Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S Adarsh Steel Rolling Mills and Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both the sides agree that the very issue in both these appeals had come-up before the Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of Sawanmal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-2001 (127) ELT 46 (Tribunal-Larger Bench) and the Larger Bench has taken a view that Rule 5 of Hot Rolling Steel Mills annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 would be relevant and applicable in all cases where there is no change in the annual capacity of production of the annual capacity of production is augmented on account of change in the machinery of production. The rule however, will not be applicable when change in machinery leads to reduction in the annual capacity of production when the same is computed according to the parameters mentioned in Rule 3 of the said Rules.2. Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate further submits that this matter has come-up earlier before the Tribunal and was remanded with certain directions. He has however no objection for remand of the matter.3. After hearing both the si...

M/S. Electricity Poles Mfg. Unit, Vs. Cce, Ghaziabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC787

1. The issue raised in this appeal is valuation of electricity poles manufactured by M/s. Electricity Pole Manufacturing Unit, Sahupuri, Varanasi. It would appear that the unit is a division of UPSEB. The transfer of the electricity poles from manufacturing division to the Electricity Board, it would appear, is done on a transfer price.originally central excise duty was paid based on the transfer price.Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued by the local central excise authorities holding that the transfer price cannot constitute assessable value inasmuch as it did not contain an element of profit involved in the manufacture of the goods. In the impugned order it has been held that the assessable value in the present case was required to be determined under Rule 6(b) (ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 i.e., based on the cost of production for the goods. The impugned order has added 10% of the transfer price as element of profit. This addition was done on a notional basi...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Shree Castings

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue in dispute in this appeal of the Revenue is whether simultaneous availment of modvat credit of certain goods namely castings and cast iron articles falling under Chapter heading 7325.10 and full exemption up to Rs.30 lakhs in terms of SSI Notification No.1/93 dated 28.2.93 in respect of other goods viz. motor vehicle parts falling under Chapter 85 machined castings in permissible in law. The authorities below have dropped the proceedings against the assessees, holding that a manufacturer can claim modvat credit in respect of certain goods and pay duty there on and can also avail exemption up to Rs.30 lakhs in respect of other goods on which modvat credit has not been taken.2. On hearing Shri Ashok Kumar, Id. DR and Shri D.K. Tyagi, Id.advocate, we note that the issue stands settled in favour of the respondents by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Franco Italian Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-II reported in 2000 (40) ELT 295 (CEGAT-L.B.). This ...

M/S. Axis Shipping Agency and M/S. Vs. C.C., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed these appeals against the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) whereby the penalties under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act were imposed on the appellants. New Branswick Container Line (hereinafter referred to as NBCL) is a non-vessel operating carrier. The appellants, M/s. Axis Shipping Agency (P) Ltd. are the agents of NBCL. The appellants, M/s. North West Shipping Agency are sub-agents of M/s. NBCL. The cargo tendered to NBCL for shipment to various ports is received against the Bill of Lading known as House Bill of Lading issued by NBCL. NBCL, as agent of the various shipping lines, ships the cargo received by them against house Bill of Lading through various liner vessels, who in turn issue Master Bill of Lading covering their responsibility for having received the goods on board the vessel. In case the vessel is not ready to received cargo at the port, there is likely to be a difference between the date of House Bill of Lading and th...

M/S. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC551

1. The dispute raised in this appeal is with regard to the valuation of medicines cleared by the appellant as "Physician Samples". The appellants, a manufacturer of P & P medicines, submitted that Physician Samples are not marketed at all and, therefore, they cannot be subject to duty of excise.In the alternative,they submitted that if duty is payable, the same should be charged based only on the cost of production of such Physician Samples and not on the basis of the sale price of the medicine.The revenue rejected these contentions and held that the duty is payable and that the value for assessment shall be the value adopted for assessment of the same medicines when sold in the market. The appellant persists with their contentions in the present appeal.2. The contention of the appellant is that physician samples are distinctly different from normal trade pack with regard to quantity in each pack, colour & size of outer cartons and design of the outer/inner carton of the pack....

M/S. Punjab Con Cast Steels Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Punjab Con Cast Ltd. have filed one appeal being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 16.02.99. Against the same order, the Revenue has also come-up in appeal and had filed 8 appeals.2. Shri Rajeev Tandon, SDR submits that the matter relates to the modvat credit on capital goods and that recently, the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision has been rendered in the case of CCE Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd. He further submits that in similar circumstances, the Tribunal had remanded the matter for re-examination in the light of this Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal after affording opportunity to both the sides to present their case.3. Shri Harbans Singh, Advocate submits that in respect of a number of items, relief has been given to M/s. Punjab Con cast Steels against which the Revenue has tiled appeals and that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in those cases had followed the Tribunal's decisions. He objects to the remand of the matter.4. After hearing both the sides and a...

Sehgal Puri Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the National Newsprint and Paper Mills Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)267; AIR2001Delhi449; 92(2001)DLT292; 2001(59)DRJ356

ORDERDevinder Gupta J. (Oral) 1. Order passed on 18.8.2000 dismissing the application (IA.7252/2000) filed under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. and declining the plaintiff/appellant permission to produce original documents is under challenge in this appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the suit record.3. The Plaintiff/appellant filed suit No. 875/78 against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The suit is based not he allegation that the defendant during July/August, 1975 dispatched News Print Paper to various customers, but on account of slump in the market the defendant refused to take delivery as a result of which large quantity of goods were lying at various stations and on that account huge demurrage was accruing thereupon, the defendant prevailed upon the plaintiff to deal with the Railway Authorities and to take delivery of the goods. On account of heavy rains the paper reels lying at various stations lost its utility to certain extent ...

Smt. Sucharita Pradhan and Others Vs. M/S. U.P. Twiga Fibreglass Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi1; 93(2001)DLT238; 2001(59)DRJ706

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J. 1. I heard Sh.Arun Mohan for plaintiffs, Sh.Bhaskar Tiwari for defendant No.1 and Sh.N.K.Kantawala for defendants 2 and 3 on plaintiffs' claim for decree of possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC against defendant No.1.2. Suit for possession and mesne profits @ Rs.3 lakhs per month was filed alleging that Suraj Kumar Nijhawan was owner of property No.11, Southern Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi he let out the same for residential purpose to defendant No.1 under a lease deed dated 1st August, 1976 for a period of 3 years at a monthly rental of Rs.4,000/-. Period of tenancy came to an end on 31st July 1979 and lease for further term was not granted to defendant No.1. Thereafter defendant No.1 continued in possession of the property as a tenant from month to month. It is further alleged that Suraj Kumar Nijhawan died on 11th November 1986 leaving behind wife (defendant No.2), son (defendant No.3) and 4 daughters - plaintiffs 1 to 4. Each of them is the owner of propert...

Shri J.K. Anand Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ380

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Through this application under Sections 16(c), 20 and 33 of the Arbitrating Act, 1940, award dated 8th June, 1994 is sought to be set aside.2. The question involved for determination is whether the Arbitrator was competent to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the demand for Arbitrator was not made within 90 days from the date of the final bill as per clause 25 of the Agreement.Clause 25 of the agreement provides as under:-'It is also a term of the contract that if the contractor does not make demand of arbitration in respect of any claim in writing within 90 days of the intimation from the Engineer-in-Charge that the bill is ready for payment the claim of the contractor will be demand to have been waived absolutely and the Delhi Development Authority shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of those claims.'3. The validity of the above clause of the agreement cropped up for consideration in M/s. Hindust...

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Brig. Kapil Mohan, New Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)251

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to directions given by this Court in in ITC No.44/92 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') following question has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Delhi Bench 'C' (in short the Tribunal):'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Trust settled for the benefit of the sole beneficiary first son of Shri Rakesh Mohan who was unborn at the time of creation of the Trust, is a valid trust?'2. Factual background in nutshell is as follows:assessed settled 60,000 equity shares of Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. of the face value of Rs.5/- each for the benefit of first son of Shri Rakesh Mohan. Son of late Col. V.R. Mohan. For this purpose a trust was created on 2.5.1974. Income-tax Officer (in short the 'ITO') was of the view that the trust was not valid and effective as there was no existence of any be...