Delhi Court May 2002 Judgments

Superior Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC651

1. All these appeals are directed against a common order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) in order in Appeal No. 585-587-CE/DLH/2001, dated 10-7-2001. The appeals of the as-sessees contest demand of duty and interest and imposition of penalty while the revenue appeal contests the exclusion of cost of packing from the assessable value and reduction of penalty in the case of M/s. Superior Products.2. The basic issue for consideration in these cases is whether value of the manufacture of both the appellant manufacturers, namely, M/s.Superior Pet Pvt. Limited and M/s. Superior Products are to be clubbed together for determining the eligibility of each of the units to small scale exemption as available under Notification No. 9/98, dated 2-6-98.4. The exemption under Notification No. 9/98 is value based, is to a manufacturer and is in respect of a manufacturer's production from one or more factories or from a factory by one or more manufacturers. The impugned order has held that the product...

industrial Development Bank of Vs. Autolite (India) Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant on the point of admission of this appeal.2. This appeal is against order dated 1.4.2002 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No. 140/2001. By the impugned order, the application of the defendant company in the aforesaid O.A. to allow disposal of its assets in order to pay dues and debts has been disposed of by the Tribunal below. The Tribunal below has allowed the defendant company to sell the Glass Lens Project Equipment. According to the order, the sale is to be conducted in presence of IDBI (who moved the recovery application) and in presence of the Recovery Officer of the Tribunal. As per the order, the sale price so received as per arrangement arrived at will be deposited in a separate account to be opened in a nationalized Bank under the authority of the Recovery Officer of the concerned Tribunal. The Recovery Officer has been directed to make FDR of the amount so received after allowing retention of 20% of the sale price b...

Metro Tyres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT481TriDel

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants filed a refund claim in pursuance to the final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 20-5-1993 and the refund for Rs. 27,02,280/- was sanctioned to the appellants. Revenue filed appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the mean time on 19-2-96, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants for recovery of the refund amount granted to the appellants on the ground that the refund was erroneously granted to them as the amount has been paid by them as duty of excise. The present proceedings relate to the show cause notice issued on 19-2-96. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of erroneously refunded amount of Rs. 27,02,280/-. The appellants filed an appeal and the same was rejected.4. The contention of the appellants is that the refund was a...

Suncity Art Exporters Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT597TriDel

1. M/s. Suncity Art Exporters have filed this appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original No. 21/2001, dated 29-8-2001 under which the Commissioner of Customs has confirmed the demand of Customs duty amounting to Rs. 3,84,347/- besides confiscating the goods imported by the Appellants with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The Commissioner also has confiscated the goods exported by them and as the same were not available has imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. He has also imposed penalty of Rs. 3,85,000/-under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. We heard Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, for the Appellants and Shri A.K. Jain, learned SDR, for the Revenue. It has been mentioned by both, the learned Advocate and the SDR, that the issue involved in the present matter has already been decided by the Tribunal in the case of the Appellants themselves vide Final Order No. 379/2000-C, dated 18-8-2000 [2000 (122) E.L.T. 104 (T)]. The Appellants were given adv...

Ahujasons Shawlwale (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1024TriDel

2. Applicants filed this application for rectification of mistake in the final order dated 8-10-2001. The contention of the applicants is that the issue involved in this appeal is settled by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) in favour of the applicants. The contention of the applicants is that the reliance of the Bench on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Prataprai Mehta v. Union of India, reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T, 382 (Bom.) is sustainable.3. The learned Counsel fairly conceded before the Bench that applicants had not placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the time of hearing of the appeal. We note that operative portion of the order is pronounced in the Court in the presence of the Counsel to the effect that appeal rejected following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Prataprai Mehta v. Union...

G.M. Diesel Locomotive Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC39Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue that survives for decision in this Appeal filed by General Manager, Diesel Locomotive Works, is whether in the facts and circumstances of the matter, a penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules is imposable on them.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellant, a Department of Government of India, manufacture Diesel Electric Locomotives mainly for use of Indian Railways, which are exempted from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 197/87-C.E., dated 28-8-87. The Collector, Central Excise, under the impugned order confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 3,75,61,598/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 75 lakhs on the ground that Diesel Electric Generating Sets/Power Packs emerged as intermediate Products, during the process of manufacture of Diesel Locomotives and which were classifiable under Heading 85.02 of the Schedule to the Cen-tral Excise Tariff Act. The matter was referred to the Committee on Disputes which in its meeting held on 9-8...

Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC602

1. This appeal of M/s Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. is directed against order in original No. CCE (Adj.)/NM/23/98 dated 8.12.98 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adj.), New Delhi. The impugned order of adjudication was passed in regard to allegation that the appellant received part of the price of Liquid Chlorine sold by them in cash, outside the invoice price and books of accounts of the company. It had been alleged that from Chlorinated Paraffin Wax (sic) manufacturers, who purchased liquid chlorine from the appellant as their raw material, the appellant collected part of the price in cash. Such cash compoent of the price was over and above the price mentioned in the invoices covering the sales. As Central Excise duty was paid treating invoice price as assessable value, it had been alleged that Central Excise duty was evaded to the extent payable on the cash component of the price.The impugned order upheld the allegation as established from the appellant's own records and ...

Hindustan Construction Corporation Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 98(2002)DLT519

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. The respondent-objector has challenged the award mainly on the premises that Arbitrator has traversed beyond the terms of the agreement between the parties and has also not dealt with the contentions and objections raised by the respondent during the proceedings.2. It cannot be gainsaid that any award which is beyond the terms of the agreement is a nullity. The award is liable to be set aside if it suffers from perversity if it is writ large over it. At the same time reappraisal or re-appreciation of the material and evidence produced before the Arbitrator is not permissible as no award is a subject matter of appeal.3. Claim No. 1 has been assailed on the ground that the Arbitrator gas straightaway resorted to Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 12 of the contract without discussing as to how none of Sub-clauses from (i) to (iii) is not applicable. Clause 12 (iv) reads as under:-'If the rates for the altered, additional or substituted work cannot be determined in the manner spe...

Tipco Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Commissioner, Municipal Corpora ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT636

C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of this petition, petitioner seeks restraint order against the respondents from levying the Octroi duty on the petitioner's product Phenolic Resins, for declaration that the product of the petitioner does not fall within the purview of the entry and the schedule, directions to the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 1,68,850.62 or any other amount recovered by them from the petitioners between 1963 to 1978 and for restraining the respondents from recovering any octroi duty on the products of the petitioners entering into the State of Delhi and to permit the product of the petitioners to be brought in the State of Delhi without payment of octroi duty.2. Petitioner is manufacturing 'Tipcolite' Phenol Formalidehyde Resins/Compounds (hereinafter referred to as 'Phenolic Resins'). The product is used in manufacture of electrical appliances, domestic wiring and electric wiring accessories and auto parts etc. The products are manufactured at Bombay and sold and export...

Smt. Lalita Malhotra Vs. Delhi Development Authority Etc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT744

C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. By way of the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the show Cause Notice dated 19th May, 1995 issued by the respondents/DDA whereby they threatened to cancel the allotment of Flat No. 9534, Category-III, Duplex Flat (GF&FF;) Block C, Pocket No. 9, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner pursuant to a Scheme known as Fourth Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme (Circulated by the respondents between 7th January to 29th February, 1981) applied for allotment of one of the flats which3. were to be constructed by the respondent vide her application No. 13768 dated 18th February, 1981 along with the Bank Draft of Rs. 15,000/- as registration deposit in accordance with the term of the scheme which was formulated to obtain financial assistance and participation (during period of construction) by the persons intending to own a flat. The petitioner gave full details in respect of her share in the HUF being a member of the H...