Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

C.C.E. Indore Vs. M/S. Steel Ingots Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, inspite of notice.4. In this case, the respondents availed the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of inputs. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents for reversal of the credit under Rule 57 I of the Rules. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, held that the period in dispute is March, 86 to June, 86 and a show cause notice was issued on 19.1.88.Hence, the demand is time-barred under Sec. 11A of the Act. During the period, in dispute, under Rule 57 I of the Rules, there was no time limit was prescribed for recovery of the credit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. Vs Raghuvar (India) Ltd. reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 311 (S.C.) held that for recovery of credit wrongly availed under rule 57 I of the Rule, the provisions of Sec. 11 A of the Act, are not applicable. In view of the above decisi...

M/S. Godrej Appliances Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC610

1. When the stay petition moved by the appellant came up for orders, we heard the learned counsel representing the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative in extenso. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we waive the predeposit and are disposing of the appeal itself.2. The short question involved in this appeal is whether appellant is entitled to regional trade discount, turnover tax and freight incurred for transporting the goods from depot to customer to be excluded in computing the assessable value for the purpose of payment of duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appellant's entitlement to have deduction on the above three counts is conceded by the Department. We say so because of the following observation s made by the jurisdictional officer in his order-in-original No. 82-84/AC/D/99 dated 31-8-99:- "I have carefully gone through the replies of the noticee party and agree with the party in principle that equalised freight and trade discount are eligible ...

M/S Durga Trading Co., Sh. Raj Vs. Cce, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing the present appeal M/s Durga Trading Co. are required to deposit Rs. 32 lakhs plus Rs. 14,3000/- penalty of Rs. 32,14,300/-. M/s R.P. Products Rs. 10,000/-, M/s U.P. Marketing, Rs. 10,000/-, Shri Udai Chand Rs. 2 lakhs, Shri Raj Kumar Chaurasia Rs. 50,000/-, Shri Pankaj Chaurasia Rs. 50,000/- and Shri N.K. Pandey Rs. 5,000/-.2. Appearing for all the applicants Shri Rajesh Chibbar, learned Advocate submits that the duty have been demanded and clandestine removal has been alleged on the basis of the machines installed. The excise duty is on the goods manufactured and there was no scheme for levying duty on the basis of the machines. He submits that out of Rs. 32 lakhs, Rs. 30 lakhs has already been deposited by the assessee as can be seen from para one of the order part in the impugned order. He also submits that a sum of Rs. 8,43,000/- has also been appropriated.As regards M/s R.P. Products, it was the sole proprietary concern of Shri Raj Kumar Chaurasia and M/s U.P. Mar...

M/S Texcomash Exports Vs. Cce New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The complaint raised by the petitioner herein is that the departmental authorities are not complying with the directions given by this Tribunal in final order No. 15/2000-A dated 19-1-2000. Department sought to challenge that order before the Supreme Court by filing D No.385/2001 (appeal happened to be filed out of time and so not numbered as Civil Appeal). Their Lordships by order dated 23-2-2001 dismissed the petition for condoning the delay caused in filing the appeal and consequently the appeal was dismissed. Even thereafter the officers of the Department are not carrying out the direction given by this Tribunal in the order dated 19-1-2000.2. When this petition camp up for orders, learned Departmental Representative submitted that no instruction has been obtained by him from the Department on the delay in implementing the orders of the Tribunal dated 19-1-2000. On this ground he wants a short adjournment.Case is adjourned to 13-6-2001 to enable the Department to get the detail...

Smt. Meenu Chopra Vs. Shri Deepak Chopra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi131; II(2001)DMC264; 2001(59)DRJ761

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for grant of maintenance as an 'indigent person' under the provisions of Order XXXIII read with Section 151 CPC. The respondent has not appeared despite service and accordingly by order dated 8th March, 2001 he was proceeded ex-parte. The petitioner was permitted to file affidavit disclosing the assets in her possession. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that petitioner is not in possession of sufficient means to enable her to pay Court Fee and in fact she does not own any movable and immovable property. In view of these averments made on affidavit and there being no rebuttal or opposition, I am satisfied that the petitioner is not possessed of sufficient means to enable her to pay the Court Fee in the instant case. The prayer to sue as an 'indigent person' is allowed.2. I.A. No.1646/2001 stands disposed of. 3. L...

Vijay Hansaria Vs. Sterling Holidays Resorts (India) Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, the complainant, has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) averring that the opposite parties in the year 1995 floated a Scheme known as Happy Vistas Holiday Time Share and gave wide publicity regarding the same by means of advertisements. It is averred that under the above said Scheme, launched by the opposite parties, the members were entitled to one week holiday every year for 99 years at various Resorts of opposite party No. 1. It is stated that as per the brochure issued by opposite party No. 1 the apartments were to be fully equipped with kitchenette, air conditioner, colour T.V., telephone, geyser, fridge, etc. It was advertised that the opposite parties would also provide to-and-fro air/rail ticket reservations, pick-up/drops from the airport/railway station. The Time Share in the immovable property, as per the time could be splitted or accumulate...

M/S. Star Carriers, the Cha Vs. Cc New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This stay application arises out of appeal N.E/38/2001-NB filed by the appellants M/s. Star Carriers the CHA, against the impugned order in original dated 23.10.2000 of the Commissioner imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on them.2. The appellants have sought through the present stay application total waiver of the pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs for the purposes of hearing of the appeal, mainly on two grounds (i) the lower had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them and (ii) the deposit of the entire penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs would cause undue hardship to them. These two very grounds have been reiterated by the counsel before us.3. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs and contended that no prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the entire penalty amount, as imposed on the appellants through the impugned order is made out. He h...

M/S. Khawani Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicant filed this application for modification of Stay order No.S/95/2001/NB(SM) dated 7.2.2001. The Tribunal vide this order directed the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.28,000/- for hearing of the appeal.3. The applicant filed this application only on the ground of financial hardship as the residential house of the applicant's was damaged due to Earthquake in Gujarat. Applicant also filed the proof in respect of the damage suffered by their house. The house is to be constructed by demolishing the old one.In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and in view of the financial hardship now faced by the applicant due to the earthquake in Gujarat, the pre-deposit of Rs.28,000/- for hearing of the appeal is waived. the Registry is directed to list the appeal on 22.6.2001 for arguments....

M/S. S.P. Worsted Spinning, Mills Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called. No one appeared for the appellants, M/s S.P.Worsted Spinning Mills, in spite of notice being sent to them on 19.4.2001. The notice has been received back undelivered with the postal remarks 'Factory Closed'.2. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR, submits that the matter relates to the inclusion of gallery in determining the capacity of the stenter under the Hot Air Stenters Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 and that this matter is covered in favour of the assessee by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. vs CCE, Jaipur, 2001 (42) RLT 429 (CEGAT-LB).3. In view of the above, we remand this matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise to re-determine the capacity in the light of the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision, aforesaid. The impugned order to that extent is set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed by way of remand....

M/S. Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC612

1. Order-in-Original No.4/Commr/M-I/2001 dt.17.1.2001 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I is under challenge. By that order. Commissioner adjudicated on the issue raised by SCN dt.4.8.2000.As per SCN, differential duty amounting to Rs.3,81,99,257 was demanded in relation to removal of PACLITAXEL consumed captively during the period from 2.9.94 to 22.4.97.2. The claim putforth in the SCN was disputed by the manufacturer.According to them, the goods involved in the case which were captively consumed were valued at Rs.8,000 per grams and that sales effected of negligible quantity to other institutions for the purpose of analysis or otherwise cannot be the basis for computing the value of the quantity captively consumed. It was the further contention of the manufacturer that the alleged evasion of duty was found of by the Department on the basis of statutory documents maintained by them which were regularly submitted to the authorities. Those documents actually revealed the...