Delhi Court July 2003 Judgments

Commissioner Of Central Excise Vs. Teg'S Masarado Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: 156(2003)DLT926

1.In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal dated 8-1-2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the order-in-original dated 30-6-1995 of the Asstt. Commissioner allowing refund of Rs. 13,640.31.2. The respondents are a 100% EOU. They filed a refund claim of the above said amount on the ground that they have recovered the duty from their customers @ 5% as per Notification No. 101/93-C.E., dated 27-12-1993 read with Notification No. 32/92-Cus., dated 1-3-1992, but had actually paid duty @ 10% adv. They had claimed the refund of 5% extra duty paid by them. The adjudicating authority allowed their refund by accepting their ground which was substantiated by them by producing the copies of their books of account. The Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed that order of the adjudicating authority.3. I have heard both sides and perused the impugned order-in-appeal.The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded specific finding that the respond...

Sriganganagar Bottling Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT242TriDel

1. The appellants are manufacturers of soft drinks. The advertisement cost incurred by them is partly shared by M/s. Britco Food Company Ltd. That company is also engaged in the manufacture of the same soft drink, though in cans and big bottles. Further, they are also the suppliers of concentrate of several drinks to the appellants. The impugned orders have held that the appellants should pay central excise duty on the amounts reimbursed to them by M/s. Britco Foods as their share, of the advertisement cost.2. It is the contention of the appellants that the common advertisement benefits both M/s. Britco Foods and the appellants and that is the reason for agreeing to share the cost of those advertisements, according to an agreed formula. It is, therefore, submitted that the amounts reimbursed cannot be treated as the appellants' receipt for the goods produced by them or expenditure incurred by the appellants in connection with their manufacturing activity, and subjected to excise duty ...

Gail Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC20

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Gas Authority of India Limited, the issue involved is whether the inputs in respect of which Modvat/Cenvat Credit has been availed of have been used in the manufacture of Lean gas which is exempted from payment of Central Excise duty and consequently the Appellants are required to pay an amount equal to 8% of the price of Lean gas under Rule 57CC/Rule 57AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture various final products including LPG; that the main raw material is natural gas or feed natural gas; that the feed gas is compressed and fed to the plant and treated in Gas Sweetening Unit (GSU) and Gas Processing Unit (GPU) for removal of impurities; that from the feed gas so treated, heavier hydro-carbons or components, namely, C2, C3, C4 and LPG are extracted for down stream manufacture of the final products; that after extraction of the heavier hydro-carbons or components, the ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT706TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue questioning the validity of the part of the impugned order of the Commissioner (A) vide which he has set aside the confiscation of the goods, redemption fine and the penalty as confirmed against the respondents by the adjudicating authority.2. Learned JDR has contended that once the goods were found to be unaccounted in the factory premises of the respondents, they were liable to be confiscated and the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly set aside the confiscation and the redemption fine and penalty by reversing the order-in-original in that regard, without any legal justification.3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has contended that the respondents, a 100% EOU were not required to maintain the RG-I register and that the duty confirmed against them on the intermediate product (DMO) had already been paid by them. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent to which it has been contested by the revenue is perfectly va...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kumar Steels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT959TriDel

1. In both the appeals, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned orders-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the redemption fine and the penalty as imposed on them by the adjudicating authority.2. The facts are not much in dispute. On visiting the factory premises of the respondent No. 1 some finished goods were found lying excess and unaccounted in the statutory record. The value of those goods was Rs. 63,000/-. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of those goods and allowed redemption of the same on payment of fine of Rs. 7,000/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) has maintained that order. But reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 6,000/- and penalty to Rs. 2,000/-. Similarly on visiting the factory premises of respondent No. 2 some finished goods were also found lying excess and unaccounted in the statutory record. The value of those goods was Rs. 74,761/-. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscati...

Tara Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT758TriDel

1. These two appeals raise a common question. The method of valuation of goods produced on job work basis.2. The appellants manufacture 'Wool Tops' on job work basis out of raw wool received from parties for whom the job work is undertaken. They worked out the assessable value (for Central Excise purposes) of wool tops as the aggregate of the cost of raw material and their job work charges and paid duty on the basis of such assessable value. Under the impugned order, differential duty has been demanded on the basis that the goods should have been valued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 which came into force w.e.f. 1-7-2000. We read that Rule : "Rule 8. Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value shall be one hundred and fifteen per cent of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods".A perusal of the above Rule makes it clear that it re...

Anil Jatia and ors. Vs. Cc, (Gen)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC276

1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common Order-in-Original dated 4.5.2000 vide which the Commissioner of Customs has ordered the confiscation of the seized goods (polyester curtain cloth and polyester suiting cloth) and imposed penalty of various amounts, as detailed therein, on the appellants.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeals may briefly be stated as under: On 27.1.1998, the Preventive Branch of New Customs House, New Delhi, conducted raid on the premises of appellant, M/s Prakash Transport at East Moti Bagh, Sarai Rohila, Delhi. As a result of search, polyester textile fabric for curtains and suitings, measuring 66,061.2 metres valued at Rs. 66,06,120 was recovered which was seized after preparing Panchnama at the spot. On demand, Shri Vinod Jindal, Manager, who was present in the premises, could produce only one Bill of Entry No. 345/98 dated 14.1.1998. The scrutiny of said Bill of Entry revealed the names of the importer and exp...

Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. State Bank of India

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2004)BC51

1. Respondent-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Bank) filed Suit No. 2248/93 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the four appellants (defendants 1 to 4) herein as also against Mrs. Rupam (as 5th defendant) for the recovery of Rs. 1,19,90,393.25 with interest and costs. Defendants 1 to 4 had also filed their written statement before the High Court. On 23.8.95, the Suit was ordered to be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal in view of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20.10.95. On 20.10.95, the matter was taken on file by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), as O.A. 1070/95 and default notice was ordered to be issued to the Counsel for the defendants by Registered Post and ordinary process for 5.1.1996. On 5.1.1996 also, fresh default notice was ordered to be issued...

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs. Tikam Singh

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 22nd April, 2003, passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 586/2001-entitled Shri Tikam Singh v. Delhi Vidyut Board and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent, Shri Tikam Singh, had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, averring therein that the respondent was a consumer in respect of electricity connection, bearing L.N. 602-1202155, installed at 143, West Guru Angad Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent, that the appellant in violation of Condition No. 21 of the Conditions of Supply, had levied misuse charges without issuing any notice. It was prayed by the respondent in the complaint filed by him that the app...

Smt. Uma Sehgal Vs. Manager, Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 13.7.1999 passed by District Forum, Janak Puri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1667/1997 - entitled Mrs. Uma Sehgal v. The Manager, Punjab National Bank. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are, that the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), with the grievance that she was maintaining a Savings Bank Account No. 13378 with the respondent Bank and had deposited Rs. 25,000/- in the said account through her husband Shri K.D. Sehgal on 2.5.1996. However, the cheque for Rs. 78,000/- issued by the complainant in favour of her husband was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the appellant as the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, deposited by the appellant on 2.5.1996 had not been credited in her account though an entry for the said amount had been made in her pass book, after two days of the d...