Delhi Court June 2002 Judgments

Excelsior Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT700TriDel

1. The issue that arises for decision in this appeal is the correct central excise classification of "Roller Assembly". The item was originally assessed under Chapter Heading 8504 as parts of transformer.The impugned order has changed this classification to Heading 86.07 which heading is for parts of railway or railway locomotive or rolling stock. The impugned order has held that the product is railway rolling stock.2. It may be noted at the outset that the impugned order has been passed relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of United Engg. Industries v. CCE, Indore, "2.01 The appellants are manufacturing 320 dia twin roller assembly for BHEL, Bhopal, as per their drawing 14993700001 (herein after referred to as Roller assembly). The roller assembly is specifically designed and manufactured to be fitted with the base of the tanks of power transformer of BHEL to facilitate movement & positioning of transformer at the erection site, and also for its maintenance includ...

Almania Foods and ors. Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This application has been moved by the appellant under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for waiver of required deposit under that section. Reply to this application has been filed by the respondent Bank whereby the prayer has been vehemently opposed.3. The Misc. Appeal in which this application for waiver has been moved, has been filed by the appellants against order dated 3.12.2001 passed by DRT-II, Delhi in O.A. No. 1221/ 95, Catholic Syrian Bank v.Almania Foods and Ors., whereby the appellants' application for setting aside ex-pane final order dated 16.6.97 in the said O.A. has been rejected.4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that due to some misconception of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, this application was moved but on in depth scrutiny of the provisions of the said Act, it was felt that the provisions of Section 21 of t...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mukerian Paper Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC724Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal, filed by Revenue, the issue involved is regarding the eligibility of certain goods to Modvat Credit and about the availability of Modvat credit on the basis of invoices stamped with the words "Duplicate for transporter" instead of being printed.2. Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned DR, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order had allowed the credit to the Respondents M/s. Mukerian Paper Mills on the strength of invoices where the words "Duplicate for transporter" were not printed and only stamped; that such invoices are not valid documents for availing the credit; that otherwise an assessee can rubber stamp any copy of invoice and avail Modvat credit. He also submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the capital goods credit in respect of ACB-800A which is used for controlling load tension of ECC Penal, Vacuum Gauge which is the pressure measuring instrument and ELO Guard which is used in Boiler for preventing scales; that these are n...

Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(104)LC630Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. is whether the refund claim filed by them is hit by time limit specified in Section 27 of the Customs Act.2. I heard Shri Amit Bhagat, learned Advocate, on behalf of the Appellants and Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned D.R., for the Revenue. The Dy. Commissioner has rejected refund claim filed by the Appellants on the ground that the duty of customs was paid on 2.11.1998 whereas refund claim was filed on 25.6.1999 which is beyond the period of 6 months specified in Section 27 of the Customs Act. I find that as contended by the learned Advocate for the Appellants the refund claim was initially filed on 16.4.1999 on the ground that they were not required to pay Special Additional duty under Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act. The Department returned the claim to the Appellants under letter dated 1.5.1999 as all the documents required with the refund claim were not submitted. They resubmitted the refund claim only on 25....

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)831

ORDERSmt. Diva Singh, J.M.:This is an appeal filed by the assessed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XVII, New Delhi, dated 24-9-1996.2. The grounds raised by the assessed in this appeal read as under :'1. That, on the law, facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the appellant- company was liable to deduct tax @ 20 per cent on amounts paid to M/s John Brown E&C;, USA, in terms of agreement executed by the company with M/s John Brown on the alleged ground that the same was not paid for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India as specified in section 9(l)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with the relevant provisions of Double Taxation Treaty with USA which is highly erroneous and bad in law.2. That, on the law, facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the amounts paid to M/s. John Brown E&C;, USA, for supply ...

Murari Lal Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. In the present complaint, filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the relevant facts in brief are, that the complainant had registered himself in the New Pattern Scheme, 1979 floated by the opposite party for allotment of Middle Income Group category flats, the price of which was indicated as Rs. 42,000/- in the brochure. The complainant was allotted flat No. I-50-A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi vide draw of lots held by O.P. on 15.3.1984. However, instead of the same being allotted to him on hire purchase basis a demand letter was sent to the complainant requiring him to pay the price of the flat in question on lumpsum basis. In order to avoid confusion the complainant deposited Rs. 23,332.20 on 6.5.1985. The complainant being an employee of the Central Government in the Department of Rehabilitation, Ministry of Home Affairs was not in a position to purchase the flat in question on lumpsum basis and as such ...

Molu Ram Radha Kishan Vs. Ravinder Kumar Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.P. Saberwal, Member: 1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 27.2.2001 passed by District Forum (Central) ISBT, in Complaint Case No. 943/2000 entitled Ravinder Kumar Gupta v. M/s. Molu Ram Radha Krishan, whereby appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- deposited by the respondent with the appellant vide two separate cheques along with interest @ 15% p.a. and cost of Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. Respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum stating that he is proprietor of M/s. Ravinder Traders, Naya Bazar, Delhi and is carrying on business of commission agent. He was approached by appellant Shri Laxmi Narain, proprietor of M/s. Molu Ram Radha Krishan, Naya Bazar, Delhi for a term deposit in the month of April, 1998 with an assurance that the amount deposited would be secure and returnable on a days notice. Respondent was lu...

Arvind Singh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC543Tri(Delhi)

1. The common issue arising in these appeals is whether refrigeration plants erected by the appellants can be subjected to excise duty. This issue is already covered in favour of the assessees by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Virdi Brothers reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 86 (T). This is also covered by an order passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 37B - Order No.58/1/2002-CX., dated 15-1-2002. The relevant portion of the order reads as under : "(iii) Re frigeration/Air-conditioning plants : These are basically systems comprising of compressors, ducting, pipings, insulators and sometimes cooling towers, etc. They are in the nature of systems and not machines as a whole. They come into existence only by assembly and connection of various components and parts. Though each component is dutiable, the refrigeration/air-conditioning system as a whole cannot be considered to be excisable goods. Air-conditioning units, however, would continue to re...

Fedders Lloyd Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(106)LC523Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal at the instance of the assessee is against Order-in Appeal No. 1154-57-CE/DLH/2001 dated 21.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I. The issue arising in this case is one relating to determination of assessable value of goods when there is no wholesale price available.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Air-conditioners and parts thereof falling under Chapter Heading 8415.00 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. Admittedly these goods are sold in retail from the sales Depot of the assessee. According to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act read with erstwhile Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 1975 value of such goods for the purpose of assessment should be derived from the normal price which is the wholesale cash price. Rule 6(a) provides that where goods are sold in retail, the value shall be based on the retail price of such goods reduced by such amount as is necessary and reasonable in the opinion of the proper officer...

Kohinoor Creations and ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2003)BC88

1. This appeal is against order dated 6.8.2001 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi in O.A. No. 58/2001 -- Syndicate Bank v.M/s. Kohinoor Creations and Ors.2. By the impugned order appellant's Interim Application No. 180/2001 praying for stay of proceedings in the O.A. on the ground that the Appellant No. 1 has an arbitration agreement with the respondent Bank, has been rejected. Feeling aggrieved with the order, this appeal has been filed. The appeal has been vehemently opposed by the respondent Bank.4. The aforesaid O.A. has been filed by the respondent Bank against five defendants. The first defendant is M/s. Kohinoor Creations and the rest of defendants are individual persons. The first defendant executed an Export Credit Agreement with the said Bank to avail packing credit facility from the said Bank and the rest four defendants stood guarantors for the loan. The Export Credit Agreement between the first defendant and the said Bank contains an arbitration clause. The g...