Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Union of India and Others Vs. Head Costable Pyare Lal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT586

ORDERKhan, (J).1. The short question that arises in this Appeal is whether there was any material before Commandant to retire Respondent under Rule 26 and whether it was obligatory on him to record satisfaction that it was inexpedient and impracticable to take disciplinary proceedings to logical conclusion in order to take recourse to administrative action.2. Respondent joined BSF in 1968. He was charged of allowing NAKA (illegal passage on border) for Rs.1,000/- on 30.3.1974. Commandant ordered recording of evidence against him under Rule 48 of BSF Rules on 11.9.74. Three prosecution witnesses were examined in this but no further disciplinary proceedings were taken pursuant thereto. On the contrary he issued a show cause notice to Respondent on 16.1.1975 under Rule 26 of BSF Rules for his retirement from service. Respondent submitted his reply but commandant found it unsatisfactory and passed order dated 26.2.75 ordering his retirement from service. He failed a revision against this w...

Ashok Kumar Malik Vs. Smt. Vimla Manchanda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)281; 92(2001)DLT381; 2002(61)DRJ359; 2002(1)RAJ458

ORDERManmohan Sarin. J.1. Petitioner Shri Ashok Kumar Malik has filed this petition under Section 8, read with Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking appointment of Shri S.K. Choudhary, Advocate, as an arbitrator and reference of the disputes with the respondent for arbitration to the said Shri S. K. Choudhary. It is further prayed that in the event of the respondent not agreeing to the appointment of Shri S.K. Choudhary as the arbitrator, any other independent person may be appointed as the arbitrator by the Court.2. Petitioner is stated to have entered into a partnership with the respondent Smt. Vimla Manchanda, under the name and style of M/s. Aastha (India) International. A partnership deed dated 1.7.1989 was executed between the parties. The said partnership deed was one at Will and could be dissolved at any time with the mutual consent of the parties. The partnership deed also contained an arbitration clause in the following terms:'Clause 13: Resolution of Disput...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Waverley Paints Pvt. Ltd.,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court: "Whether the gate passed issued prior to 01.4.94 but endorsed after that date would fall under the converage of entry No.10 in the Table to the Notification No.16/94-CE(NT) dated 30.3.94 and would consequently become eligible documents for taking credit under MODVAT Scheme." 3. In this case the respondents availed the benefit of MODVAT credit on he strength of endorsed gate passes as well as on the strength of invoices issued by the dealer. Therefore, if, the respondents are not entitled for the benefit of MODVAT credit in the strength of gate passes, they are entitled for the benefit on the strength of invoices issued by the dealer which is valid duty paying documents.4. Now, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I Vs. Gujarat Medicraft Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2001 (42) RLT 475 (Guj) dismissed the application for referring the same ...

M/S. Pee Jay Apparels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT842TriDel

I have further observed that the alternate remedy available to the appellants by virtue of Notification No.67/95-CE dt.16.3.95 as amended, is subject to condition laid down in proviso which envisages that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, which are exempt from the who of duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to 'Nil' rate of duty. Since the appellants have manufactured woollen hosiery products chargeable to Nil rate of duty benefits of exemption notification referred above cannot be extended to them. In view of the above discussions and legal aspect on the issues involved I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and merits to be sustained. Accordingly, I uphold the same".Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of woollen hosi...

M/S. Vikas Laminator Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC94

1. Today the matter has been posted for hearing the Stay application of the appellants. The learned Counsel representing the appellants submits that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to Order of remand of this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 182/2000-A dated 15.3.2000. He pointed out that the issue remanded for consideration in the Final Order was whether the original assessment had been done in terms of approved price list, in other words whether the assessments were provisional or not. The learned Counsel submitted that in case the assessments were final in terms of approved price lists, there was no justification for raising the demand invoking the Provisions contained in Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act allowing raising of demand during the extended period of 5 years. In this contest he referred to para 2 of our remand order. The learned Counsel submitted that in the adjudication proceedings the Commissioner has verified the records and has stated in page 9 of his Or...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Ludhiana Bottling Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Vide the above mentioned Final Order, the appeals of the Revenue were allowed following the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Khanbhai Esoofbhai & Others vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta reported in 1999 (30) RLT 519 in which it was held that modvat credit taken in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final products which have become exempt, would be inadmissible and would require to be reversed. Learned Advocate Shri Abishek Jain submits that the notice of hearing for the appeal was not received by the assessees and hence they could not argue the plea raised by them before the adjudicating authority that the demand was barred by limitation. He submits that the Assistant Commissioner had decided the issue on merits and limitation against them while the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal on the merits without going into the time barred aspect and hence the only opportunity the assessee...

M/S. Tisco Vs. Cce,jamshedpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT398TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the conformation of demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 44,78,167.02 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Iron & Steel products. It has another manufacturing unit o Growth Shop in Tejpur about 8 kms. away. In the Growth Shop the appellant manufacturers certain equipment and components and claims manufacture of equipment and components for repairs and maintenance of its machineries and component parts thereof required for captive use.The appellant manufacturers components and parts and cleared some of them after paying Cental Excise Duty. However, some parts are brought to its main plant stating that they were meant for repairs and maintenance of the main plant. The appellant availed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 281/86 dt. 24.4.86. There SCNs. were issued to the appellant asking them to explain as to why duty should not be demanded from ...

M/S. Malik and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount to Rs.29,660.40 and penalty of the same amount. In this case the duty is being demanded on the shortage of inputs.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the duty is being demanded for shortage of H.R. Plate, whereas which was consumed in the manufacture of final product before the visit of the Excise officer. He submits in fact the dispute is in respect of the quantity of 12.840 KGs. C.R. Coils which were received by the appellant, was issued for manufacture of final product but due to mistake, it was not shown in their record. He submits that these coils used in the manufacture of final product. He, therefore, submits that the application be allowed. Learned Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that Shri Sanjay Kumar authorised signatory of the appellants submitted that the inputs 12.840 Kgs were not issued of manufacture of final product th...

M/S. Oxo Alcohols Industries' Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals arise out of Notification No. 109/2000-Customs dated 18-8-2000 issued by Government of India,Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.As per this notification, anti-dumping duty has been imposed on Oxo Alcohols falling under Heading 29.05 of the first Schedule of the Customs Tariff act, 1975 originating in or exported from Poland, South Korea, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia,Russia,Iran, USA and European Union. Appellants herein are manufacturer, exporter, importer and domestic industry. Since the issue raised in these appeals arise out of the same notification, we consider it advantageous to take up all the appeals together and dispose of the same by a common order.2. Appellant in appeal No.C/41/2000 manufactures and exports to India EHA out of the ten Oxo Alcohols, which investigated by the Designated Authority. They had no domestic sale in their country, but they made available all required details relating to the cost of production. They fully cooperated with...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. J.K. Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. According to the Revenue, there is an error in the Tribunal's Final Order above mentioned in remanding the case to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue contends that the case was to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals), since the assessee's (Appeals) was not received by them was accepted by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel also states that the matter was to be remanded to lower appellate authority.2. On hearing both sides and perusing the order,we agree with the Revenue that an obvious mistake has occurred in our order and accordingly we rectify the same by directing that the case be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh determination of admissibility of credit to the assessees. He shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in person....