Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Maihar Cement Vs. Cce Raipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This order will dispose of appeals Nos.E/103 to 1110/2000-NB and E/2191-2194/2000-NB preferred by the appellants M/s.Maihar Cement Ltd. against the impugned orders of the Commissioner disallowing the modvat credit on the inputs in question which had been detailed in the show cause notices and also individually dealt with in the impugned orders itself.2. The controversy in all these appeals centres round the question as to whether the disputed inputs are eligible for modvat credit or not.The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of the Portland cement and cement clinker. The plea taken up by them is that all the items in dispute were being used by them in or in relation to the manufacture of cement and clinkers and as such fall within the ambit of 'inputs'. The appellants have also filed affidavits during the pendency of these appeals wherein they have sworn that the inputs like oxygen, DA gas and welding electrodes were being used by them in or in relation to the running of th...

M/S. S.K. Bansal Steel Alloys (P) Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed before him as barred by limitation - he has gone by the date given on the first page of the Order-in-Original, namely, 22.4.97.Calculated from this date the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 23.7.97 - it was filed on 28.7.97. Duty demand involved is Rs.2,57,145 and a penalty of Rs.2000. Learned Counsel, Shri J.S.Agarwal submits that the applicants could not appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) because they did not receive any notice of hearing and he also submits that the date of communication of the adjudication order is 2.5.97 and therefore the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within the statutory period of limitation. His alternate argument is that even if the date of communication of the Order-in-Original is taken as 22.4.97, the delay is only of 4 or 5 days. In these circumstances he prays that the pre-deposit may be waived and its recovery stayed pending the appeal. The pra...

M/S. Bansal Alloys and Metals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products and availing the facility of modvat credit on inputs.They took credit of RS.2,62,558.27 on the strength of invoices issued by registered dealers like M/s. R.P. Steel Industries and Punjab Iron and Steel Company Ltd. who had purchased the goods from the depot of M/s. SAIL/Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (manufacturers of inputs). The Department proposed to (sic) on the ground that the invoices did not (sic) in terms of Notification 15/94 dated 30.3.94 read with Trade Notice No.78/94 dated 18.7.94 of the Chandigarh Central Excise Collectorate. The Department also proposed to disallow credit of Rs.65,100/- availed on electric transformers on the ground that these were not covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q inasmuch as these goods are not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products. The Jurisdictional...

Cce, Delhi Vs. M/S. Century Tubes Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) have held that Static Convertor which is a process control instrument used for speed control and protection of motors used for driving the machine for manufacture of (sic) products, is capital goods covered under the definition of Rule 57Q(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules.2. On hearing Learned SDR Shri A.K. Jain, perusing the records and noting the use of the static convertor in the factory of the respondent, I hold that credit is admissible on this item in the light of several decisions of the Tribunal including Marvel Vinyls Ltd. vs.CCE, Meerut 1997 (90) ELT 361. Therefore, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....

Cce, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Rollatainer Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has extended Modvat credit on electric wires and cables, holding them to be capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. He has relied upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore 1999 (108) ELT 47.2. It is the submission of the Learned Departmental Representative that the items are not capital goods used for producing or processing paper or paper board which are final products of the respondents herein.3. On hearing both sides and perusing the Larger Bench judgment cited supra which has been re-affirmed by another Larger Bench in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. 2001 (128) ELT 293, I hold that credit has been rightly held to be admissible on electric wires and cables.Accordingly, I uphold the impugned orderand reject the appeal....

M/S. Lucky Plast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Thughlakabad, New Delhi vide his Order-in-Orginal dt. 13.11.2000 has confirmed a duty of Rs.3.50,250/- along with interest on this amount 2 24% P.A. The Commissioner in his order has further imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs act, 1962.2. The present appeal and the Stay Petition are filed against the above order of the Commissioner. Shri V.R. Sethi, Advocate appearing for the appellants refers to that apart of the order, in which, it is stated that the importer was issued a show cause notice dt. 8.8.2000 to show cause why a sum of Rs.4,62,250/- should not be recovered with the interest @ 24% P.A. from the date of import of goods and who a penalty should not be imposed on them. In that order, it is also stated that the personal hearing was fixed on 11 & 18.9.2000 at 03.00 P.M. However, the importer filed to appear.Consequently, the Commissioner has observed in his order that he has no alternative...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Jct Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case, the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has extended capital goods credit to the following items: holding that they are capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. According to the Learned Departmental Representative the items in question were specifically covered only with effect from 23.7.96 and, therefore, during the period when credit was availed, they cannot be considered as capital goods and the specific introduction of these items under Rule 57Q cannot operate with retrospective effect. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the respondent that the items fell within the definition of capital goods even as it stood during the period when credit was taken and further, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has answered the reference in the case of SIV Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore 2001 (129) ELT 48 (Mad), holding that the fact that certain items such as wires and cables have ...

Basant Mayaramka Vs. Registrar Co-operative Societies and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)634

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks a direction for calling of records an quashing the impugned orders dated 19.91994 and 23.1.1995, passed by respondent No.2 Society.3. The letter dated 19.9.1994, is referred to in the petition as order dated 19.9.1994, is, in fact, a communication by the Society to the petitioner, informing him that he had failed to deposit the amount with interest within the period of 45 days, as required by letter bearing No.F/47/338/GH/Cooperative?1576 dated 28.7.1994. As a consequence, he had been expelled from the membership of the Society and his name deleted form the register of members. 4. Vide communication date 23.1.1995, which is again referred to in the prayer clause as an order, the respondent No.2 Society, noted the factum of the expulsion of the petitioner from the membership of the Society. A cheque bearing No. 744349 dated 23.1.1995 for Rs.89,...

M/S. Baldev Steel Ltd. a Limited Company Incorporated Under the Indian ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VIAD(Delhi)719; AIR2001Delhi391; 92(2001)DLT471

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit, seeking a decree of specific performance of agreement/order dated 12.6.1973/9.8.1973, directing the defendants to deliver 30/8 ton class-3 crane and 15 ton class-3 crane, after accepting the sum of Rs.6,85,000/- (Rs.six lacs eighty five thousand only), being the balance of price agreed. In the alternative, the plaintiff prays for a decree to be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the sum of Rs.8,02,925/- (Rs.eight lacs two thousand nine hundred twenty five only) together with pendente lite interest at 18% or such rate as the court deems fit. The sum of Rs.8,02,925/- includes: (i) Rs.5,50,000/- being the difference in market price of the cranes ordered and the agreed price between the parties, (ii) Rs.50,000/- on account of loss/damage to the plaintiff by non-delivery, (iii) Rs.1,25,000/- being advance amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendants and (iv) Rs.77,925/- interest @ 18% p.a. on the...

M/S Orissa Cement Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)250; (2001)169CTR(Del)545; 92(2001)DLT285; [2001]250ITR856(Delhi)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. (Oral) 1. At the instance of assessed following question has been referred for opinion of this Court pursuant to directions given by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(in short the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (in short the Tribunal):'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in refusing the assessed permission to raise grounds No.4 and 5 in the appeal before it on the ground that the claim in question had not been out forward before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner?2. Facts in nutshell are as follows. assessed derived income from manufacture and sale of cement and cement products and refractories. The assessment year involved is 1966-67 for which the previous year ended on 31st December, 1965. assessed filed its return of income on 27th June, 1966, declaring total income of Rs.98,60,126/-. It, inter alia, made a claim under Section 80E to the extent of Rs.7,5...