Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S Sardar Steel Mills Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants in this stay application have requested for a decision on merits. Ld. JDR represents the respondents. The appeal is against the orders of the departmental authorities confirming demand of duty under Rule 571 of the Central Excise Rules. The very question of maintainability of the appeal is in issue, in the wake of the decision of the Southern Regional Bench (Bangalore) of this Tribunal in the case of Wipro Ltd. & Others. The issues arising from that decision is presently before Larger Bench. This appeal and the stay application, therefore, have to wait for the decision of the Larger Bench. The stay application is , therefore, adjourned to 2.8.2001. In direct the departmental authorities, under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (procedure) Rules, to refrain from any recovery proceedings against the party till final disposal of the stay application....

M/S. Chammy Enterprises Vs. Cce Chandigarh - I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing the present appeal the appellants are required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.11,78,820/- as per letter dated 15.2.2001 from the Superintendent of Central Excise in pursuance of the order in original dated 8.2.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that no demand as such was created in the impugned order although annual capacity has been redetermined by the adjudicating authority under Rule 3(3) of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997. It is his plea that unit is facing financial difficulties and they had a good case on merits.3. Shri Rajeev landon, SDR submits that all the relevant parameters had been duly considered by the adjudicating authority and a considered view has been taken. He prays that there is no ground for waiving the requirement of pre-deposit.4. After hearing both the sides and after going through the facts on record, we find that the matter has t...

M/S Modi Akkalies and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This matter has arisen for report of compliance with the direction issued by the Bench on 26.3.2001 for pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 1 lakh for purposes of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Today, the appellant's letter accompanied by a certified extract of PLA showing deposit of the aforesaid amount has come on record. This document has been shown to the DR. The DR has pointed out that the deposit was made by the party "under protest", which , according to him, is unwarranted.I have also perused the PLA extract and found the submission of the DR to be correct. when the Tribunal issues a direction, after having heard both sides on merits, for pre-deposit of any amount for purposes of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, there is no scope for the appellant to record "protest" inasmuch as a deposit under Section 35F would not attract andy of those provisions of the Act or the Rules which provide for payment of duty under protest. I, therefore, disapprove of the above action...

M/S Weston Electronics Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Delhi-iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC100

1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants wee 100 per cent Export Oriented Undetaking (EOU) holding a central excise registration and customs license for manufacture of black & white and colour television sets and their sub-assemblies. The appellants were importing parts of televisions without payment of customs duty and were manufacturing colour televisions and T.V. sub-assemblies and exporting the same. In July, 1992, the appellants requested the Supdt. of Central Excise for permission to remove 900 pcs. of colour television sub-assemblies for sale in Domestic Tariff Area (in short DTA) since it was found that the said goods were unfit for exportation. The permission was granted. The appellants cleared 900 pcs. colour television sub-assemblies (i.e. colour picture tubes with deflection yoke) after availing the benefit of notification 97/91-CE dated 7.10.91. Two show cause notices were issued to the appellants denying the benefit of notification no. 97/91 dated 7.10.91 a...

Sh. Ram Kr. Agarwal Vs. Cc, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Having carefully examined the records and heard both sides, I allow this stay application unconditionally and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself finally at this stage.2. Heard ld. Advocate, Sh. M. Venkataraman for the appellant and ld.JDR, Sh. J. Singh for the respondents.3. A perusal of the records and examination of the submission made before me today have brought out the following undisputed facts:- The Commissioner's order impugned in the present appeal was passed in adjudication of show-cause notice dated 29.9.89. That show-cause notice had proposed to confiscate certain seized goods and impose penalty on the appellant. While that notice was pending adjudication before the Commissioner, the party challenged the notice before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 nd 227 of the Constitution. The Commissioner who issued the show-cause notice was also one of the respondents to that writ petition. The High Court allowed the writ petition on ...

Cce, Indore Vs. M/S. Dhvani Terefabs (Exports)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT604TriDel

1. The captioned five appeals, four preferred by M/s. Dhvani Terefabs Exports Pvt. Ltd. and one preferred by the Revenue were heard together.In addition the Misc. application filed by Revenue was also heard and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Out of the above five appeals, in the three appeals filed by M/s.Dhvani Terefabs Exports the issue is the same, therefore, they were heard first. The issue in these three appeals is whether tere-towels made by cutting, hemming & stitching without the aid of power by he appellant are dutiable or not.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of knitted pile fabrics. It emerges in running length. There is no dispute about its classification under Chapter Heading 60.01. It is processed. Duty on the processed fabrics is paid. The appellant receives duty paid processed fabrics in its factory. It is then cut to size and edges hemmed with sewing machine. Revenue was of the view this activity amounts to manufacture and 'made up ar...

M/S. Anand Health Case Ltd. Vs. Cc New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The present RUA application for the restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order of the Tribunal is legally not maintainable as no compliance of that stay order has been still made by the appellants. Therefore, this application is ordered to be dismissed....

M/S. Bharat Seats Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC371

1. The above appeals involve common issues relating to eligibility of benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 217/86 on steel bins and trollies manufactured by the assessee herein etc. and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.In this case the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed the duty demand of Rs.1,84,125.18 on 139 tollies, 30 bins and 20 pallets got manufactured from the job worker M/s. Sreeja Engineering Works, Kapashera, New Delhi during the period September 1989 to April, 1993 and has also imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the appellants who are manufacturers of motor car seats and parts thereof.2. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has extended the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 to iron and steel trollies and bins got manufactured by the assessee , following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kinetic Honda Motor Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore [1997 (2...

R.L. Meena, I.P.S. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant in the present case, working as a Deputy Commissioner of Police in Delhi Police, has assailed an order dated 14.10.98, whereby his request for antedating his confirmation and accord of consequential benefits has been rejected by the respondents. The applicant by way of this OA has sought a direction to accord him regular appointment in IPS in Senior Scale w.e.f. October, 1992 with consequential relief of grant of seniority and to count his service on the cadre post towards his eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade. He has also prayed for his entitlement for weightage of one year for each year service during which he remained on the select list prepared by the DPC and officiated on the post of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, including the cadre post of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rashtrapati Bhawan. The applicant has further assailed the vires of any such rule or provision which has deprived the applicant of his grant of regular appointment in...

Kapoor Chand Verma Vs. General Manager (P) Northern Rly.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, who is employed as Permanent Way Inspector Grade-Ill, has assailed an order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 17.11.1997 in pursuance of a major penalty proceedings whereby he had been removed from service, The applicant has also assailed an order passed 26.3.1998 issued by the appellate authority, wherein the punishment of removal from service has been reduced to reduction to initial pay in the grade for five years permanently with cumulative effect. The applicant further aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.1998 wherein the reviewing authority has exonerated the applicant of all the charges and a new charge as alleged by the applicant has further reduced punishment to reduction to initial stage of pay in the grade for two years permanently with cumulative effect. The applicant seeks quashing of all these orders and grant of consequential benefits including treatment of suspension period from 15.9.1996 to 28.10.1996 as period spent on duty for all purposes.2....