Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

C.C.E., Delhi Vs. M/S. Quality Foils (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents manufacturer "Cold Rolled strips of stainless steel" falling under Chapter 72. They availed modvat credit amounting to Rs. 19,060/- on Power Factor Correction Panes and Electrical Control Panel with pandant box under Rule 57-Q. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak vide his Order dt. 24.4.96 denied them the modvat credit on these items on the ground that these are not covered in the definition of the 'capital goods'; that these items do not bring about any change in the production of final product and cannot come under the ambit of capital goods as per explanation given under clause (1) (a) to (d) under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He further imposed a penalty of Rs.500/- on them.2. An appeal was filed by the party. The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi vide his Order dt. 29.9.2000 allowed the appeal of the party on the ground that the modvat credit is admissible in respect the "capacitors".3. The Revenue are in appeal against t...

Shri K.K. Gupta, Diretor, (2) M/S. Vs. Cc Kolkatta

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Notice of hearing of the above appeals which have been transferred from the Eastern Zonal Bench of Calcutta, was issued by the Registry on 7.3.2001 but none appears on behalf of the appellants.2. We find that even earlier when the appeal was listed for hearing on 8.2.2001 before the Calcutta bench, notice sent by registered post was returned by the postal authorities and express telegram issued to the appellants for hearing of the appels was also returned on the ground "addressee left without leaving address." It therefore, appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their case. Hence the appeals are dismissed for non prosecution under the provision of the CEGAT procedure Rules 1982....

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Adinath Textile Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. There is delay of two days in filing the above appeal - last date of filing of the appeal was 1st February 2001 and the appeal was filed on 5.2.2001 and 3rd and 4th Feb. 2001 were close holidays being Saturday and Sunday.2. On hearing both and having regard to the very small delay involved we condone the same.3. The COD application is hereby allowed. Appeal will be listed for regular hearing in its....

Shri Lokesh JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- imposed under Rule 209A of Central Excise Act.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is only working as a Supervisor in the Firm and he was making entries in the private record as per the directions of Shri Devi Ram, Proprietor of the Firm. He submits that the applicant only acted on the directions of the Proprietor and there is no evidence or record to show that he himself received any benefit out of making these entries.3. Heard learned JDR and perused the appeal papers. The applicant was working as Supervisor and in his statement recorded on 02.11.99 he specifically mentioned that he was making entries in the private record as per directions of Shri Devi Ram, Proprietor of the Firm. Taking into facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it is a fit case for waiver of the pre-deposit of penalty. Therefore, the pre-deposit of whole of the penalty is waived...

M/S. Nahar Fibres Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Arguing the case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, Shri Harbans Singh, Counsel submits that in the instant case the applicants had already discharged the duty liability at the spindle stage as single yarn in accordance with two Trade Notice Nos.70/94-CE dt.7.6.94 and 112/94-CE dt.15.12.94. He submits that their case is fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Limited (Final Order No.720/98-D dt.18.9.98 and CCE vs.GIS Limited (Final Order No.136 & 137/2000-A). He submits that in a similar circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Arihant Spinning Mills in para 5 held that "Under these circumstances, in our view, it is a fit case where waiver of pre-deposit of entire duty amount deserves to be allowed for the purpose of hearing the appeal.Accordingly, we allow the stay application of the applicants and grant waiver of the pre-deposit of the entire duty amount in dispute and stay its recovery." He, therefore prays ...

Shri Ranjan Kumar and ors. Vs. Cc, Amritsar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has come present for the appellants. Vide Stay Order dated 7.2.2001, Shri Taranjit Singh, appellant, was directed to pre-deposit Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) while shri Ranjan Kumar, appellant was required to make deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) within a period of 8 weeks from the date of passing of that order i.e. 7.2.2001. The compliance was ordered to be reported today.2. None has come present to furnish the proof of compliance with the Stay Order of the Tribunal. Even no intimation has also been received from them regarding the deposit of the amount as per the order of the Tribunal.3. Therefore, both these appeals of the appellants are ordered to be dismissed under Section 129 E of the Customs Act for non-compliance with Stay Order of the Tribunal....

1 - 4. Commissioner of Central Vs. M/S. New Vikram Cement

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. In the order in appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of MODVAT credit under rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the grinding media used in the manufacture of Cement.2. The issue involved in these appeals is covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of HMP Cements Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 549 (Tribunal). In view of the Larger Bench decision of the tribunal, I find no infirmity in the impugned order.The appeals are rejected....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Shjaromani Alloy and Steel

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this application for condoning the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal.2. Heard learned JDR for the Department. None appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice.3. In view of the reasons explained in the application and in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani, reported in 1998 3 S.C.C. 132, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned....

The Sidhpur Sat-isabgol Factory Vs. Delhi Sat-isabgol Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT228

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Fleaseed Husk i.e. Sat-Isabgol for the last nearly fur decades. Way back in the year 1948 it adopted an original artistic carton in respect of Fleaseed Husk.2. The distinctive features of the carton comprise of a unique colour combination of white, parrot-green and blue. The main face of the carton has got a background f parrot-green colour upon which the expression 'SAT-ISABGOL' appears in distinctive, particular and semi-circular manner in white colour with blue ghost image contiguous thereto. Beneath the expression SAT-ISABGOL, the words FLEASEED HUSK appear in bold blue letters Along with an exclamation mark, followed by white oval Along with an exclamation mark, followed by white oval device with blue border wherein the device of telephone appears super-imposed upon the device of a factory with smoking chimneys on the background in blue colour. The name of the plaintiff appears on a rectangular white p...

Pamela Manmohan Singh Vs. Asha Arora

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)789; 92(2001)DLT869

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This case has a chequered history. On the one hand the daughter of the deceased decree-holder has filed the instant execution petition for possession of the property which has been sold by none else but the son of the deceased decree-holder to the objectors and on the other hand, the said son Shri K.V. Kohli has filed the instant application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC for being imp leaded as co-decree holder.2. Facts as culled out from the pleadings of various litigations that took place between the objectors, respondents, applicant and the decree-holder need to be summed up in brief for deciding the application in the proper prospective. The same are as under.3. The suit for possession bearing No. 1080/79 was filed by the deceased decree-holder Dr. (Mrs.) Raseel Kohli against one Khairati Lal. The suit was decreed. The judgment-debtor Khairati Lal had given the undertaking that he shall directly hand over the possession of the suit premises to the decree-holder Dr. R...