Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments

Lakshmi Industries Vs. Commr. of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT694TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 31-7-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner who allowed the refund of Rs. 60,886/- to the appellants, but directed that the same should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.2. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. The Counsel has senta request for adjournment. But the record shows that on the last date of hearing also the Counsel sought the adjournment and the case was adjourned for today on his request. But today again the Counsel has not come present and sought adjournment on the ground that he has to appear before the High Court. But in what connection he has to appear in the High Court has not disclosed by him. It appears that the Counsel is only interested in prolonging the matter. I, therefore, decline the request of the Counsel.3. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellants filed a refund cl...

Gujarat Research and Medical Vs. C.C. (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC295

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by The Gujarat Research & Medical Institute, is whether the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 1.3.1988 is available to them.2. Shri K.L. Rekhi, learned Consultant, submitted that the Appellants imported one equipment Pentax Duodeno Fiberscope and claimed the exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus; that the Director General, Health Services (DGHS) after getting verified their eligibility to the exemption through State level delegatee had granted them a Customs duty Exemption Certificate; that on production of the same they cleared the equipment at nil rate of duty on executing a bond; that the Commissioner of Customs under the impugned order has denied the benefit of the notification and confirmed the demand of import duty besides confiscating the equipment with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 90,000; that a penalty of Rs. 45,000 has also been imposed on the ground that they had not produced "Not man...

Mark Auto Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

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 No. 127-128 / 2002-D, dt. 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 remanded from them" is not correct in as much as the amount is no...

Haryana Textile Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT197TriDel

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of service of notice as per acknowledgement on record. In these circumstances, the appeal is being taken for hearing.2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order dated 20-6-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed as non-maintainable.4. The present proceedings relate to the recovery of outstanding dues for the period from Feb., 2000 to August, 2000. The Commissioner of Central Excise vide letter dated 25-8-2000 made an offer to the appellants to pay the outstanding dues in instalments. Appellants also filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 7072/2000 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and in the Writ Petition, appellants made a request for payment of duty @ Rs. 2 lakhs per chamber per month. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court directed the appellants to pay @ Rs. 2 lakhs per chamber per month also and to file an undertaking to pay the remaining a...

Ramesh Yadav and ors. Vs. National Small Industries Corporation Limite ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(70)DRJ341

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. RULE. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order. 3. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as a peon on daily wages in April, 1999. Petitioners 2 to 5 were appointed as peons on daily wages in June, 1999. In April, 2001, petitioners were asked to proceed for training for six months in the branch offices located at different placed outside Delhi. Since it was mentioned in the letter, asking the petitioners to proceed for training, that their services could be terminated by either party by giving 15 days notice, the petitioners filed this petition for issue of an appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners and if at all the petitioners are to be sent for training, they should be sent only after regularisation. In another petition, filed by one of the peons in similar circumstances, the Court had directed that in the event of any vacancy arising in future for eng...

Continental and Eastern Agency Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)614; II(2003)BC458; 104(2003)DLT665; 2003(71)DRJ520; 2003(3)RAJ57

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final hearing and is accordingly being disposed of. 2. The petitioner is seeking the quashing of the order of the Respondent in refloating the limited tender allegedly ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks a direction awarding the tender in favor of the petitioner. 3. Respondent No.5 (Directorate General of Ordnance Services, hereinafter referred to as DGOS) floated a tender enquiry on 20.2.2001 for 39 tester fuel injector pumps ( hereinafter referred to as the said goods) as per specifications detailed in the said tender enquiry and specified in appendix 'E 'in the tender enquiry documents. Thereafter, by a letter dated 23.3.2001 addressed to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 invited the petitioner to submit its tender, if it so desired, by the closing date which was 1000 hours on 14.3.2001. The petitioner in response to the said tender enquiry and invitation submit...