Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Shri Yogender Pal, Prop. of M/S. Arya Cane Industry Vs. Municipal Corp ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)25; 92(2001)DLT339; 2001(60)DRJ591

ORDERManmohan Sarin. J.Rule.1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner happens to be tenant in respect of the premises No.141/3, Pul Methai Teliwara, Delhi-110006, under respondents 3 to 5, has filed this writ petition. Petitioner assails the report dated 24.11.1999 of the AE(B) SP Zone, MCD, recording interalia that the case had been considered on merits and no action was required in respect of the first floor of the property for unauthorized construction. Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus for initiation action for demolition of the unauthorised construction as also action against officials of MCD, who failed to perform and discharge their statutory duties.Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press prayers vi and vii, by which initiation of contempt proceedings against officials of respondent No. 2 was sought.3. The facts giving to the extent they are relevant for the disposal of writ petition may be noted:(i) Petitioner i...

Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Heavy Engineering Limited ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT216

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.(Oral)1. Agreement between Bharat Heavy Engineering Limited (respondent) and M.s. Harji Engineering Works (Claimant) was signed on 7th January, 1987 for erection, testing and commissioning of 67.5 MW Boiler Unit-I and 15 MW Electrostatic Precipitator at Rajghat Thermal Power Station, New Delhi.2. The dispute arose between them as to the interpretation of clause 41.8 of the contract. The Arbitrator was appointed for interpreting the said clause which provides as under :Clause 41.8 'The actual number of joints given in Annexure -III are convertible in equivalent joints calculated on the basis of Annexure -VI chart enclosed. The equivalent joint so worked out may vary between-5% & +10%. However, the unit tonnage rate shall remain valid for the variations as stipulated above. In case the variation exceeds the above limit for variations beyond -5% & +10% only the additional payment/recovery will be as per item 2 of rate schedule. There will be no other claim from either ...

M/S. Shree Prints Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.3. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of textile fabric and annual capacity of their stenter was determined as per Hot Stenter Independent Textile Processor Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 and while determining the capacity, the length of galaries was also taken into account. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors, Bhilwara vs C.C. reported in 2001 (42) R.L.T. 429 held that while determining the annual capacity of stenter, the length of galaries is not to be taken into account. In view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processor (supra) prime facie the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicants.Therefore, the pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. The appeal with come up in due course....

M/S. Thapson Steels Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT748TriDel

1. The Stay Application filed by the appellants has not been pressed by the Counsel at this stage and as such, the same is dismissed as not pressed. The appellants will be at liberty of file fresh Stay Application at the appropriate stage. The ld. Counsel, however, requests that the appeal may be fixed for regular hearing at the earliest, as the appellants are facing hardship from the Excise department. The ld. JDR, Shri M.M. Dubey has no objection for fixing the date of hearing of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal be posted for regular hearing on 16th May, 2001....

M/S. Kishore Pujari Gravites (P) Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. As the s/o dated 3.8.2000 was not received by the appellant and the request for ROA has been received within 6 months form the date of dismissal order the appeal alongwith the s/p is restored to its original member the matter should come up as short matter for consequence of the (SIC)s/petition 6.6.2000 A copy of the s/o should be given to the appellant (SIC)....

M/S. H.V. Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bombay

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard. The waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amount is allowed and with the consent of both sides, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.2. This appeal filed by M/s. H.V. Exports, appellants, arises out of the Order-in-Original dt. 19.10.2000 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vide which he had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 21,25,703/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,05,000/-, on them.3. The appellants exported goods (inputs) under the Value Based Advance Licencing Scheme announced by the Government and cleared those goods duty free, in terms of Notfn. No. 203/92-Cus. dt. 19.5.92, but also availed the modvat credit on those goods, which were to be used by them in the manufacture of products against which the licence was obtained b them. They were accordingly, served with a show cause notice dt.29.1.99 vide which they were called upon to pay the duty amount of Rs. 21,25,703/- along interest @ 24%, in respect of Bill of Entry No. 5292 dt. 18.4.94, whereby they had ...

M/S. Abhinav Enterprises Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This Stay Application of the appellants arises out of their Appeal No. E/629/2001/NB(D) filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 14.11.2000 dismissing their appeal under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for non-compliance of the Stay Order dt. 21.3.2000, vide which they were required to make pre-deposit of the entire duty amount of Rs. 14,39,761/- and an equal amount of penalty.2. The appellants have filed the present stay application and pleaded for waiver of duty and penalty amounts. Shri A.L. Mathur, Counsel for the appellants has contended that no duty liability could be fastened on the appellants, as they were only the job workers. He has also pleaded financial hardship of the appellants for making pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts.3. On the other hand, Shri M.M. Dubey, JDR has argued that the appeal of the appellants had been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order only under Section 35-F, as...

M/S. Partap Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above applications has been filed for waiver of pre deposit of total amount of duty of Rs.7,36,178.15/- and penalty of Rs.81,000/- demanded against the applicants who are manufacturers of Iron Steel products in their factory at Ballabhgarh in Haryana arises as a result of adoption of ex-factory price for their depot sales. The defence of assessees is that the sale price depended upon condition prevailing at different geographical locations where buyers were located and that each of sale price should be treated as price for different class of buyers and each one of the price should be accepted for assessment of the goods sold to the relevant buyers. They rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in their own case i.e. final order NO. 117/2001-A dated 14.3.2001. Ld.D.R. Shri Sumit Das opposes the prayer for waiver contending that the applicants have not substantiated their claim for charging different price by showing that there were different commercial considerations at different ...

M/S. Quadromatic Engg. P. Ltd. and Vs. Cce Pune

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC861

1. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Stators and Rotoers out of raw material supplied to M/s Kirloskar Brothers (herein after referred to as M/s KBL) who cleared the same to M/s KBL for further use in the manufacture of Hermetically Sealed Compressors under separate adjudication o riders. The Assistant Collector held that profit of M/s KBL should be included in the assessable value of the Stators and Rotoers along with the value of raw material, transport and over head charges and conversion charges and added notional profit of 10%. Collector (appeals) while upholding the inclusion of profit of the manufactures of the compressors (i.e. M/s KBL) in the assessable value of Stators and Rotoers manufactured by the appellants, remanded the case for working out the correct profit margin earned by M/s KBL, on the basis of the balance sheet of M/s KBL for the period in dispute. He also remanded the case for verification of the assessee's claim that ...

M/S. Guru Arjan Iron and Steel Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has come present on the call of the case on behalf of the appellants for prosecuting the stay application. Therefore, the stay application filed by the appellants is dismissed for want of prosecution. Let notice be issued to the appellants for making compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Act, within six weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of the order....