Delhi Court February 2003 Judgments

M.O. Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC425

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 2.7.2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original dated 30.9.99 of the Assistant Commissioner denying modvat credit of Rs. 2,05,821 with penalty of Rs. 10,000.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter Heading 8509 of the CETA. They availed modvat credit of Rs. 2,05,821 on the inputs. But on scrutiny of their RT 12 returns for the month of September 1992, it revealed that they had not submitted original gate passes on the basis of which credit was availed by them.Accordingly, show cause notice dated 15.2.93 was issued to them for disallowing the modvat credit and for imposing penalty also on them.They are alleged to had neither filed any reply to the show cause notice nor even put up personal appearance. The Assistant Collector accordingly disallowed modvat credit and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 on them under Rule 173Q. ...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Marutham Textiles (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT219TriDel

1. The common issue in these appeals of the Revenue, referred to us by the South Zonal Bench (Chennai) of the Tribunal is whether, under Notification No. 1/93-CE., dated 28-2-93 as amended by Notifications 59/94-CE., dated 1-3-94 and 90/94-CE., dated 25-4-94, the value of cotton yarn cleared on payment of duty by a small-scale manufacturer from 25-4-1994 has to be included in the aggregate value of Rs. 30 lacs of first clearances for the purpose of exemption under the SSI Exemption Scheme. On this or like issue, there are conflicting decisions by coordinate Benches of this Tribunal. The following decisions held that the first clearances to aggregate to the value limit for exemption would include only those clearances which were made from the date on which the small-scale manufacturer started availing exemption under the scheme:-Watts Electronics (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Kochi - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 127 (Tri.)CCE, Coimbatore v. Sri Kumaran Spinners (P) Ltd. - 1998 (24) RLT 86 (CEGAT)CCE, Coimbator...

Cce Vs. Dabur India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC599Tri(Delhi)

1. In these two appeals, filed by the Revenue (Appeal No. E/808/2002-C) and by M/s. Precise Laboratories Ltd. (Appeal No. E/2788/2002-C, the common issue involved is whether "Lal Tail" is classifiable under Sub-heading No. 3003.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as an Ayurvedic Medicament or under Heading No. 33.04 as a preparation for care of skin.2.1 Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Dabur India Ltd. manufacture "Lal Tail" which is cleared by them under Sub-heading 3003.39 of the Tariff as an Ayurvedic Medicament; that a show cause notice dated 12.8.99 was issued to them for classifying the same under Heading 33.04 and for demanding differential duty; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 95/96-2000 dated 2.5.2000 dropped the further proceedings; that Commissioner (Appeals) under Order-in-Appeal No. 547/2001 dated 3.12.2001 has upheld the Adjudication Order. Hence the Appeal by Revenue.2.2 M/s. Precise Laboratories also classified their ...

Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC410

2. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat credit was denied to the appellants on the ground that no declaration was filed in respect of the inputs.3. The contention of the appellants is that they filed the declaration and in the declaration they also mentioned the inputs as Lead Sheets.They did not specifically mentioned the zinc ingots as inputs. The duty paid zinc ingots were received by the appellants which were converted into sheets and this process is not amounted to manufacture, therefore, the appellants only mentioned the lead sheets as inputs which is used in the manufacturer of dutiable final products.Kamakhya Steels (P) Limited v. CCE, Meerut, 6. In this case, the appellants filed the declaration in respect of inputs used in manufacture of final products and in stead of zinc ingots they had mentioned lead sheets. The lead ingots are converted into sheets and sheets were declared as input...

Ergo Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT500TriDel

1. These appeals, namely, E/1447/2002-A, and E/637/2002-A are at the instance of the assessee and Revenue respectively challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29-11-2001. M/s. Ergo Auto Ltd. formerly known as M/s. Studds Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SL) is engaged in the manufacture of safety headgears, parts thereof, motor vehicle accessories, etc., M/s. Studds Ltd. was incorporated on 20-4-95. It took over the business, assets and liabilities of M/s.Gadgets India. M/s. Gadgets India had entered into a sale agreement on 3-2-84 with M/s. Studds Accessories Ltd. (hereinafter referred to SAL) under which SAL was appointed as the sole distributor for whole of India of the products manufactured by M/s. Gadgets India except in the case of supplies to OE manufacturers, Government and semi-Government Bodies. The agreement was initially for a period of five years. After the expiry of above period in 1989 sale was being effected on the basis of purchase orders.2. A...

Mark Auto Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT541TriDel

1. This is an application for rectification of mistake filed by M/s.Mark Auto Industries Ltd. for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order Nos. 127-128/2002-D, dated 18-4-2002.2. Shri Harbans Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the appeals were filed against the withdrawal of sanction of Service Tax refund of the tax already deposited on account of services provided as goods transport operators; that though the refund claim filed by the Applicants had been sanctioned but the refund claims were not paid; that during the hearing, it was submitted and explained that the amount of refund had not been paid to the Applicants; that as such it is amply clear that the amount already paid as Service Tax has remained with the Department; that in view of this fact the decision of the Tribunal in Para 7 of the Final Order to the effect that "the Appellants are liable to pay the Service Tax and the same has been rightly demanded from them" is not correct inasmuch as the amount is not ...

Shri Ram Rayons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT502TriDel

1. In this application, the Department states that there is an apparent error in Final Order No. A/372/2002-NB (SM), dated 7-3-2002 passed by this Bench in Appeal No. E/139/2001-NB (SM). The mistake pointed out by the applicant is in relation to Modvat credit of Rs. 66,595/-which was allowed by this Bench. The applicant states that the invoices of M/s.Chayya Corporation (supplier of inputs), on the strength of which the credits totalling to Rs. 66,595/- had been taken, did not bear the marking, "duplicate for transporter". The Bench, however, did no examine this aspect while holding that the above credit was admissible to the assessee. The only question that was considered by the Bench in the context of determining the admissibility of the above credit was whether the credit was liable to be allowed on blue copies of supplier's invoices. The applicant submits that the non-consideration of whether the marking "duplicate for transporter" was there or not on each of the invoices issued b...

Malpani Marbles and Granites Pvt. Vs. Allahabad Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)BC49

1. The appellants are the defendants in O.A. 545/96 filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') for the recovery of Rs. 18,28,773/- with subsequent interest and costs.The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order dated 26.4.2001 for the recovery of the above said sum with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application, namely, 3.1.1995 till the recovery with costs from defendants 1, 3 and 4 jointly and severally.2. The 2nd defendant had died, and his legal representatives are defendants 2/1, 2/2, 2/3 and 3 to 11 whose liability was limited to the extent of the money realised by the sale of Property No. 10, Film Colony, S.M.S Highway, Jaipur as co-owners and legal heirs of the 2nd defendant.3. The respondent/plaintiff-Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent -Bank') was also held entitled to recover the money by selling the property of the 1st defendant-company in Khasra No. 377, Village Borawar, District Nagpur, R...

Acit, Inv. Circle 10(1) Vs. Kamax Corporation

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The revenue has filed appeal against the order of CIT (Appeals) dated 30.7.1997 for asstt. year 1993-94 assailing the deletion of the trading addition of Rs. 4, 92, 004/-. The assessee had filed cross objection assailing the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. Since the revenue's appeal as well as the cross objection have been heard together, these are disposed off by a single order.2. First, we take up revenue's appeal against deletion of the trading addition of Rs. 4, 92, 004/-.3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee firm derives income from manufacture and ale of insulated wire and strips of copper and aluminium. The Income tax Department conducted survey operations u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the business premises of the assessee on 24.8.1992. During survey, excess stock amounted to Rs. 4, 98, 668/- was found which was admitted and acknowledged by the assessee form. Statement of Shri Satish Aggrwal Partner was on 24.8.1992 during survey then he surr...

Shri Chander Pal Singh, S/O Late Shri Phool Singh Vs. Union of India ( ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)772; 104(2003)DLT8; 2003(67)DRJ637; 2003(3)SLJ431(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule D.B.2. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the order of the respondent declining to give no objection certificate for permanent absorption of the petitioner in National Crime Record Bureau. 3. We had issued notice to the respondents on the point of discrimination alleged by the petitioner. It was contended before us by learned counsel for the petitioner that out of six persons who went on deputation to NCRB from Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), the respondent has granted NOC for permanent absorption in case of three persons and in an arbitrary manner was not granting NOC in case of other three persons including the petitioner.4. We have been told by learned counsel for the respondents that other two persons have already left NCRB, though they have not yet joined the parent organization, i.e. ITBP. In any event of the matter we are not concerned as these two persons are not before us.5. Counsel for the respondent has contended before us that...