Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

M/S. Guru Arjan Iron and Steel Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called. Shri Deepak Bajaj, Proxy Counsel submits that the Stay Order dated 24.04.2001 has not been complied with. He submits that there was no quantification and so the stay application was filed by mistake.2. We find that in the stay application, a demand of Rs. 11,57,077.00 had been indicated against para-2 of the stay application and the stay application was filed in the Registry, which was received on 20.3.2001.3. As the stay application has already been dismissed and as no compliance has been reported, the appeal itself is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35 F of the Central Excises Act, 1944.5. If the terms of the stay order dated 24.02.2001 are complied with, then the appellants will be at liberty to pray for restoration of their appeal....

Cce, Jaipur-ii Vs. M/S. Saboo Engineers P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT965TriDel

1. The present appeals has been filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand of duty confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner against M/s Saboo Engineer (P) Ltd., 2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondent nor there was any request for adjournment inspite of notice of hearing received by them. We also observe that when the appeal was posted for hearing on earlier two occasions, the respondents had sought adjournment. As the issue involved is in very narrow compass, we take up the appeal for disposal after hearing Shri. M.P.Singh, ld. DR. and perusing the records.3. We observe that the respondents manufacture machinery and parts falling under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Assistant Commissioner had confirmed and demand of differential duty under adjudication order No.137/99 dated 31.03.1997.On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order ho...

M/S. S.R. Foils Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi-1

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT437TriDel

1. The matter is posted today for hearing the stay petition filed by M/s. S.R. Foils Ltd. For the reasons recorded below, we stay recovery of the duty of excise confirmed and penalty imposed on them and take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the activity of repacking aluminium foils into retail packs for further sale; that they purchased duty paid jumbo rolls of aluminium foils and cut the same into desired size to facilitate its use for wrapping food products and chapatis; that the aluminium foils in retail pack is being marketed under two names, namely, aluminium home foil and chapati wrap; that the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. 268-270/2001-B dated 17.5.2001, in their own case for the earlier period, has held that in so far as aluminium home foil is concerned no manufacture is involved and accordingly no excise duty is liable to be paid; that in respect ...

M/S. Prakash Fabricators and Vs. Cce, Aurangabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these 2 appeals filed by M/s. J.S.L. Refractories Ltd. the issue involved is availability of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.86.2. Shri Mayur Surobh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal in their own case for the earlier period had allowed their appeals vide Final Order No.676- 680/99-B1 dated 17.6.1999. He also mentioned that the Collector (Appeals) had relied upon the earlier Order-in-Appeal No. A-02/92 dated 9.1.92 While disallowing their appeal before him and the said order was the impugned order in the matter decided by the Tribunal vide Order dated 17.6.99. He, therefore, requested that the oresent appeals may also be allowed. We also heard Shri. R.D. Negi, learned SDR.3. We observe that the Collector (Appeals) had rejected the appellants' appeal only observing that "the then Collector (Appeals) has given very detailed reasoning for denying by benefit of Notification No.175/86-Ce to the Appellants. I am in total agreement with the re...

Shri Praveen Ahuja Vs. Cc, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing their appeal, Shri Praveen Ahuja of M/s. Kosmo Plastic Exports, Amristsar are required to pre-deposit a penalty amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- imposed under Section 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate submits that Shri Praveen Ahuja had no role in the contravention of the law as alleged in the show cause notice. He further submits that the financial position of the appellants is not sound.3. In reply Shri Mawa Singh, SDR refers to the discussion at page 8 of the order-in-original, where the role of shri Praveen Ahuja had been discussed in detail.4. After hearing both the sides and after going through the facts on record, we consider that this matter has to be dealt with in detail at the time of final hearing. At the prima facie stage, we do not consider that there is a case for complete waiver of the penalty amount imposed on Shri Praveen Ahuja.5. After taking into account the submissions made by the ld. Advocate, we direct Shri Praveen ...

M/S. Ajit Cotton Ginnign Pressing Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT138TriDel

1. For hearing their appeal, M/s Ajit Cotton Ginning Pressing Dal & Steel Rolling Mill, Mandi Gobindgarh are required to pre-deposit duty amount of Rs. 92,46,397.00 and equal amount of penalty.2. The matter relates to the shortages in the stock of raw materials as well as the finished products.3. Shri Vivek Kohli, Advocate submits that the unit is a partnership concern and had run into financial difficulties. The various facts have to be argued at the time of final hearing and at this stage, for hearing their appeal, he offers, to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-.4. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR refers to the statement of Shri Sohan Lal, Partner, where he had admitted the shortages. He refers to para-4 of the order-in-original. He further submits that all the facts have been clearly dealt with by the adjudicating authority and that it was a case of clandestine removal without payment of central excise duty. He submits that Revenue's interest needs to be safe-guarded.5. We have gone thr...

M/S Puneet Steel and Alloys Limited Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.95,530/- and the penalty of the same amount under Rule 571 and a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Rule 1730 of the Central Excise Rules,1944.2. Ld. Counsel submits that the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Commissioner(Appeals) on the ground that no stay application was filed for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. He submits that the application was filed on 20.2.2001. He produce the photocopy of the application.3.At this stage, ld. SDR submits that the appeal was filed on 17.5.1999 and personal hearing was afforded by notice dated 12.2.2001 for 26.2.2001. His submission is that his application for stay was filed even after notice of hearing issued to the appellant.4. Heard the both sides. In this case, the contention of the appellant is that the application for stay was filed before the Commissioner(Appeals) for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.Personal hearing was granted o...

Delhi Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against CIT(A)'s order dated 25-8-1992 relating to the assessment year 1989-90.2. So far as ground No. 1 is concerned the same relates to the validity of assessment framed in pursuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-lax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). At the time of hearing the learned counsel did not press this ground.Accordingly ground No. 1 stands rejected as not pressed. 2. Action of the CIT(A) in upholding following disallowances is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case. a. Disallowance out of travelling expenses at Rs. 19,467 (Rs. 77,733--58,266). b. Disallowance out of entertainment expenses not wholly allowed as claimed. e. Addition of Rs. 1,71,412 for national interest on advance to M/ s R.R. Holding Pvt. Ltd. f. Compensation paid for loss of office to Directors at Rs. 1,29,26,601.4. It may be seen that while completing the assessment, the Assessing ...

Jagatjit Industries Limited Vs. the Registrar of Trade Marks

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ509; 2002(1)RAJ579

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. With the consent of parties the matter has been heard and is being disposed of finally.2. The petitioner had filed an application for registration of the trade mark 'COMPLEAT' before the Registrar of Trade Marks. On this application having been advertised, the respondent filed opposition to the registration of the said mark. Under Rule 53 of the Rules framed under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, evidence in support of opposition is required to be filed within two months. The respondent it appears, had filed affidavit by way of evidence on 5th November, 1993 which was well within the period of two months, but the same was not executed in accordance with rules and was only on a plain paper. On being informed that the affidavit cannot be taken on record being in contravention of the Rules, the petitioner was called upon to file their evidence under Rule 54 vide office letter dated 6th December, 1993. However, in the meantime Along with letter dated 21st December, 1...

M/S. Samtel (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Samtel (India) Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Black & White T.V. picture tubes of different screen sizes. In the present case, it has been alleged that input credit in respect of 14" size T.V.screen was less than the credit utilised while paying the duty on the said T.V. screen.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Ld. Advocate submits that the Revenue has calculated the differential duty of Rs. 3,84,97,707/- and the appellants have already paid a sum of Rs. 227.20/- lakhs in this regard. He submits that for hearing their appeal, no further pre-deposit may be asked for. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has also been imposed.3. After hearing Shri Mewa Singh, Ld. SDR and after going through the facts on record, we consider that the amount of predeposit amounting to Rs. 227.20 lakhs will remain with the Department till the disposal of the appeal and for hearing the appeal, no further deposit may be called for at this stage. We accordingly, waive the pre-deposit of penalty amount and the...