Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments

Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT194TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. is whether the Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs is available to them on the strength of endorsed Bills of Entry.2. Shri A.R. Madho Rao, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufactured automobile components as per the specifications and requirements of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUL); that the dies and moulds which are specifically required for manufacturing the components, are imported by MUL and given to the Appellants by endorsing Bills of Entry; that the Commissioner under the impugned order has disallowed the Modvat credit and imposed the penalty of equal amount on the ground that endorsed Bill of Entry is not specified duty paying document under Rule 57AE of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that MUL made a declaration to the Dy. Commissioner of Customs as required in terms of Central Board of Excise & Customs Circular No. 179/13/95-CX. 8, dated 2...

Universal Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT292TriDel

1. These appeals at the instance of the assessee arise out of a common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No. 299-233-C.E./BPL/2002, dated 28-2-2002. The issue raised in these appeals is whether the appellant is entitled to claim refund in respect of duty paid against demands confirmed under orders-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority which are not appealed against. According to the appellant, it had challenged order-in-original passed for a different period where identical issue was raised and it was decided in its favour by the Tribunal under order dated 12-9-97. Therefore, it is contended that it is entitled to refund in respect of duty paid for different periods which were affirmed by the adjudicating authority under separate orders-in-original.2. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of a learned Single Member of the Tribunal in Samurai Electronics Pvt. Ltd...

Kay Cee Electricals Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)87ITD35(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against the order of block assessment comprising the block period from 1st April, 1985 to 24th Aug., 1995 passed by Dy. CIT, Special Range-36, New Delhi.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these: The assessee-firm was engaged in the business of processing and manufacturing of copper rods from ingots at B-7, Jhilmil, Shahdara, Delhi. A search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 at various places on 24th Aug., 1995 in the course of which unaccounted cash of Rs. 36,46,545 along with 19 slips were found from an almirah kept at B-11/3, Jhilmil, Shahdara and the same were seized. In addition, certain stocks Greece, furnace oil and copper scrap etc. were also found. In response to notice under Section 158BC, the assessee filed the return for the block period disclosing nil undisclosed income.3. In the course of assessment proceedings, it had been noted that cash found and seized from B-11/3, Jhilmil, Shahdara was not accounted for in the regular bo...

Lkp Merchant Financing Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nct and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)497; 102(2003)DLT736; 2003(70)DRJ339; [2003(97)FLR460]; (2003)IILLJ210Del; 2003(1)SLJ206(Delhi)

S.K. Mahajan, J.Rule1. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.2. Respondent No. 2 was employed with the petitioner as Executive (Customer Support) and was drawing a salary of Rs. 7,000/- per month at the time of his dismissal by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 made an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Conciliation Officer) for reference of the dispute about his dismissal from service to the Appropriate Court for adjudication. Before the Labour Commissioner, the petitioner had taken a plea that since respondent No. 2 was performing the duties of supervisory in character and was holding a senior managerial post and drawing a salary of Rs. 7,000/- per month, he was not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Conciliation Officer did not have any jurisdiction to hold the conciliation proceedings. On the basis of the failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the m...

Akash Ganga Builders and Engg. (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. Smt. Shanta Ra ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present petition, filed by the petitioners, under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 30.12.2002, passed by District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-II, New Delhi in Case No. 299/2001 - entitled Smt. Shanta Rani Sharma v. Shri Ashok Arora (Director), M/s. Akash Ganga Builders and Engineers (P) Ltd. and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned petition, briefly stated, are that the respondent Smt. Shanta Rani Sharma initially had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that she had booked a flat, bearing No. 104 on the First Floor of Ganga Darshan Apartments, Godawari Block, Haridwar, (Uttranchal) and for that purpose had paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the petitioner. It was stated that subsequently that allotment was changed to No. 115 on the ground floor of Shiv Shakti Apartments against the...

Oswal Fats and Oils Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT112TriDel

1. The appellants are a manufacturer of soaps. They undertook contract for manufacture of soaps for Hindustan Lever Limited. The dispute in the present case is about valuation of 'Breeze' brand soaps so manufactured on contract. M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited directed the appellants to pack @ 6 bindis each along with each cake of soap. The bindis were, therefore, packed and kept in the cartons containing soaps. The intention of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., was to make free supply of bindis along with Breeze soaps. Under the impugned order, learned Commissioner has held that the value of the bindis should also be added to the price of the soap for arriving at the assessable value of soap. This finding has been based on the ground that any expenses incurred towards promotion of sale of excisable goods is to be included in the assessable value of goods. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Hindustan Cocoa Products Ltd., reported as 1997 (93) E.L.T. 18...

Gajroula Spinning Mills Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT396TriDel

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Gajroula Spinning Mills, the issue involved is whether refund of Customs duty is available to them in respect of HSD/Lubricants purchased by them from Indian Oil Corpn, and M/s. Castrol India Ltd. 2. Shri K. Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, manufacture and export all types of yarn; that they have been purchasing imported diesel and lubricants from M/s. Indian Oil Corpn. and M/s. Castrol India Ltd.; that the invoices issued by the supplier are inclusive of Customs duty paid on the import of diesel/lubricants; that under Notification No.13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-81 and 53/97-Cus., dated 3-6-97, diesel/lubricants used for captive power plants are exempted from customs duty; that the Central Board of Excise & Customs under Circular No. 21/97 dated 24-6-97 clarified that the letter of approval issued for procurement of duty for furnace oil by the Board of Approval may be treated as licence and the sp...

Columbia Electronics Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC442

1. These are two applications filed by M/s. Columbia Electronics Ltd. and Shri M.L Khanna for rectification of mistake sought to have crept in Final Order No. A/42-44/2001-NB (DB) dated 27.11.2000.2. Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned Departmental Representative, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present applications as these have been filed much after the time limit of six months specified under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act for filing applications for rectification of mistake.3. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Advocate, submitted that as the Final Order was passed in November 2000, the time specified for filing application for rectification of mistake under the law was four years; that this period has been reduced to six moths with effect from 1 5.2002 and as the present applications have been filed in August 2002, these are within time limit of six months from 11.5.2002 when the new provisions came into effect. In this regard, he referred to Section 6 A o...

Pace Marketing Specialities Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT621TriDel

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of adhesives which are liable to Central Excise duty. The adhesive so manufactured is sold at factory gate as well as from the depots. The appellants manufacture the goods in their own brand name as well as in the brand name of M/s. Vam Organic Chemicals Limited (VOCL) and M/s. Indian Emulsions Pvt.Limited.2. The issue raised in this appeal is the valuation of the adhesive for the purpose of levying Central Excise duty on ad valorem basis. Under a show cause notice dated 29-3-2001 proceedings were initiated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut for recovery of Central Excise duty alleged to be short levied on the clearances of the adhesive for the period April, 1996 to January, 2001. The ground for re-opening the assessment was that the value on which duty was originally paid excluded certain elements like discounts which were not eligible for exclusion. Under the adjudication order dated 21-11-2001 impugned in this appeal, the ...

Malti Sharma, W/O Shri Piyush Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IAD(Delhi)703; 102(2003)DLT563; 2003(66)DRJ443; 2003(1)SLJ193(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J.1. This petition has been filed after the earlier petition filed by the petitioner (CWP No.1582/96) was allowed. However, relief was not granted to the petitioner as respondent no.1, on the recommendation of respondent no.2, abolished the post of Inspector.2. The case set up by the petitioner is that petitioner was appointed as an Inspector by respondent no.2 on 1st June, 1992 on ad hoc basis. Thereafter a proper interview was held on 2nd August, 1993 and the Selection Committee found petitioner to be most eligible candidate. However, respondent no.2 appointed the petitioner on ad hoc basis. Respondent issued a memorandum dated 9th September, 1993 thereby informing the petitioner that her services have been extended retrospectively from 1.8.1993 to 9.9.1993 and on 9.9.1993 services of the petitioner stood terminated and on the same date petitioner was appointed purely on temporary and ad hoc basis from 13.9.1993 to 12.3.1994. The stand of the petitioner was that she ha...