Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Krishna Sales Corporation and an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT581

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.17,94,486/- under Order xxxvII of Code of Civil Procedure (for, short 'CPC'). The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff is a manufacturer of Soda Ash of different grades and qualities. Defendant No.2 is the sole proprietor of defendant no.1, purchasing Soda Ash from the plaintiff company. For this purpose, the defendants used to place order upon the plaintiff company at New Delhi. The offer of the defendants used to be accepted and the sales-cum-marketing office of the plaintiff company was then instructing their factory at Sutrapada, Gujarat for supply of required Soda Ash. The plaintiff company is maintaining regular books of accounts. As huge amount became outstanding, parties' accounts were settled down and the terms of the settlement were deduced in writing On 24th December, 1996. As per this settlement, the defendants accepted that an outstanding amount of Rs.16.24 lacs was payable by the ...

M/S. U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT1133TriDel

1. M/s. U.P. State Electricity Board has filed the present application for rectification of mistake (ROM), which is placed in the paper book.In the grounds A-P, it has been prayed that their Review/ROM be allowed and the precedent , earlier decisions and the notification No.51/78 be considered and the benefit under the same be kindly granted to the applicant/appellant and that the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur-II be set aside.2. Shri Y.P. Singh, Advocate submits that against the Tribunal's order, the appellants have filed appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court under their order dated 3.11.2000 had dismissed the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is at page 18 of the paper book and is extracted below:- "The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the view of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the Special Leave Petition to approach the Tribunal for appr...

M/S. Anjali Co-operative Sugar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC606

1. The appeal involves a duty demand of Rs. 3,86,088.00. This differential duty demand is on account of demanding duty on the Molasses in question at a value of Rs. 85.00 per quintal as against the sale price of Rs. 17.00 per quintal.2. When the case was called today, none appeared for the appellant. A letter dated 14-5-2001 has been filed by them requesting for decision of the case on merits. That letter also states that the issue is covered in favour of the appellants in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case as per final order No. 977 to 985/2000-A dated 21-12-2000 and the decision in the case of Rana Sugar Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, 3. The duty demand is on account of the dispute regarding valuation of Molasses. The appellants had sold Molasses at the price of Rs. 85 per quintal to cooperative societies. They sold Molasses at the rate of Rs. 17 per quintal to private parties. The Revenue has adopted the price charged from cooper...

Cce, Indore Vs. M/S P.C. Chaturvedi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty imposed on the party under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the provisions of that rule were not attracted in the case and on the further ground that the case was squarely covered by the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Ramesh Chandra Mittal vide Final Order No. 638/2000-A dated 9.8.2000.2. Examined the records and heard ld. JDR, Sh. Swatantra Kumar for the appellant. There is no representation for the respondents.3. Ld. Dr has reiterated the grounds of the appeal. I have perused the grounds. The revenue has not challenged the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the case was squarely covered on merits in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal's decision in the aforesaid case of Ramesh Chandra Mittal. Therefore, the challenge against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable. The appeal is rejected....

M/S. Alok Paper Indus. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. As per Order dated 26.4.2001, the appellants were directed to deposit the amounts of Rs. 3,075/- and Rs. 17,927/- within a period of two weeks for purposes of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Today there is neither any report of compliance with the above direction nor any representation for the party in spite of notice. It appears that the appellants have no interest in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution as well as for non-compliance with Section 35F ibid....

M/S Ashiana Isapt Ltd. and M/S Vs. Cce, Jaipur-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT387TriDel

1. Today both the matters are posted for hearing applications, filed by M/s Ashiana Ispat Ltd and M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd., for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of duty confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order No. 72-73 (KDT) CE/JPR-1 dt. 5-3-2001. As the issue involved is in narrow compass and matter was not examined by the lower Appellate Authority on merit, we stay the recovery of entire amount of duty, from both the Appellants and take up both the appeals for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. We heard Shri R. Santhanam, ld. Advocate for both the Appellants and Shri Prabhat Kumar, ld. SDR for the Revenue. The Ld. Advocate submitted that both the Appellants manufacture hot re-rolled products of iron and steel and pay duty under Section 3 A of the Central Excise Act; that show cause notices dt. 13-1-2000 were issued to them for demanding Central Excise duty for the period from 1-9-97 to 2-8-99 in respect of mis rolls denying them exemption under Not...

M/S. SachIn Engg. Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. According to the applicants, there is a mistake in the figure of duty amount mentioned in para 2 of Tribunal's Final Order No. 1439/99-B dated 28.12.99; the duty amount has been mentioned as Rs. 3326.70, while the correct figure is Rs.13326.70, ld. SDR confirms the above position.2. We have perused the records including the show cause notice and find that the submission of the applicant is correct. We therefore, rectify the mistake and correct the figure of duty to Rs. 13326.70....

M/S. Max India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the instant case a sum of Rs.15 lakhs deposited by the appellant/assessee as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal was not returned even after the appeal was decided in his favour way back on 17-1-1996. He had to move from pillar to post to get back the money. By order dated 20-12-2000 this Tribunal directed to dispose of the manufacturer's claim expeditiously and in case of appeal ordered payment of interest at the rate of 10.5% per annum from 20-12-2000. The Departmental Authorities did not return the money. Thereupon, by order dated 31-1-2001, this Tribunal directed the return of the whole amount of Rs. 15 lakhs together with interest at 10.5% per annum from 20-12-2000 as ordered vide order dated 20-12-2000. In other words, the party who was entitled to interest from 17-1-96 was denied interest up to 20-12-2000. Revenue seeks to interface with this direction by moving this application as if its one for rectification of mistake under Section 129B(2) of the Customs ...

Cce, Meerut Vs. M/S. Tarai Foods Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1059TriDel

1. In the present application for rectification of mistake (ROM), the applicants, M/s. Tarai Foods Ltd. have prayed that the order dated 11.05.2000 passed by the Tribunal be recalled and rectified and the adjudication order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner be held as not sustainable on account of the show cause notice issued by a person without jurisdiction.2. Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate submits that against the Tribunal's Order dated 11.05.2000, M/s. Tarai Foods Ltd. have already filed an appeal with the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and on 23.02.2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already admitted the appeal. He submits that appropriate orders be passed on the applicants' rectification of mistake application.3. We have heard Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate for the applicants and Shri R.C.Sankhla, JDR for the Revenue.BEFORE THE HON'BLE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PETITION FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE FINAL ORDER NO 161/200-D DATED 11.5.2000 Respondents after perus...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Manish Fabricators and Allied

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT632TriDel

1. According to the Revenue, the Tribunal has committed a mistake in holding that the process of coating of inner and outer surface of steel pipes and tubes with concrete does not amount of manufacture and rejecting the appeal of the Revenue ld. SDR submits that in the case of Sidhartha Tubes ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi [1996 (82) ELT 399] which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7282 of 1996 reported in 2000 (115) ELT 32 (SC), it has been held that while the process of galvinisation of steel pipes does not amount to manufacture, it adds to the intrinsic value of the product to make up the full commercial value realised by the appellants by charging the higher price for such pipes covering the cost of galvinisation. He submits that since the respondents in the present case are coating the steel pipes with concrete and marketing them by charging higher price, the appeal of the Revenue ought to have been allowed by the Tribunal.2. The prayer is opposed by ld. Counse...