Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Cce, Indore Vs. M/S. Bhopal Engineering

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore has filed this application stating that a point of law arises out of the Tribunal's final order No.A/1803/96-NB dt.12.7.96. The point of law purported to have arisen out of the Tribunal's final order reads "Whether scrap classifiable under heading 7204 can be treated as input for manufacture of products falling under Chapter 84, 85 and 87 by rerolling process, without undergoing process of re-melting." 2. The Tribunal in its final order held that "I find that in the instant case the respondents filed gate passes and on the basis of gate pass took modvat credit of duty paid on inputs under modvat scheme.Whether inputs were classified correctly or not by the inputs manufacturer is altogether a different issue and for that separate case is booked. Since there is definite finding that the input as described in the gate pass were actually in confirmty with the declaration filed by the respondents, in view of the above discussion, I do not see a...

M/S. Sigma Casting Ltd. and M/S. Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals E/3031/200-NB have been directed against two impugned orders of the Commissioner (A) both dated 29.6.2000 disallowing the benefit under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act and upholding the determination of ACP & MDL as determined and communicated earlier vide order dated 27.3.98, to the appellants.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots. They opted for paying Central Excise duty under Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZO (3) of the Central Excise Rules and accordingly final fixation of their ACP and MDL was done vide order dated 27.3.98. They, however, challenged that order before the Tribunal being dissatisfied with the same and the Tribunal set aside that order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. After remand, the appellants again appeared before the Commissioner and by making reference to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of C...

M/S. Sukhjit Starch and Chemical Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT98TriDel

1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner(Appeals) held that "Accordingly, I do not find any force in grounds of appeal. Appeal rejected." Being aggreived 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 liquid glucose, dextrose, modified starches, sorbitol and maize starch. The principle raw material is maize which is washed repeatedly with sulphur dioxide disolved in water to avoid fermentation in the process of and then maize starch is manufactured. The department alleged that sulphur dioxide gas is consumed captively in the process of manufacture of excisable goods.The appellants were required to pay central excise duty on that part of SO^2 which was consumed captively. A number of SCNs were issued. The Assistant commissioner confirmed the demand of duty proposed in the SCNs. The Commissioner(Appeals) while disposing of the appeal of the appellants held that the order ha...

M/S. Gopi Krishna Processors Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order of the Commissioner dated 19.1.2001 vide which he had determined their annual capacity by taking into consideration the length of galleries.2. It has been fairly conceded by both the sides that the question as to whether the length of galleries could be taken into account for determining the annual capacity of the stenter, stands settled by the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of "Sangam Processors Vs. CCE, Jaipur" reported in 2001 (42) RLT 429. In that case the larger Bench has observed that the length of galleries cannot be taken into account while determining the annual capacity of the stenter.3. The impugned order obviously runs contrary to the ratio of the law laid down by the Larger Bench in the above referred case, and as such cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in accordance with...

Milkfood Limited Vs. M/S. Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)549; 2001(59)DRJ17; 2002(1)RAJ482

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 13th October, 1998. The facts leading to the appeal are as follows :- 2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office in New Delhi. It is engaged in the business of marketing and sale of ice cream under the brand name 'Milk Food 100% Ice Cream'. The first respondent is also a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Gaya, Bihar. 3. The appellant and the first respondent entered into an agreement on April 7, 1992 by virtue of which first respondent was to manufacture and pack in its factory for the appellant, range of ice cream that may be mutually agreed upon between the parties from time to time. The agreement was to remain in force for a period of five years. The first respondent was required to deposit a sum of Rs. ten lakhs with the appellant for a per...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Shere Punjab Co-operative Transpo ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)638; AIR2001Delhi400; 91(2001)DLT620

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. In the suit filed for recovery of Rs.20,49,873/- against defendant No.1, the defendant no.1 filed this application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 CPC alleging that it is claimed in the plaint that defendant No. 1 accepted consignment consisting of 362 packages of shaving products in consideration of hire charges vide lorry receipt No. 33402 dated 22nd January 1993. Admittedly, the contract on the basis whereof the plaintiff seeks to invoke jurisdiction of court is the said lorry receipt and term 14 thereof provides thus:-'If by change the loaded truck catches fire or met with an accident the company shall not be responsible for that.'2. A perusal of lorry receipt itself shows that consignment was sent at 'owner's risk'. It is further alleged that plaintiff places reliance on survey report dated 30th March 1993, the perusal whereof reveals that no negligence is attributed to defendant No.1. Cause of damage was fire and lorry was see...

Prakash NaraIn Sharma Vs. Burmah Shell Cooperative Housing Society Ltd ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ237

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J 1. This is a letters patent appeal against the order of learned Single Judge dated 18th August, 2000 in Civil Writ Petition No. 3009/92.2. The appellant herein is the son of Shri S.N. Sharma, who had approached the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under Section 60 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') with the request to resolve the disputes between him and the first respondent herein, Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. It was claimed by him in Arbitration Case No. 26/H/87-88 that he was the founder member of the first respondent inasmuch as he had paid the membership fee vide Receipt No. 329 on 19th September, 1952. According to him his name was included in the list of members of the first respondent.3. Sometime in the year 1964 land was allotted to the first respondent by the L.&.D.O. It was claimed by Shri S.N. Sharma that he had sent a draft drawn on the State Bank of India for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the first res...

Smt. Sarla Rani Vs. Asst. Housing Commissioner and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)847

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J (Oral) Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal. 1. Petitioner's deceased husband, Mr. Vishwa Nath Kapoor, was a member of PNB Staff Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Petitioner's husband died on 13.2.1973. It appears that after his death, petitioner was not interested in continuing with membership and addressed a communication (Annexure R-1) to the Secretary of the Society, stating that on account of family circumstances and her two minor children, she would not be in a position to continue with the membership. She requested that the amount deposited be returned to her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after this application, the petitioner did not complete any formality for withdrawal and her membership would continue. The request was not acted upon by the Society.2. It is the petitioner's case that thereafter the respondent/Society vide letter dated 30.5.1977, requested the petitioner to submit the affi...

Gopichand P. Hinduja, Prakash P. Hinduja and Srichand P. Hinduja Vs. C ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)499; 91(2001)DLT450; 2001(59)DRJ74

ORDERS.K.Agarwal, J. 1. This order will dispose of three petitions field by the petitioners, who are foreign nationals of Indian origin, under sections 439(1)(b) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.'), for modification of bail order dated 19.1.2001, passed by the trial court, imposing condition directing that they shall not leave the country without permission of the Court, and for quashing of the order dated 1.2.2001, declining them permission to go abroad, in case No.39 of 1999 arising out of RC No. 1(A)/90/ACU-IV under section 120B read with sections 420 IPC etc read with sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1947.2. Facts in brief are: that on 22.1.90 above noted case/FIR was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short CBI) against several accused persons, of whom named are (i) Martin Ardbo, former President of M/s. A.B. Bofors, Sweden, (ii) W.N.Chadha alias Win Chadha, of M/s.Anatronic General Corporation and (iii)...

Union of India and Another Vs. CaptaIn S.S. Gurayya

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)619; 92(2001)DLT638; 2001(59)DRJ385

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated May 27,1998. The facts lie in a narrow compass. 2. The respondent was Inspector in the Customs and Central Excise Department of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, with effect from April 19,1955. While the respondent was serving in the Customs and Excise Department, he was appointed as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Regular Reserve of Officers Class 'A' Service in the Artillery Regiment with effect from July 22, 1960. The appointment of respondent was notified in the Government of India Gazette dated January 21,1961. The appointment lasted till April 26,1963. Subsequently, on October 13,1963 the respondent was appointed as an Emergency Commissioned Officer in the rank of a Captain. He served in that capacity till his demobilisation from the Army on March 31,1968. On June 3, 1968 the respondent was appointed as an Administrative officer in the National Cadet Corps (f...