Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Geep Industrial Syndicate Limited Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT612

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. By means of this applications i.e. IA.2627/98 objections are filed to the award dated 16th September, 1993 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The main objection is to that part of the award whereby claim of the claimant was rejected. The petitioner had claimed Rs.3,39,388/- which was according to him, wrongfully withheld by the respondent. The petitioner had also claimed interest @ 18% per annum on this amount.2. The contract between the parties was for supply of 5,33,350 numbers of batteries of one specification and 12,98,800 numbers of batteries of another specification. The supply was governed by standard terms and conditions which are annexed by the petitioner along with the Statement of Claim filed before the Arbitrator. Clause 11 of these condition related to guarantee/warranty as per which contractor declared that batteries shall be in accordance with relevant specification and particular quoted therein subject to deviation/relaxation so...

Indian Overseas Bank Vs. M/S. R.M. Marketing and Services Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi344; [2001]107CompCas606(Delhi)

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. This Suit is filed by Indian Overseas Bank which is a nationalised Bank and a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The Suit is for recovery of Rs.792563. 46p. Averments contained in the plaint are that the defendant no.1 which is engaged in carrying on business of providing consultancy and engineering service to foreign and Indian buyers, assembly and fabrication of automatic capsule etc. approached the plaintiff-Bank for sanction of various loan facilities and among these was a cash credit limit of Rs.1 lakh. The plaintiff-Bank considered the request of the defendant no.1 and sanctioned a month other facilities a cash credit limit to the tune of Rs.1 lakh for which the following documents were executed:-1. Resolutions dated 19th October, 1981 and 31st August, 1983. 2. Demand Promissory Note for Rs.1 lakh dated 20th October, 1983. 3. Letter of continuity (F-16) for Rs.1 lakh 4. Deed of Hypot...

Neon Fab Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(83)ECC296

R.S. Sodhi, J.Crl. M. No. 2105/20011. Allowed subject to just exceptions.Crl. M. (M) No. 1804 & Crl. M. No. 2104/20012. This petition is filed with a prayer to quash criminal complaint No. 8/1/01 entitled 'Enforcement Directorate v. Neon Fab' pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the adjudication order dated 1.11.1999 was taken up in appeal before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and the Appellate Board by its order dated 19.5.2002 stayed the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority. However, the Enforcement Directorate, in spite of the stay order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, chose to file a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for violation of provisions of Section 57 of the Act for not depositing the penalty adjudicated upon by the Deputy Director in his order dated 1.11.1999, which order was stayed by the F...

M/S. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants have filed Misc. application No. 155/2001 seeking to amend the ground of the appeal. A copy of this application is available to the respondents. Lt. Advocate, Sh. Gopal Prasad has stated the reasons for the amendment application. On a perusal of this application, I note that the amendments sought for are, by and large, factual in nature and that some of those facts are material to the issue involved in the appeal. Ld. JDR, Sh. J. Singh has not raised any specific and tenable objection against this application. I, therefore, allow the amendment application and direct the appellant's counsel to bring on record sufficient number of copies of the amended memorandum of appeal. The stay application will be considered on 21.6.2001....

M/S. Concept Entertainment India Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the impugned order-in-original dated 31.8.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Customs House, New Delhi, customs duty of Rs 12,33,994/- had been demanded from M/s Concept Entertainment India (Pvt) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'CET'), and a penalty of Rs 5 lakh had been levied on them. With regard to the seized goods worth Rs 35,09,800/-, a redemption fine of Rs 7 lakh had been fixed. In addition, a penalty of Rs 3 lakh on Shri Sunil Kherea, Director, and a penalty of Rs 6 lakh on Shri Sanjay Gupta, Director, had been imposed. The matter related to the recovery and seizure of foreign made Laser Discs (LDs) and of Digital Video Discs (DVDs). These LDs and DVDs were of foreign origin, and foreign films were recorded there on for viewing. No documents or proof for import or purchase of these goods of foreign origin were produced when the Customs Officers went for investigation to the business premises of M/s CET. The appellants had no customs paying document...

M/S. S.T. Forgins Vs. Cce Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing the present appeal M/s. S.1. Forgings are required to deposit duty amount of Rs.13,06,749/- and equal amount of penalty. In the order passed it is mentioned that the amount of Rs. 13 lakhs had already been deposited by M/s. S.1. Shri V.R. Sethi, Advocate submits that some relief had been given by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and certain directions were issued for recalculation of the demand. The recalculation has not yet been done by the department but according to the appellants their liability may come up to Rs. 8,06,210/- only. He submits that as Rs. 13 lakhs are already with the Revenue, the appeal may be heard without insisting further deposit.Shri Rajeev Tandon, learned SVR leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench. After hearing both the sides and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that Rs. 13 lakhs already deposited by M/s. S.1. Forgings will remain with the Revenue till the disposal of the appeal. No furth...

M/S. Sawnney Export House P. Ltd. Vs. Cc, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC619

1. M/s Sawhney Export House Pvt. Ltd have filed these two appeals, being aggrieved with the Order No. 536 & 537/2000 MCH dt. 9-8-2000 and 629/2000 MCH dt. 10-10-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Mumbai.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellant imported certain goods from abroad. The Assistant Collector (Customs) enhanced the value on which duty was paid by the Appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the value as declared by the Appellants. The Appellants have also requested for payment of refund of excess duty alongwith interest on the excess duty paid and refund of demurrage charges paid by them. The Commissioner (Appeals) in both the impugned Orders has held that the Appellants are entitled to the consequential refund as a consequence of accepting the value declared by them. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has given his findings that the procedure for claiming refund of duty or the interest has been provided in Section 27 of the Customs Act ; tha...

M/S Man Industries (i) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appeal was allowed by way of remand as per Final Order dated 12.2.2001 wherein it was stipulated that the appellant should pre-deposit an amount of Rs.7,500/- within period of 4 weeks.Thereafter the matter has stood adjourned from time to time for report o compliance. But on none of those occasions has party reported compliance. Today also, there is no representation for the appellants inspire of notice. DR has insisted on dismissal of the appeal in the absence of report of compliance with the condition stipulated in the order dated 12.2.2001. on a perusal of the order, I note that the report of compliance to the Tribunal was prescribed for the purpose of record. This being the position, I am unable to accept the plea of the DR, and I adjourn this matter as a last chance to 21.6.2001 to enable the appellants for reporting compliance to the Bench. DR shall also get in touch with the lower appellate authority and report to the Bench on 21.6.2001 as to whether the pre-deposit was ...

M/S. Bagh Cement Ltd. Shri Manohar Vs. Cce Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri L.P.Asthana, Advocate submits that the appellants had already deposited Rs.5 lakhs before the adjudication proceedings and this fact has been noted by the adjudicating authority in para 23 of the impugned order.He further mentions that as per his telephonic information the appellants have further deposited Rs. 3 lakhs.He prays that the appeal be ahead without insisting any further pre-deposit.We find that duty of Rs.26,37,150/- has been demand from notice No.1. A penalty of equal amount has been imposed under Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act and further penalty of Rs.15 lakhs has been imposed under Rule 173-Q of the Central Rules.On Notice No.2 a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs has been imposed and Notice No.3 a penalty of Rs.1 lakh has been imposed.Further, the plant and machinery have been confiscated with option to pay redemption fine of Rs.10 lakhs.Interest has also been demand under Section 11-AB of the Central Excise Act. Shri Rajeev Tandon, SDR contended that it is a case...

M/S Delhi Steel Industries Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT673TriDel

1. Ld. Counsel for the appellant-applicant has intimated by way of his letter dated 15.5.2001 that his client has already deposited the entire amount of duty by debit entry in RG-23 Part-II. The letter is accompanied by proof of such debit entry. Ld. Counsel has proposed to withdraw the stay application. The stay application is dismissed as withdrawn. The appeal is posted for hearing to 8.8.2001....