Delhi Court June 2003 Judgments

Ambica Hydraulics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT299TriDel

1. I have gone through the impugned order and find that the stay application as well as the appeal both can be disposed of simultaneously. Therefore, I proceed to decide accordingly.2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, dated 24-2-2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original, dated 10-10-2001 of the adjudicating authority disallowing the refund of Rs. 59,000/- to the appellants of which they made the pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals) when they challenged the order-in-original.3. The facts are not much in dispute. A demand of Rs. 1,16,550/- was confirmed against the appellants with penalty of Rs. 5,000/- by the adjudicating authority vide order dated 21-1-1998. The appellants challenged that order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who directing them to make pre-deposit of Rs. 59,000/- under Section 35F of the Act for the purpose of hearing their appeal. The appellants accor...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Gaitri Exports

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT592TriDel

2. Through the present ROM application, the Revenue has sought rectification of mistake of law appearing on the face of the impugned order dated 19-7-2002 vide which the Tribunal had set aside the order-in-original dated 30-3-2002 which was challenged by the present respondents.3. The learned JDR has contended that after observing that the respondents were not given opportunity of hearing, the Tribunal should have sent back the case to the adjudicating authority for affording them an opportunity of hearing and to decide the case afresh instead of simply setting aside the order under appeal on that ground. This mistake of law is apparent on the impugned order and deserves to be rectified by recalling the same.4. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has argued that the goods have already been released to them by the orders of the High Court and the matter has become infructuous. He had further submitted that no useful purpose will be served by recalling the impugn...

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Baroda Vs. Mrs. Anita Mahendru a ...

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 26.2.2003 passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 2167/2000, entitled Mrs. Anita Mahendru v. Shri V.K. Puri and Ors. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent Mrs. Anita Mahendru had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that from 29.3.1993 to 9.6.1999 she was employed with Shri V.K. Puri, General Manager, Aircommand India Limited. It was stated that she resigned her job on 9.6.1999. It was stated that during her employment with said V.K. Puri, the respondent Mrs. Anita Mahendru was contributing to the provident fund being maintained by the appellant. After resigning from the employment of said Shri V.K. Puri, respondent...

Dr. K.C. Nasa Vs. Sahib Chand Sharma

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 3.2.2003, passed by District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1810/2000 - entitled Sh. Sahib Chand Sharma v. Dr. K.C. Nasa. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Sahib Chand Sharma had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that he got a denture for his wife Smt. Sushila prepared by the appellant for which he paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the appellant which included the cost of the denture and also the cost of the treatment. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent, that there was some problem with the denture as the same was itching the lower gum. The defect in the denture was reported to the appellant who tried to rectify the defect b...

Sushma Nagpal Vs. Delhi Development Authority

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 31.1.2003, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 776/1998-entitled Smt. Sushma Nagpal v. Delhi Development Authority. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Smt. Sushma Nagpal had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that in September, 1996, the respondent had allotted a MIG flat, bearing No. 152, Sector No. 19, Pocket 3, Dwarka, New Delhi on hire purchase basis under the Registration Scheme of 1979. It was stated that the appellant requested the respondent DDA for delivering the possession of the said flat and also requested that she be intimated about the balance amount to be paid to the respondent DDA in respect...

Prism Cement Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC821

1. This is an application by M/s Prism Cement Ltd., for condonation of delay of 317 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.2. Shri A.N. Haksar, learned Sr. Advocate, submitted that the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 13.2.2002 immediately after receipt was sent to their corporate office situated in Mumbai through its internal courier for seeking opinion of the Legal Solicitors of the Applicant company; that subsequently during an internal audit in the month of December 2002, it was realized that the opinion being sought on the impugned order had not materialized; that on tracking, it was found that the Appellant company's Solicitors had not received the order as the internal courier, Mr. Mahendra Singh, while carrying the consignment including the impugned order, had fallen ill and since then had remained on leave till November 2002; that on querying the internal courier, he brought forth the consignment carrying the impugned order; that it was only then that the opinion of the ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT41TriDel

1. In this Appeal, filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, the issue involved is whether the Light Aluminium Rolling Oil (LARO) is classifiable under sub-Heading 2710.29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order or under Sub-Heading 2710.99 as claimed by the Revenue.2. Shri V. Valte, learned senior Departmental Representative submitted that Heading 2710.20 is specific with reference to the products (a) Kerosene which is ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps and (b) aviation turbine fuel; that the specifications of LARO are different from the specifications of kerosene; that LARO is a product which is derived from kerosene by a special process in a separate plant and has a distinct use as rolling oil in aluminum industry; that kerosene fraction of higher boiling point is separated and then distilled or processed further in a separate plant; that LARO is also not a product which is ordinarily u...

Cce Vs. Shreyans Ind. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT293TriDel

2. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned Order-in -Appeal dated 21.3.2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order-in-Original and allowed credit of the disputed amount to the respondents.3. The facts are not much in dispute. the respondents deposisted Rs.2,42,637/- against confirmed vide Order-in-Original dated 28.4.998.However, that order was set aside by the Tribunal and the case was remanded. the respondents took credit of that amount and utilised the same. He was served with show cause notice fore the recovery of the amount on the ground that suo moto, they could not do so. the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand through the Order-in-Original dated 6.3.2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order by observing as under:- " I have carefully perused the case record.The Adjudicating Authority forfeited the facility of payment of duty in instalments; by treating the credit of Rs.2,42,637/- taken suo moto by the appe...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lipi Data System Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT968TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, is whether the process of conversion of Empty Laser Cartridge into Laser Printer Cartridge, undertaken by the Respondents, M/s. Lipi Data System Limited, amounts to manufacture for purpose of levying Central Excise duty.2. Shri V.Valte, learned SDR, submitted that the old and used cartridge are completely disassembled and critical worn out parts are replaced by new material/components; that thus the old and used cartridges lose their identity and what remains are the components obtained for manufacture of Laser Printer Cartridge; that major parts like Toner Seal, Seal full Tab, doctor blade, OPC drum, wiper blades are replaced with new components; that using these components, two sub-assemblies i.e. developer unit and waste unit are assembled and joined to make a complete Laser Printer Cartridge ; that the cartridges are repainted to give them a new look and the Respondent's brand name "LIPI" is affixed t...

Vimal Moulders (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT834TriDel

1. This appeal of M/s. Vimal Moulders (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") is against the order dated 28-9-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-III pursuant to a remand order (Final Order No. 842/2000-A, dated 10-10-2000 in appeal No. E/2110/2000-A) of this Tribunal. The impugned order, which is in adjudication of a show cause notice (SCN) issued on 21-1-2000, has confirmed against the assessee the entire demand of duty (Rs. 18,36,344.45) raised in the SCN for the period 1996-1997 to 3-11-98 (period of dispute - POD, for short) by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. It has also charged interest on the duty amount under Section 11AB and imposed a penalty of Rs. 18,36,340/- on the assessee under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Act.2. During the POD, the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of plastic moulded parts of Colour Television, Audio Syste...