaneous application is dismissed as not pressed.2. The compliance of the say order which was to be reported today has not been made by the appellants on the ground that they had moved an application for modification of the order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we extend time by two weeks from today of making compliance with the say order of the Tribunal To come up for reporting compliance on 28.5.2001....

M/S. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC110

1. The above appeal arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs.44,35,637/- on aluminium billets captively consumed for the manufacture of aluminium extruded products (irrigation pipes) which were exempt from, payment of duty w.e.f. 1.3.94, and imposed a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on the appellants herein. The period in dispute is June to December 1995.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium products viz. aluminium sprinkler pipes falling under Chapter 76 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. Thy received aluminium ingots either from local manufacturers such as HINDALCO, BALCO or they import the same on payment of appropriate duty of excise or additional duty of customs as the case may be. The process of manufacture is melting of the aluminium ingots in the furnace by adding thereto allowing material, and casting the molten aluminium into logs; such logs are cut int...

M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application, M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. have requested for waiver of predeposit of penalty Rs. 5 lakhs, confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Advocate, submitted that the potato chip, manufactured by the Applicants, attracted excise duty with effect form 1.3.1997 only; that a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, which has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order for non-accountal of production of potato chips in R.G.1 register during the period 1.5.1997 to 8.5.1997; that entries could not be made as the person incharge of maintenance of RG1 Register went on leave; that the goods produced were also accounted for in their transfer slips which are the basic documents for making entries in RG1 register; that in the absence of mensrea on their part, imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods are not sustainable.3. Opposing the prayer, Shri Sumit K. Das, learned D.R., submitt...

M/S. Flex Industries Limited Vs. C.C.E., Meerut - Ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 22.7.1999.2. The issue involved in this appeal relates to the modvatability of the goods in dispute as detailed in the impugned order on which the appellants had claimed modvat credit, under rule 57-Q of he Rules. The Assistant Commissioner through the Order-in-original disallowed the modvat credit to the appellants on these goods and allowed credit only on the inputs covered under the declaration dated 20.7.94 under rule 57G of the Rules. The Commissioner (appeals) after observing that only some were eligible for modvat credit, and not all, sent back the matter to the Assistant Commissioner.3. The question as to whether the disputed goods fall within the definition of 'Capital good' under rule 57-Q read with explanation-I appended thereto, or not, as submitted by both the sides requires re-determination in the light of the latest Larger Bench decision in the case of C.C.E...

Shri Sanjay Maheshwari Vs. C.C., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The present miscellaneous application has been filed by the appellant seeking modification of the stay order No.S/72-74/2001/NB(D) dated 7.2.2001 vide which he was directed to make pre-deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order, on the grounds, (i) the seizure of Rs.1,50,000/- from his office was illegal as he withdrew Rs.1,25,000/- out of that, from UBI Bank, (ii) the confiscation of the amount could not be legally made under Section 121 of the Customs Act and (iii) the value of the goods (China silk) has not been properly fixed by the Adjudicating Authority.2. all the grounds have been reiterated by the counsel during the course of arguments on the application. But we are unable to accept these grounds for modifying the stay order. Infact, these grounds were earlier raised by the appellant during the course of argument on the stay application. The Bench had referred these grounds in para 3 & 4 of the stay order. We cannot legally sit as Cou...

C.C.E., Meerut Vs. M/S. Samtel Colour Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Today, the appeal is posted for mention only as the decision of the Larger Bench in C.C.E., Indore versus Surya Roshni Ltd., on Capital goods was awaited. But that decision has been anounced and reported.Both the sides have submitted the appeal may be decided on the basis of the Larger Bench decision, on Capita goods.2. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned order of the Commissioner(appeals) vide which he had allowed the modvat credit only on some and not on all, the goods, under rule 57-Q of the Rules, by modifying the Order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner who disallowed the modvat credit on all the goods in question and imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- on the appellants. The goods on which the modvat credit has been sought by the appellants by projecting as Capital goods and disallowed by the Commissioner(appeals) had been detailed in the impunged order. It has been fairly conceded by both the sides that whether these disputed goods f...

M/S. Mmtc Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)1103; 92(2001)DLT465; 2002(61)DRJ686; 2001(76)ECC140; 2001(133)ELT310(Del)

ORDERArjit Pasayat, C. J. (Oral)1. This is an application under Section 130A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Act'), which relates to the consolidated order dated 7th December 2000, passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short 'Tribunal') in Appeal Nos. C/50-53/98-NB(DB) & C/478/98-NB(DB).2. The following questions have been proposed:1. Whether the liability for payment of customs duty can at all be on MMTC which is canalizing agency, even though the conditions of fulfillment of export under the Custom Notification No. (sic) Exim Policy and Procedure, REP Circular No. 22/88, and the Customs Circular Nos. 10/88 and 2/92, all require the Gem and jewellery unit located in the EOU/EPZ, to fulfill the export obligation, and upon their failure to do so, to pay/suffer, duties, fines and penalties. 2. Whether, as a consequence of the appointment of MMTC as canalizing agency for the import of gold, MMTC can be made liable for payment of custom...