Delhi Court September 2003 Judgments

Sh. Subash Chander Kakkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2003Delhi460; 107(2003)DLT539; 2003(71)DRJ130; (2004)136PLR12

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Rule. The matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.2. The present petition has been filed because respondents have failed to mutate the property No. F-14-AB(SS), Moti Nagar, New Delhi in the name of the petitioner. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner's father (late Sh. Dina Nath) was recorded as the owner of the said property. The petitioner's father died on 11th February, 2000. The petitioner's father was allotted the said property by an allotment letter dated 30.4.1956. Thereafter by a lease dated 30th July, 1969 the petitioner's father was granted the said property on lease for 99 years. Late Sh.Dina Nath left behind the petitioner, another brother and two sisters of the petitioner as the legal heiRs. The petitioner's brother and sisters have given relinquishment deeds in favor of the petitioner in respect of the said property. On the basis of the registered Will, Relinquishment Deeds, Death Certificate and ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Jullundhur Engineering Company and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)41; 2003(3)ARBLR472(Delhi); 109(2004)DLT260; 2003(71)DRJ435; 2004(1)RAJ195

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. In the matter of disputes between the parties, the matter was referred to Arbitration. The arbitrator after hearing the parties made and published his award on 29.7.1999. This award was filed in Court. On receiving notice of filing of the award in Court, the appellant filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award on the ground that the arbitrator had misconducted himself and the proceedings. These objections were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge by the impugned order dated 25th July, 2001. After dismissing objections, the court made the award a rule of the Court and decree in terms of the award was passed. The impugned order dismissing objections to the award has now been challenged by the appellant by filing this appeal.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that after a decree has been passed by the trial court in terms of Section 17 of...

C.C.E. Vs. Denso India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that MODVAT credit on Plastic Crates which are used by the Respondents to pack their highly sensitive auto parts are eligible for the benefit of the MODVAT credit as packing material.3. The contention of the Revenue is that crates in question are not packing material. They are only used for transportation of the goods and its is only a secondary packing.4. The contention of the respondents is that the electrical parts are put in the polythene wrapper and, thereafter, were put in the container and they were added the value of containers for the assessment of the value of their final product for the Central Excise duty. The respondents relied upon the Central Board of Excise and Customs Circular dated 13.9.95 where the Board has clarified that MODVAT credit on container is available under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 if their ...

Nath Soot Gola Factory Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC482

1. None has come present on behalf of the applicants who have moved this ROM application. No request for adjournment has been also received from them. We find from the record that earlier on number of occasions, the ROM application had been adjournment on the request of the counsel.It appears that the applicants are not interested in pursuing the ROM application and as such the same is dismissed as not contested.2. At this stage, the learned counsel has come present and stated that due to some personal reasons, he could not reach in time. We, therefore, in the interest of justice, recall the above order and restore the ROM application of the applicants.3. Through the present ROM application, the applicants have sought rectification of the impugned final order dated 19.2.2002 vide which their appeal against the order-in-appeal was dismissed.4. The learned counsel has contended that in para 6 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has observed that "No doubt, the report is silent regarding...

Hgi Automotives (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT228TriDel

1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore are being taken up together.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods. On the visit by Central Excise Officers, it was found that there are certain excess inputs as well as the final product compared to their statutory record. The adjudicating authority after issuing a show cause notice confiscated the goods found in excess and imposed penalty. Appellants filed appeals and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order set aside the confiscation in respect of the inputs and upheld the confiscation of finished goods found in excess to RG-I record, and reduces the amount of penalty.4. The only issue involved in these appeals is whether finished goods which were found in excess were liable for confiscation and the appellants were also liable for penalty. The appellants rel...

Namaskar Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT235TriDel

1. Challenge in this appeal, at the instance of the importer, is against the orders passed by the Commissioner, dated 31-1-2002 enhancing the value of old and used tyres imported and imposing fine and penalty on the importers. The appellant had imported two consignments of old used tyres under Bills of Entry Nos. F11 and F12, dated 14-10-99 declaring their value at Rs. 92,794/- and Rs. 69,595/- respectively. Entertaining a doubt about the value of the consignment as also description of the tyres the goods were seized and later released provisionally. Show cause notice was issued calling upon the appellant to show cause why the declared total value of Rs. 1,62,389/- should not be revised and enhanced to Rs. 10,57,370/- and customs duty demanded on that basis. Penalty was also sought to be imposed. The appellant contended that goods were correctly declared. Commissioner thereafter passed the impugned order directing confiscation of the imported tyres.2. It is contended by the appellant ...

Sriyansh Knitters Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC122

1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the Deputy Commissioner who after sanctioning the refund claim of the appellants, directed that the same be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund.2. None has come present on behalf of the appellants in spite of service of notice on them for today's hearing. No request for adjournment has been also received from the appellants. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned SDR.3. We have perused the record. The perusal of the impugned order under appeal shows that the appellants had failed to prove that the incidence of duty was not passed on to the consumer. The appellants, no doubt imported the raw material, for captive consumption but still they were required to prove that incidence of duty had not been passed on by them to the consumer in view of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Sol...

Ate Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC604

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad dated 29-9-1997.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of textile machinery and parts thereof. One of the inputs was aluminium alloys/ingots. Under the various orders passed by the Central Government, deemed credit is provided on such aluminium alloys/ingots falling under Heading 76.01 of the Central Excise Tariff. Appellant had been purchasing aluminium alloys/ingots from M/s. Baheti Metal and Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad.The appellant was availing deemed credit on the aluminium ingots purchased from Baheti Metal. The present proceedings arise out a show cause notice dated 5-8-1993 proposing to deny the deemed credit taken by the appellant for the period 6-6-1988 to 20-5-1991. Apart from the arguments addressed on merits, the assessee contended before the Commissioner that the demand is barred by limitation. According to the assessee since it was n...

Recron Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC832

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Recron Synthetics Ltd., the issues involved are whether they are eligible to the Modvat credit of the duty paid on capital goods financed by the Finance Company and whether the show cause notice issued for denying the Modvat credit is time barred.2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants had procured capital goods by entering into lease agreement with the financial institutions namely M/s. HDFC Ltd. and M/s. Sundaran Finance Ltd.; that HDFC only financed the cost of the capital goods and did not finance the Central Excise duty payable on such capital goods; that M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. financed the entire cost of the capital goods including the duty payable on such capital goods; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order has disallowed the Modvat credit on the ground that the Appellants had not submitted the copy of agreement or requisite Certificate of the Finance Company before availing the Modvat credit of the du...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC658

1. In this appeal, filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether the Modvat credit of the duty paid on capital goods used in power plant is available to M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. 2. Shri D.N. Chaudhary, learned SDR, submitted that the Modvat credit of the duty paid on capital goods is not available to the Respondents as the power plant has been used exclusively in the manufacture of steam which in turn has been used to generate electricity which is not excisable; that Rules 57R(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 clearly provides that no credit of duty on capital goods is permissible which are used exclusively in the manufacture of final products which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise or are chargeable to nil rate of duty that steam/electricity cannot also be treated as intermediate products for the manufacture of coal based sponge iron and other iron and steel products. The learned SDR, further, submitted that even before the erection of the power plant in ...