Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

M.C.D. Vs. Nathu Ram and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ718; 2004(2)SLJ367(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing.3. This writ petition challenges the impugned Award 21st September, 2001 which does not grant regularization to the post of Garden Chaudhary to the respondent No. 1/workman and on the basis of the documents produced, it has only been held that the respondent No. 1/workman performed the work of Garden Chaudhary and hence accordingly entitled to be paid the wages of Garden Chaudhary for the period with effect from 1st October, 1983 till his promotion.4. The relevant finding on this issue is to be found in Para 9 of the award which reads as follows:-'On perusal of Ex.WW1/25 it is revealed that the name of workman is against the column of name of Garden Choudhary and it has separately a list of Beldar and Mali. The other documents Ex.WW1/7, Ex.WW1/9, Ex.WW1/10 (two) i.e. (D 10 and D11), Ex.WW1/12, Ex.WW1/14, Ex.WW1/15, Ex.WW1/17, Ex.WW1/18, Ex.WW1/19, Ex.WW1/21, Ex.WW1...

Ram Devi Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)374

ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.M.:This is an appeal by assessed against the order of assessing officer passed under section 158BC for the block period relevant to assessment year 1987-88 to the date of search, i.e., 16-8-1996.2. The search and seizure operation under section 132(1) was conducted on assessed on 16-8-1996, which was concluded on 3-9-1996. Notice under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act was issued on 9-1-1997, requiring the assessed to file the return of income within a period of 16 days from the date of notice. However, the return for the block period was filed on 27-8-1997. Thereafter, detailed questionnaire was issued and the assessed was required to explain the nature of documents found during the course of search and was also required to file details and Explanationn in regard to evidences filed during the course of search. The details were filed by the assessed and the assessment was completed by the assessing officer on the basis of searched material and after discussing the ...

Antarctic Industries Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC326

1. The appellants had imported a consignment of 'heavy melting scrap of iron/steel' and cleared the same through Customs House, Kandla under Bill of Entry dated 18.6.98. The quantity of the goods shown in the Bill of Entry was 266.45 MTs which was the quantity covered by the relevant invoice and shipped from abroad. The proper officer of Customs who inspected the consignment noted the 'quantity received' as 261.390 MTs on the reverse side of the Bill of Entry. He also entered the same figure against 'quantity issued'. The quantity so issued at Customs was cleared by the party on payment of duty at concessional rate in terms of Notification No 11/97-Cus dated 1.3.97. Later on, the Department issued a show-cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act to the appellants demanding differential duty in respect of the differential quantity of 5.06 MTs on the ground that the benefit of the notification was not available to such quantity of the goods as was not used for the purpose prescri...

Cce Vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. During the period March to August, 1998, the respondents had removed empty containers of Modvatable inputs as waste and scrap, without payment of Central Excise duty. The Department demanded duty on such waste and scrap, and both the adjudicating and first appellate authorities held that any such duty was not liable to be paid. Hence the present appeal of the Revenue. It is submitted by both the sides that the above issue stands squarely covered by the Supreme Court decision in CCE v. West Coast Industrial Gases Ltd. 2003-Taxindiaonline-34-SC-CX. The authorised representative of the respondents has also produced a copy of the CBEC circular No.721/37/2003-CX dated 6.6.2003 wherein it is clarified that "not duty shall be payable and no reversal of credit is also warranted on waste package/containers used for packing inputs, on which credit has been taken, when cleared from the factory of the manufacture availing Modvat/Cenvat credit".3. This circular of the Board has been issued in t...

Sam Spintex Ltd. and Sh. Arvind A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT212TriDel

1. The above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common order-in-original dated 27.2.2002/26/3/2002 vide which the Commissioner has confirmed the duty with penalty on company appellant No. 1 and also imposed penalty on its Director, appellant No.2. The appellant No. 1 company is a 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in the manufacture of cotton grey knitted fabrics falling under Sub-heading 6002.92 of the CETA. Apart from exporting the fabrics out of India, they had also cleared certain quantity of fabrics in the DTA during the period May to October 99 without the permission of the Development Commissioner and as such they were served with the show cause notice for payment of duty in terms of proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act. The adjudicating authority had accordingly confirmed the duty demand with penalty not only against the appellant company No. 1 but also imposed penalty on its Director, appellant No.3. The sole issue involved in the pres...

Chinttapurni Engineering Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT535TriDel

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Chinttapurni Engineering Works for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order No. 95/2003-B, dated 14-2-03 [2003 (154) E.L.T. 427 (Tri. - Del.)]. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that in their Memorandum of Appeal, the Applicants have challenged the decision both on merits as well as on the ground that the extended period is not invocable; that though the plea of limitation has been raised in the Appeal as well as orally argued before the Hon'ble Tribunal, no finding has been recorded on the said aspect resulting in an error apparent on the face of the record which merits to be rectified. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate, has relied upon the decision in the case of Surjeet Singh and others v. Union of India [1997 (10) SCC 592] wherein it has been held that "when the patent error is brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal is duty bound to correct with grace its mistake of law." 2. We also heard S...

Rathi Super Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC279

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Rathi Super Steels Ltd., is whether the Central Excise duty is payable by them on misrolls, which are obtained during the course of manufacture of bars and rods by them.2. Shri M. Chandersekharan, learned Sr. Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture bars and rods and during the relevant period were discharging their duty liability under Compounded Levy Scheme as per the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules; that during the course of manufacture of bars and rods, there arise misroll and waste and scrap; that the Department has demanded the duty on the quantity of misrolls for the period from October 1997 to March 2000 under the show cause notice dated 3.10.2002 on the ground that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 was not applicable as the final products were subject to duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The learned Sr. Advocate, further, submitted that th...

P.K. Industries, Manoj Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC175

1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common impugned order-in-original dated 30.4.2002 vide which the Commissioner had confirmed demand and imposed penalties on them as detailed therein after clubbing the clearances of the firms, appellants viz. 1 and 2.2. The learned Counsel has contended that there is no cogent and tangible evidence to prove that the appellants 1 and 2 are not distinct firms but constitute one firm under the law and that the Commissioner has wrongly raised presumption about the oneness of both these firms on the simple ground that the partners therein are common. Such a presumption according to the learned Counsel, could not be raised for want of any evidence to show the flowback of money from one firm to another or of having common employees, suppliers of raw materials and similarity in the products being manufactured by them. He has further contended that even the show cause notice issued is defective as in a case of clu...

international Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT314TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. International Tobacco Ltd., is whether duty of excise is payable by them on waste and scrap of paper generated during the manufacture of cigarettes.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants manufacture tobacco and cigarettes and during the process of manufacturing, they use modvatable inputs such as cigarette paper, filter road, shells, slides of paper board; that during the process of manufacturing cigarettes, some inputs get deformed, torn, wet and soiled and become unusable and are rejected; that in case of shells the printing design or colour scheme or positioning of letters/words changes hand, therefore, the shells become unusable; that similarly, the slides also become unusable if the month of packing marked on it or the maximum retail price marked on it changes; that the Dy.Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 16./2002 dated 7.6.2002, demanded the duty holding that the waste and scrap of ...

Calcutta Ahmedabad Carriers Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT367TriDel

1. The appellants in this case are the transporters. This appeal is directed against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh by the Commissioner of Customs (Gen.). The ld. Commissioner had in his impugned order observed that, the appellant (transporter) had wilfully acquired possession and were knowingly concerned in carrying, removing, harbouring, keeping and transporting the seized goods for which they knew and had reason to believe were liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act and, therefore, liable for penalty under Section 112.2. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The officers of Customs (Preventive) Branch of New Custom House, New Delhi detained one consignment which had arrived from Jetpur (Surat) at the premises of M/s. Calcutta Ahmedabad Carrier, 19/92, Bhaskar Bhavan, Old Rohtak Road, Sarai Rohilla, New Delhi on 5-11-2001. The said consignment contained 86 pkgs. of Mink Fabrics, made in Korea, which arrived at the premises of M/s. Calcutta Ahmedaba...