Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Shakun Marbles (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. As per order dated 19.3.2001, the appellants were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2000/- on or before 20.4.2001 and report compliance to the Bench on 25.4.2001. It appears from the records that on 25.4.2001, this Bench was not available and accordingly notice was issued to the appellants intimating adjournment of the matter to 22.5.2001. Today the matter has come up before the Bench for report of compliance. The Revenue is represented by ld. JDR, Sh. S. Kumar. There is neither any report of compliance with the direction for deposit nor any representation for the appellants today. However, a letter dated 17.5.2001 of the appellant's Consultant has come on record, in which the Consultant requests for fixing the next date of hearing preferably in July, 2001. This letter is silent about the Tribunal's direction for deposit of the amount.2. It appears from the above account that the appellants have not complied with the direction of the Bench for deposit of the amount and they have...

Commissioner, Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Auro Spinning Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order the benefit of MODVAT credit was allowed on Winding wire used in the repairing of electric Motors, Cooling towers which are used with the Diesel Generating Sets and the inslulating cables.3.The contention of the Revenue is that items in question are not used for producing the final product or used in the process of any goods for the manufacture of final product or used for bringing about any change in any substance for manufacture of final product. Now, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd., reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 293 (Tri.LB) interpretated the provisions of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules. The benefit of decision of the Larger Bench was not before the lower authorities. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh in view...

Commissioner, Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Keshari Steels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents inspite of notice, therefore, the appeal is being taken up in absence of respondents.2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit on Foundary Fluxes was allowed as input under Rule 57 of the Central Excise Rules.4. The contention of the Revenue is that foundary Fluxes are used as linear in a furnace to avoid direct contact of the steel with refractory. Therefore, these are now inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product.5. Now this issue is settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court Escorts Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 75 (Kar.). In this case the Hon'ble High Court held that Ramming mass used as insluative in the furnace used for melting the aluminium is an input under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. In view of the above decision, I find...

M/S. M.P. Iron and Steel Co. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT809TriDel

1. In this application for condonation of delay, the application, M/s M.P. Iron & Steel Co., have prayed for condoning the delay of 347 days in filing the appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 25.1.2000 which was received by the appellants on 1.2.2000. The appeal was received in the Registry on 18.4.2001. In the application for COD, it has been mentioned as under - 1. The applicants submit that the Impugned order dated 25.1.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal was received by them on 1.2.2000. Therefore, they had a time of 3 months from 1.2.2000 for filing the appeal to CEGAT, New Delhi. This time period of 3 months expired on 1.5.2000. 2. The applicants had sent the appeal papers to their lawyers in Delhi for filing the appeal in Feb 2000 itself. It is submitted that these papers were placed and could not be delivered to the lawyers office by the courier service. The applicants are filing an affidavit of the courier through which these papers were sent to show tha...

M/S. Jindal Strips Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. When the case was listed on 26.3.20001 Shri D.N.Mehta, Ld. Counsel represented the appellant. so the posting of the case for today was known to the party. on account of the absence of the party, we dismiss th Misc. applicationfor non-prosecution....

M/S. M. Bajaj Papers Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC717

1. Under Final Order No. 460/2000-C dated 22.9.2000 the appeal of M/s.M. Bajaj Papers was dismissed under Section 35-F of the Central Excises Act, 1944 for non-compliance. Under order dated 2.6.2000 the appellants were directed to pre-deposit Rs 1 lakh within a period of six weeks from 2.6.2000. The period for compliance was extended to 7.9.2000, but no compliance was made. Shri V.M. Verma, advocate, submits that the appellants were facing financial difficulties and have now deposited a sum of Rs 1 lakh and refers to TR-6 Challan dated 24.2.2001. He prays for condoning the delay in making the pre-deposit.2. Shri S.P. Rao, JDR, leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench.3. Considered. The delay in making the pre-deposit is condoned. The Final Order dated 22.9.2000 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. Shri V.M. Verma, advocate, submits that the facts in the present case are similar to the one disposed of by the Tribunal vide its earlier final order no. 53...

M/S. Jbm Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC597

1.The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Cylinders. Those cylinders were supplied to M/s. Indian Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corp. These sales were evidenced by contracts entered into between manufacturer on one side and the oil companies on the others. In terms of those contracts, the goods were sent by the manufacturer by road for delivery at the buyer's premises. Cylinders os sold buy road were insured by the manufacture in their own name the freight charges were reimbursed. For the purpose of paying duty on cylinders, the right and insurance charge realised from oil companies were not added. Consequently, Show Cause Notices were issued emending differential duty reckoning the freight and insurance chages which should have been added to the value of the cylinders. Differential duty so claimed was in relation to the Cylinders cleared for the period from 28.9.96 to 31.3.98. The amount of duty claimed was Rs.11,64,551/-.2....

K. Lal, I.A.S. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Challenge in this O.A. is directed against the order F. No.25013/3/2000-AIS (ii) dated 17.7.2000, passed by Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel P.O. & Pension, Deptt. of personnel and Training, which reads as under:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule 3 of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, the President in consultation with the Government of Himachal Pradesh, hereby requires Sh. K. Lal a member of the Indian Administrative Service, born on the cadre of Himachal Pradesh, who has already attained 50 years of age, to retire from service in public interest with immediate effect." 2. A cheque for a sum approximate to the aggregate amount of his pay and allowances for a period of three months is enclosed.2. The operation of the above order has been kept in abeyance by the ad-interim direction of this Tribunal issued on 28.7.2000.3. Heard learned Counsel for both sides - Shri G.D. Gupta along with Sh. S.K. Sinha for the appli...

Tumlare Software Services Private Limited Vs. Magic Software Services

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)937; 92(2001)DLT572; 2001(59)DRJ793; 2002(1)RAJ509

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Petitioner No.1 claims itself a wholly owned subsidiary Company of petitioner No.2 having its Registered Office at New Delhi. Petitioner No.2 is a foreign Company having its registered office at Denmark and is the Parent Company of Petitioner No.1. Mr Kuldip Nar is the duly constituted Attorney of Petitioner No.2 and is also the Director of petitioner No.1. He has been duly authorised to file this petition, engage advocates, sign pleadings and take all such steps and required for the proper conduct of the case.2. The petitioners have through this petition sought appointment of an Arbitrator for entering into the disputes and differences that have arisen due to the non-performance of Agreement dated 7.1.99 by the respondent as the latter has failed to appoint the Arbitrator despite notice given by the petitioner. Respondent is a company incorporated in India and is in the business of developing various types of Software.3. Petitioners entered into an Agreement wit...

Mohan Parkash Dubey and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)408; 92(2001)DLT206; 2001(59)DRJ190

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 13th July, 2000 passed by Metropolitan magistrate dismissing the application of the petitioners seeking discharge in case FIR No. 419/96 u/s 353/34 IPC, PS Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.2. Prosecution allegations in brief are : that on 8th June, 1996 Shri Ram Assistant Engineer, CPWD lodged a report stating that at about 11.30 A.M. he was in his office when petitioners who are working as Junior Engineers came there and asked him as to why he had written letter regarding the handing over of the charge of 'mappusthikaye'. On being told that the letter had to be written, they felt annoyed and Satish Kumar Sood slapped the complaint; Mahesh Narayan Gupta and Mohan Prakash Dubey abused him and gave him beating. The complainant ran out of the room and went to the Divisional Office where also the complainant was manhandle...