Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S Matsushita Lakhanpal Battery Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On careful examination of the records and on hearing ld. JDR for the respondents, I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of finally at this stage. Therefore, I allow this application and take up the appeal for final disposal.2. The adjudicating authority disallowed Modvat credit to the extent of Rs.29,001.00 taken by the appellants on HSD Oil under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules in February 1998, and also imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000.00 on them. The lower appellate authority upheld the order of the lower authority. The present appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Today, there is no representation for the appellants. However, they have waived personal hearing and requested for a decision on merits. I have heard ld. JDR Shri A.K. Jain for the Revenue.4. Ld. JDR submits that no credit of any duty paid on HSD Oil at any time during the period from 16.03.95 to 12.05.2000 is admissible by virtue of Clause 1 of Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000. In...

M/S. Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC644

1. When appellant's application for Stay came up for orders, we heard Counsel representing the appellants and learned Departmental Representative in detail. On hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, we feel that the appeal itself has to be disposed of at the earliest for the reasons given herein below.2. Appellants manufacture M.S. Galvanised pipes. Those pipes were treated as non-excisable goods on the ground that the same have been processed out of duty paid M.S. Pipes manufactured in their own factory. Show cause notices were issued demanding differential duty amounting to rupees more than 10 Lakhs. The claims put forth in the show cause notices were disputed by the assessee. After over-ruling those objections Adjudicating Authority, namely, Dy. Commissioner, Indore passed Adjudication order No.63-65/DC/IND-I/C/97-98 dated 28.10.98. The operative portion of the order is in the following terms:- (i) "I confirm the demand of Rs.10,94,141/-(Rupees Ten Lacs Ninety Four th...

M/S Jasch Indus. Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Learned Counsel representing the assessee submitted that the amount due by way of refund has been paid back. His grievance is that no interest has been paid. There is nothing in record to show that he claimed interest from the Departmental Authorities. Without prejudice to appellant's right to move the authorities for relief of getting interest, this application is closed....

M/S. Bharat Foam Udyog Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application is at the instance of the appellant in appeal No.E-2336/93-C. Alongwith the appeal he moved an application praying for stay of recovery of the amount covered by the impugned order and for waiving pre-deposit of the duty claimed, namely, Rs.9,05,814.44.While disposing of the application for Stay by Order dated 7.10.93, appellant was directed to deposit the entire duty amount within 3 months there from. In compliance with the order, differential duty demanded by the impugned order was paid by making required entries in the PLA on 31.12.93 and 31.1.94. The adjustment made by the assessee in the PLA was treated as sufficient compliance with the predeposit.2. This Tribunal by Final Order No.101/99-C dated 15.2.99 set aside the orders passed by the authorities under the Excise Act and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Thereafter, assessee prayed for return of the deposits made pursuant to the order of Stay passed by the CEGAT. The amount has not been returned...

Vishwant Kumar Vs. Madan Lal Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VIAD(Delhi)525; 92(2001)DLT346

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. Arguments substantially similar to those raised in the present appeal by Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, were rejected by me in C.M. (M). 36/2001 on 19.2.2001. The tenant had tendered rent in excess of Rs. 3500/- per month but had tendered rent in excess of Rs. 3500/- per month but had contended that since the amendment introduced in 1988 to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was not retrospective, the tenant was still protected from eviction by the Delhi Rent Control Act. I had expressed the opinion that 'even if the question of the retrospectivity of the Repeal is to be considered on the basis of the decision of the Division Bench in Mrs. Nirmaljit Arora vs . Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. : 43(1991)DLT394 , this controversy would thereforee, not arise in the facts of the present case. Without any compulsion, the tenant has tendered rent in excess of Rs. 3500/-. This was not an involuntary act c...

Nuchem Plastics Limited Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex., Faridabad

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(143)ELT254(Del)

ORDERS.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner herein, a manufacturer of U.F. and M.F. Moulding Powder and PrescolResin powder, has inter alias prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to approve as proper value to be charged with excise duty the international prices fixed under law by the Government for supplies made by the petitioner to the holders of release orders issued by the Govt.2. The petitioner is registered and incorporated under the Companies Act. The product of the petitioner is chargeable with excise duty which used to determine the value of its product from time to time in terms of the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) and the rules framed there under.3. According to the petitioner, in terms of the scheme, the petitioner was obliged to supply and in fact had been supplying goods to the holders of the release orders issued by the Chief Controller of ...

Rajbir Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 1.11.2000, passed by District Forum (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1794/1999 entitled Shri Rajbir Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the appellant was the registered owner of vehicle bearing No. HR-46-8029, insured with the respondent for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the period from 16.4.1998 to 15.4.1999 vide Cover Note No. 0073286 and Policy No. 31/98/1124 issued by the respondent. It was stated that the above said vehicle, insured with the respondent, was stolen on the night falling between 29th - 30th April, 1998 and a report regarding the theft of the veh...

Cce, Delhi Vs. M/S. Pearl of Beauty

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue. Correctness of Order-in-Original No.12/99 dated 19.9.99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I is in issue.2. Against the same Order-in-Original, assessee preferred appeal E/3075/99-C before this Tribunal. That appeal was disposed of by Final Order No.406/2000-C dated 30.8.2000. By that order demand of duty confirmed and the penalty imposed under the impugned order were set aside and the appeal allowed.3. In view of Final Order 406/2000-C dated 30.8.2000 nothing further remains to be done in this appeal. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed....

M/S. Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT335TriDel

1. On a careful examination of the records and on hearing both sides, I find that this case is fit for final disposal at this stage.Accordingly, I allow the present application and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself finally.2. The appellants are manufacturers of sugar and molasses. In the present appeal, they are aggrieved by rejection, by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, of a remission claim of Rs.6,21,386/- on a quantity of 15,534.65 qtls. of molasses alleged to have been completely destroyed in auto-combustion on 13.6.95. Ld. Advocate, Sh. Bipin Garg for the appellants submits that neither any show-cause notice was issued to the appellants for rejecting their remission claim nor was any opportunity of personal hearing given to them by the Commissioner.He further submits that no proper order passed by the Commissioner was served on the appellants. What was issued to them was a letter dated 2.11.2000 of the Additional Commissioner (Tech.) of Central Excise Communicat...

M/S Plaza Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application, the applicants have prayed for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 48,000/- and penalty amount of Rs.25,000/- and stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal.3. This is a modvat matter. There is a decision of the Tribunal's Southern Regional Bench at Bangalore in the case of Wipro Ltd. & Ors.[2001 (43) RLT 317] to the effect that, on account of repeal of Modvat Rules including Rule 57I by way of Notification 11/2000-CE(NT) dated 11.3.2000 without any saving clause in the new rules (CENVAT Rules), departmental proceedings like the one under challenge in the present appeal will not be maintainable. This Bench has expressed a view that the correctness of the said decision is not free from doubt and has, therefore, referred the issue to a Larger Bench. In view of this position, the question whether the applicants are entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts must wait till the decision of the Larger Bench. As regards the prayer ...