Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Pragati Silicones P. Ltd. Vs. Cce Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC840

1. This issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s Pragati Silicones P.Ltd. is whether the Name Plates, Lables, Emblems made from plastic for use on Motor Vehicles are classifiable under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tarrif Act as parts or Motor Vehicle or Motor Cycles as claimed by them or under sub-heading 3926.90 as other articles of plastics.2. Shri J.S.Agarwal, ld. Advocate, submitted, that the Appellants manufacture name plates, lables, emblems out of plactics which are specially designed to be used on Motor Vehicles and Motor Cycles; that the impugned goods can be affixed only on the vehicle for which these have been specifically and principally manufactured; that without these goods the vehicle cannot be identified as a particular vehicle and as such these are parts specially designed for vehicles and classifiable under heading 8708 or 8714. Reliance was placed by the ld. Advocate on the decision in the case of CCE Vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd, 1989 (39) EL...

M/S Jyoti Carpet Indus Vs. Cce, Jaipur I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT458TriDel

1. The Central Excise Officers of Headquarters (Anti-Evasion), Commissionerate, Jaipur-I visited the factory of the appellants on 9 & 11.9.1998. They found that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture or car matting/other mattings. They had neither obtained any registration from the Central Excise Department nor had been paying central excise duty on removal of their final product. Certain documents/records were resumed from their premises for further scrutiny. From the scrutiny of these records, it was learnt that they were clearing their final products viz. car mattings or floor foot mats of the cars and accordingly it was observed that during the period 1995-96 to 1998-99, they had cleared finished goods valued at Rs 78,79,908.75 without payment of duty of central excise amounting to Rs 21,95,458.77 as per the particulars given below - In this connection, the statement of Smt. Jyotsna Sharma, Proprietress of the party, was recorded on 11.9.1998 and 17.9.1998. In her stat...

M/S. Universal Electrodes P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC624

1. Arguing on the above applications for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.4,67,506/-confirmed as a result of inclusion of cost of wooden boxes in the assessable value of welding electrodes manufactured and cleared by the applicants between 29.1.90 and 30.9.95, learned Counsel, Shri P.K. Sahu submits that the goods are normally cleared from the factory gate in card board cartons but in polythene bags and wooden boxes were used only in stray cases for the purpose of easy transporting and, therefore, wooden boxes are secondary packing, the cost of which is not includible in the assessable value as per various decisions oft eh Apex Court and the Tribunal including Geep Industrial Syndicate vs. CCERacold Electrical Appliances Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2000 (122) ELT 144.He, therefore, prays that predeposit may be waived and its recovery stayed pending the appeals. The prayer is opposed by the learned DR, Shri S.K. Das who contends that in the face of the categoric factual finding that the...

M/S. Jaydee Agrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Cee., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 52,144.00.2. Applicants, vide letter dated 03.04.2001, made a request to decide the application on merits.In this case, the MODVAT Credit was denied to the applicants only on the ground that the dealer, who issued the invoice and on the strength of which the credit was taken, was not having the duplicate copy of the invoice issued by the manufacturer. In the impugned order no proceeding is initiated against the dealer, who issued the invoice without having a duplicate copy of the invoice. The contention of the applicants is that they availed the credit on duplicate copy of invoice issued by the dealer, which is a valid duty-paying document for taking the credit. In these circumstances, prima facie, it is a fit case for waiver of the pre-deposit of duty. Pre-deposit of whole of the duty is waived for hearing of the appeal. The appeal will come up in due course. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. Embassy Bar Hotel and Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application has been filed for waiving predeposit of personal penalty amounting to Rs.49,500/-.2. When the matter was called none appeared. From the records it was found that notice for today's hearing was issued on 16,3,2001, there is no request for adjournment of the cases. In the circumstances, the application is directed to deposit the entire amount of penalty on or before 17.6.2001. Compliance of this deposit should be reported on 25.6.2001....

M/S. V.V.S. Alloys (P) Ltd. and Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Amit Awasthi,Advocate submits that in both these appeals the matter relates to the redetermination of the capacity under the provisions of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997 as amended by Notification No.45/97-CE(NT)dated 30.8.97 and that the matter is covered by the Tribunal decision in the group of appeals disposed of vide Final Order No.A/129-133/2001-NB(DB) dated 14.2.2001. He prays that the matter be remanded for reexamination in the light of the Tribunal's aforesaid order.2. Shri M.M.Dubey, JDR submits that the order recorded by the Tribunal is per incuriam as it has not taken into account a number of relevant factors which were submitted before the Tribunal by the Departmental Representative. In particular he referred to the provisions of Rule 3(b)_ of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.3. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts on record. We find from the order of the Commission...

M/S. P.S. Bedi and Co. Vs. C.C., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 25,000.00.2. Ld. consultant, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the applicant is a Customs House Agent (CHA) and he filed a bill of entry as per the information supplied by the importer. His submission is that the bill of entry alongwith all the documents, such as Chatered Engineer's Certificate, was submitted on 8.8.97, which was noted by the revenue on 9.8.97 and the goods were examined in the month of September, 1997. His submission is that as there is no mens rea on the part of the CHA by misdeclaring the goods imported by the importer, no penalty can be imposed on the CHA.3. Ld. D.R., appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that the goods, in question, were second-hand machinery and parts. This aspect of the second-hand machinery and parts. This aspect of the second-hand machinery and part was not declared in the bill of entry and the adjudicating authority also found that th...

M/S. Indian Iron Foundry Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT399TriDel

1. The issue involved in these appeals arising out of a common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is the classification of "Hal Ki Noke" (agriculture or horticulture machinery parts for soil preparation/cultivation). According to the appellants, the item falls for classification under Chapter 84 and is entitled to exemption from duty under relevant Notification, while the Department seeks classification of the goods as castings under CET sub-heading 7325.10 attracting duty @ 15% adv. and on this basis had confirmed a duty demand of Rs.26,144.10 and Rs.4192/- respectively and imposed penalties of Rs.50,000/- and RS.25,000/- respectively.2. We have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Counsel who submits that the goods are finished articles manufactured by the process of casting and that the appellants do not carry out any further process such as machining and, therefore, the goods have been rightly classified under Chapter 84. On the other hand, learned ...

Budhiraja Electricals Vs. Airports Authority of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)829; 91(2001)DLT418

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the non-consideration of the price bid of the petitioner. It was contended before me by Ms. Ansuya Salwan, learned counsel for the petitioner that as power the tender documents and terms of the tender, the technical bid as well as price bid was given in two envelops A and B. Various other contentions were raised before me by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to size of LT panels the details of which was not given in the tender. It was also argued that in past in similar circumstances the respondent shave allowed petitioner to submit revised bids. It was further contended that after asking the petitioner to keep its bid offer valid, the respondents ought to have considered the price bid of the petitioner. It was further argued that the respondents had no right in not considering the price bid as the said bid was not withdrawn and no revised price bid was submitted by the petitioner to ...

Surider Pal Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)779; 91(2001)DLT751

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. Order passed on 18.10.2000 by learned Single Judge in I.A. 17/17/2000 in S.No. 513/99 is under challenge by the plaintiff/appellant in this appeal by which learned Single Judge directed the amount of Rs.5,47,000/- to be released in favor of defendant/respondent No.2.2. Under the Hire Purchase Agreement an amount of Rupees four lakhs was disbursed to the appellant to enable him to purchase truck Tata 1612 (Make 1997) bearing Registration No.HR 10GA-0030; Engine No.679-D23-FSQ-129521 and Chasis No. 360-324-FSQ-008814. The vehicle was insured with respondent No.1. Under the said Hire Purchase Agreement the appellant had agreed to pay monthly hire charges @ Rs.14,688/- which was payable in 35 Installments. Three Installments had already been paid by the appellant. In the meanwhile, vehicle was stolen. Appellant lodged claim with the Insurance Company. As the claim was not settled by the Insurance Company, on 22.2.99 suit was filed by the appellant claiming a decre...