Delhi Court July 2002 Judgments

Bajaj Hindustan Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT359TriDel

1. The appellants manufacture Cane Sugar, Molasses and Denatured Ethyl Alcohol falling under Chapter Heading 1701, 1703 and 2204 respectively.They submitted an application to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow for remission of duty of Rs. 4,22,875/- in respect of 4,975 qtls. of sugar lost due to fire in their godown No. 21 on 28-7-98. They informed the Commissioner of Central Excise vide fax message on 28-7-98 that due to short circuit, a fire accident had taken place in that sugar godown No. 21 having stock of 90,489 qtls. of M-31 grade sugar.Simultaneously, they also informed the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of this fire accident. Subsequently, the Inspector incharge, in his visit to the spot of accident on 1-8-98 verified and confirmed the fire having broken out in the godown No. 21 of the party due to short circuiting. On 28-7-98, the party requested for shifting of sugar from godown No. 21 to Godown No. 19. This permission was granted by the Range Officer with t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. I.T.L. Indus. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT672TriDel

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the factory premises of the respondents were searched by the Excise Officers on 21-9-99 and 14 machines were found lying in the factory but the same were not entered in the R.G. 1 register. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents for confiscation of the machines and for imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confiscated the machines and ordered release of the same on payment of redemption fine and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. The respondents filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, held that the machines were found in the factory premises and there was no attempt on the part of the respondents to clear the machines without payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the respondents can be liable for penal action for violation of Rule 226 of the Rules and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-...

Smt. Nazni Begum @ Nazru Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant Smt. Nazni Begum @ Nazru under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated the 15th March, 2002, passed by District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 441/2001, entitled Smt. Nazni Begum @ Nazru v. Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Smt. Nazni Begum had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum. In that complaint, filed by the appellant, the grievance in nutshell was that the appellant, a consumer in respect of electricity connection, bearing K.No. 1242558/DL, installed at RZ-11/92, Gali No. 2, East Sagarpur, New Delhi, had received an inflated bill in respect of billing cycle for March, 1998 (for the period from November, 1997 to March, 1998). It was prayed that the respondent be directed to rectify the sa...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Smt. Bharto Devi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 4.5.2002, passed by District Forum, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 847/2001 - entitled Smt. Bharto Devi v. Executive Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The respondent Smt. Bharto Devi had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that she had a valid electric connection bearing K. No. VP-5031362146-W-215 NL, installed at House No. 483, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi. It was stated that the respondent had paid electricity bills in respect of the above said electricity connection up to August, 1999 and the reading in the meter on 12.8.1999 was 19620. It was stated that the meter suddenly stopped working on 28.2.2000 and at that time the reading ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Alankar Sales Corpn.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC75

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 9-11-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. The issue involved is as to whether the benefit of Notification No. 205/88-CE., dated 25-5-88 as amended is available to the appellant in respect of insulated wires and cables.2. Shri M.P. Singh, learned JDR on behalf of the Revenue has submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that Joint Commissioner has rightly held that the communication cable cannot be a part of windmill because as per Section Note 2 of Section XVI and Chapter Notes of 85 the parts suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine are classifiable with the machine of that kind; that Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that no evidence has been produced that communication cable have been specifically designed only for windmills and have no other general use; that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact th...

Cce Vs. Akal Springs Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC628

1. Revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order had held: Applying the ratio of the judgment (supra) the amount paid towards octroi is not includible in the assessable value. In regard to the duty paid on the raw material, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Dailchi Karkaria Ltd. v. CCE held that duty paid on raw material is not to be added in the assessable value of the final product.2. Therefore, the first short point for determination in this appeal is that whether the duty paid on raw-material is to be added to the assessable value of the final product or not and the second issue is whether octroi paid is includible in the assessable value or not.3. We have heard Ms. K. Mishra, Ld. DR for Revenue. We have also perused the contentions made by the respondent who have prayed for deciding the case on merits.4. We note that the first...