Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

Ram Singh Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT550b

ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner will deposit 75% of Rs. 2,06,892.19 paise provided the respondent refunds the excess amount received by him under this order together with interest. In my opinion, it is fair that if the respondent takes money from the petition on account of some charges which are otherwise not chargeable, the same should be refunded to the petitioner together with interest.With this observation CM(M) 627/2003 and CM 1324/2003 are disposed of....

Bala and ors. Vs. Motichand Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2006)ACC337

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Admit. Matter being short, the same has been heard with the consent of the parties and disposed of by this order.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.10.1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the application of the appellants for grant of compensation for the death of one Roop Chand, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant Nos. 4 to 8 was dismissed on the ground that the appellants were not able to prove that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are :Deceased Roop Chand on 13.8.1992 at about 4/5 p.m. in the evening was going on his bicycle to his house in Sector 49, Noida via Kotla Road when a three-wheeler scooter came from Patparganj side being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1 and hit the cycle from behind. As a result of the accident, the deceased fell down on the road and received severe injuries and was immediately moved ...

Gupta Plastic Industries Vs. B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Limited

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 30.7.2003, passed by District Forum (North East), in Complaint Case No. 323/2003 entitled M/s. Gupta Plastic Industries v. Assistant Finance Officer, B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Limited, Nand Nagri, Delhi. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, M/s. Gupta Plastic Industries, through its sole proprietor Shri Sushil Kumar, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum against the respondent alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. That complaint, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed by the learned District Forum vide impugned order on the ground that the appellant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. On the above ground the complaint, filed by ...

Bhupindra Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT536TriDel

1. These applications filed by the applicants for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.3. In this case the demand is confirmed on the ground that the cost of pattern used in the manufacture of steel castings are includible in the assessable value in the steel castings. This proposition of law is not disputed by the appellants. The only issue is regarding quantum of cost of pattern to be included in the assessable value of steel castings.4. The contention of the appellants is that without any cogent evidence, the Revenue held that the cost of pattern is 4% of the steel castings whereas they have produced the evidence to show that the cost of pattern is much less than determined by the Revenue. The appellants have produced the Chartered Engineer's certificate in support of their claim. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it is a fit case for total waiver of duty and penalty. Therefore, the stay applications are allowed unconditionally.Adj...

Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT169TriDel

1. The Tribunal vide Final order dated 19th August, 1999 allowed the appeals. The Revenue filed appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19.4.2001 Civil Appeal No.2322-2323 of 2000 remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding afresh.3. The brief of the case are that the appellants fabricated steel structure by cutting the raw-material to require sizes, punching holes, bending, heating , welding, rivetting, etc and after these processes the steel material was taken to Civil Works and put in a position and fixed by means of bolts, nuts as per requirements. At this stage, the steel structure acquired the character of columns, beams, rafters and purlins. The issue involved in appeal is weather fabrication of columns, beams and purlins amounts to manufacture as provided under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.Aruna Industries Vishakhapatnam and Others v. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur and Others reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 580 (...

Steel Tubes of India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC151

1. These are three stay applications, one by the Company and the other two by two employees of the company. In the captioned appeals, the company is aggrieved by a demand of duty of over Rs. 6.4 lakhs confirmed against them by the lower authorities while the employees are against penalties imposed on them by the authorities under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the present applications, the applicants have prayed for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the duty and penalty amounts.2. The counsel for the applicants submits that the company is already registered with the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the SIC (SP) Act, 1985. He produces a copy of the BIFR letter dated 31.7.2002 in proof of this fact, which is not contested.Ld. Counsel submits that this Tribunal has been granting full waiver of pre-deposit in favour of such companies registered with BIFR. One of the instances cited by him is the order passed by a Two-M...

Futura Polymers Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC125

2. These applications filed by the applicants for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Polyethylene Terepthalate Chips. The appellants were clearing Polyethylene Terepthalate Chips for manufacture of performs on stock transfer basis from 100% EOU Division to Perform Division and were availing the benefit of Notification No.2/95 dated 4.1.95. The appellants were determining the assessable value of the chips which were cleared on stock transfer basis to other division on the basis of FOB price of performs exported. The show cause notice was issued to the appellants for demand of differential duty by denying the benefit of above Notification No. 2/95 on the ground that the notification is not applicable to the goods cleared on stock transfer basis as there was no sale involved. The notice also proposed to demand differential duty alleging that the FOB value adopted for payment of duty f...

Mark Pharmaceuticals Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC152

1. Having examined the records and heard both the sides, I find that this case needs to be disposed of summarily. Accordingly, the stay application ip allowed and the appeal is taken up.2. The original authority had confirmed against the appellants a demand of duty of Rs. 37,850 and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 2,500.Against that decision the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). In that appeal, they also filed an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts. That application was disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) by Stay Order dated 20.9.2002, whereby waiver and stay were granted only in respect of the penalty amount and the party was directed to deposit entire amount of duty. Subsequently, the appellants applied to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a modification of the said order, claiming that they had strong reasons to be entitled to full waiver. In that application, the party had, inter ...

Cce Vs. Grasim Cement

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC543

1. The original authority disallowed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,76,909 to the respondents in respect of welding electrodes which were used for repairs and maintenance of their plant and machinery. That authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the party. The appeal preferred by the assessee against the decision of the original authority was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal of the Revenue.2. Ld. DR reiterates the grounds of this appeal and relies on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Jaypee Rewa Plant v. CCE, Raipur, 2003 (88) ECC 503 (Tribunal-LB): 2003 (57) ELT 739 (T-LB)].3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents fairly concedes that the "cenvatability" of welding electrodes as inputs has been settled by Larger Bench in Jaypee Rewa Plant (supra) in favour of the Revenue. Ld.Counsel, however, submits that, as this Tribunal had earlier taken the view that welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery were eligible...

Kalon Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT334TriDel

2. The appellants are manufacturers of Exhaust Fans, for which they use Aluminium Ingots, C.R. Strips and Copper Wire as inputs. On 18-12-1998, officers of Central Excise visited their factory and found shortages of the said inputs. The appellants admitted that they had cleared the quantity of inputs found short, without payment of duty. They also debited forthwith an amount of Rs. 1,61,040/- in their RG-23A, Part-II register towards part-payment of the duty of excise on the said quantity. The balance amount of Rs. 57,996/- was debited on 28-12-1998.The department, however, issued a show cause notice on 9-8-1999 proposing, mainly, to impose penalties on the party under various provisions of law. The provisions mainly invoked, in this connection, were Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The show cause notice was contested. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,19,036/- on the party under Rule 173Q read with Secti...