Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur vide his Order dt. 9.10.2000 was rejected the appeal of the party without going into its merits by following his earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 232(KDT)CE/JPR/2000 dt. 3.3.2000, passed by him in the case of same appellants.2. Today when the matter is called, Shri N.P. Srivastava, Asst. Manager (Excise) of the appellant party submits that the above said Order dt.3.3.2000 of Commissioner (Appeals) has since been set aside by the CEGAT vide its Final Order No. A/81/2001/NB/DB dt. 31.1.2001 and the matter remanded to the Addl. Commissioner for passing a fresh order. He therefore, requests that this matter may also be remanded to the concerned authority who is already seized of the Shortage/Excess Intimation Note (SEIN) and the relevant gate passes covering the period under dispute. Shri S. Kumar, JDR for the respondents has no objection.3. I have considered these submissions. As rightly contended by the ld.Repr...

M/S. Rajastan Spg. and Wvg. Mills Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT343TriDel

1. Shri K.K.Anand, Learned Advocate submits that vide Order Nos.128-131/2000-D dated 30.3.2000 this Tribunal has disposed of 5 Appeals while only 4 appeals were listed in the title at the beginning of the order. The appeal No.E/2380/98-D filed by M/s. Rajasthan Spinning and Wvg. Mills was also part of these group of appeals. Shri Sheo Narayan Singh, SDR agrees. In the title at the end the following shall be mentioned. [arising out of Order in Appeal No. 295 to 297/CE/JPR/AJ/JR/98 issued on 28.5.98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi] These changes will have no effect on the conclusions drawn and the order recorded. The ROM application is disposed of accordingly....

M/S Haryana Steel Glass Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this Micellaneous Application, filed by M/s Harayana Sheet Glass Ltd., it has been mentioned that the Tribunal, Vide Final Order No. 36 to 38/2000-A dt. 9-2-2000 has set aside the Order-in-Original No. 64/89 dt. 22-12-89 and remanded the entire issue to the Adjudicating Authority for finding out the price at the factory gate after giving all premissible deductions as per the decision of the Supreme court and of this Tribunal and to make assessment inaccordance with law. Shri J.S.Agarwal, ld. Advocate submitted that as no action was taken by the Department inspite of repeat-ed requests and reminders, they had moved a Misc application No. 451/2000 A which was disposed of by the Tribunal Vide Misc Order No. 132/2000-A dt. 24-10-92 by directing the Adjudicat-ing Authority to pass final Order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said Misc Order; that inspite of the said Order, no action has been taken by the Department and consequently the Bank quara...

Cce., Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Shivalik Electric Equipment

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this application for staying the operation of the impugned order.2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice.3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of conductors and they were supplying conductors to the Punjab State Electricity Board and as per purchase order, any increase in the price of inputs was to be paid by the Electricity Board. The respondents raised certain bills to the Electricity Board due to increase in the price and respondents deposited the central excise duty due to increased value of (sic). Lateron, the Electricity Board made no payment of these subsequent bills. The respondents filed refund of the amount of central excise duty on the ground that they had not recoverted the amount from the Electricity Board, Therefore, they are entitled for the refund. In the impugned order, the refund application is allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals).4. Ld. D.R. submits that...

C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Engineering Innovation Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. The Commissioner (Appeal) in his Order dt.1.11.2000 has observed that this very matter had earlier been taken up in appeal by the Revenue before the CEGAT and the matter stood rejected vide CEGAT Final Order No. A/1247/2000/NB/SM dt. 3.7.2000. Shri A.K.Jain, JDR appearing for the Revenue/appellant does not dispute this proposition and the matter has also not been controverted in the written memo. of appeal filed by the appellants. Shri Ajai jain, Advocate for the respondents submits that the Revenue had also filed an ROM Petition against the above Final Order dt. 3.7.2000 and the same stood rejected by the CEGAT vide its Misc. Order No. M/13/01/NB/SM dt.5.1.2001. The ld. Counsel for the respondents has filed a copy of the above order.2. The Revenue appeal is thus rejected, as the same is already settled against them....

Sh. Ajay Kumar Dixit Vs. C.C.E., Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Vashish Narain Dixit, father of the appellant appeared in person.3. In this case, a penalty of Rs.10,000.00 was imposed on the applicant under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act.4. Brief facts of the case are that 4560 American Dollars were recovered from the applicant and in his statement, the applicant stated that he transported the smuggled gold os Sh. Amarjeet Singh to Shri Sudhir and Sh. Sudhir handed over 4560 American Dollars, which were to be paid to Shri Amarjeet Singh. The father of the applicant submits that he is a poor man having a small piece of agricultural land and it is very difficult for him to pay the penalty amount.5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.on e thousand within a period of 8 weeks. On deposit of Rs. one thousand, deposit of the remaining amount is waived for hearing of the appeal. Adjourned to 22.6.2001. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. Capital Meters (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The facts in this case are that the appellants availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 1,26,165/- on the input items beyond a period of six months from the date of issue of the relevant invoices covering these inputs. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-I, NOIDA initiated proceedings against them and vide his Order dt. 18.6.99 held that the Rule 57-G(5) and proviso to Rule 57-G(6) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 at the relevant time strictly disallowed the modvat credit after six months from the date of issue of the said invoice.2. The party filed an appeal against the above order but the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad vide his Order dt. 3.12.99 dismissed the appeal of the party upholding the order passed by the lower authority.3. The matter is listed today for hearing the Stay Petition filed by the appellants against the above order. I have heard Shri O.P.Tiwary, C.A. for the appellant and Shri S. Kumar, JDR for the respondent. The la.d C.A. for the appellan...

Arti Bhargava Vs. Sh. Kavi Kumar Bhargava(Deceased) Through L.Rs

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)1032; AIR2001Delhi301; 2001(58)DRJ693

ORDERK.S. Gupta. J.1. This order will govern the disposal of I.A.8035/90 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff and I.A.No.1160/94 filed under Order 39 Rule 4 read with section 151 CPC for vacation of ex parte ad interim injunction order dated 24th September 1990 by the defendants.2. Suit was filed on 22nd September 1990 alleging that Kavi Kumar Bhargava, defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. Dularey Lal Bhargava, father or plaintiff, Bharti Bhargava and husband of Smt.Savitri Devi Bhargava expired in September 1975. Smt.Savitri Devi Bhargava too died on March 7,1990. Defendant herein had instituted suit being Suit No.477/74 against Smt.Savitri Devi Bhargava who was defendant No.1, Bharti Bhargava who was defendant No.2 and plaintiff herein who was defendant No.3, for partition of two properties bearing Nos.3/13-B, Asaf Ali Road and E-15&16, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi. During the pendency of suit with the consent of parties the disputes were re...

Claridges Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. M.M. Bhagat and Company

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)790; 92(2001)DLT61; 2001(59)DRJ23; 2001RLR459

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. I propose to dispose off the Plaintiff's application filed on 7.4.1999 under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.C.') for passing a decree on the basis of admissions stated to have been recorded in the Written Statement filed by the Defendant, namely, M/s. M.M. Bhagat and Company. the claim in the plaint is for a sum of Rs. 17,94,629.23 together with interest thereon, towards the occupation charges payable per day of rooms in the Plaintiff's Hotel Claridges. After several opportunities had not been availed of by the Defendant for putting in Written Statement, the Plaintiff had been constrained to file on 18.3.1999 I.A. No. 3102/99 under Order VIII Rule 10 of the C.P.C. On the day when this application was listed before the Court for consideration, the Written Statement was filed. Again, the Defendant pursued a policy of protraction and procrastination, inasmuch as a Reply to the Plaintiff's application und...

Shri H.S. Dhingra Vs. Saraswati Cooperative Group Housing Soceity Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)431; 92(2001)DLT419; 2001(59)DRJ65

ORDERManmohan Sarin,J (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioner's signatures had been fabricated on the resignation letter. In short, the submission is that the petitioner did not resign. Learned counsel for the petitioner also questions the veracity of the record of proceedings before the arbitrator. It is alleged that the respondent had not produced the original resignation letter. The arbitrator in the award has dealt with the petitioner's contentions. The award given is a reasoned one. The arbitrator in the award has clearly observed, 'I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also carefully examined all the original documents including resignation letter dated 4.1.1996, minutes of the M.C. meeting dated 13.1.1996, as produced by the defendant society before me and have also gone through the written submissions filed by both the parties.....' The arbitrator further goes on to notice that as against the petitioner's claim of having p...