Delhi Court September 2003 Judgments

Pitamber Coated Paper Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT297TriDel

1. This appeal is at the instance of the assessee. The order impugned is passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur confirming the duty demand of Rs. 1, 06, 39, 037/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. The duty was confirmed on the ground that since the appellants are availing exemption on final product, namely, coated paper under Notification No.3/2001-CE dated 1.3.2001, they are liable t pay duty on uncoated paper.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of coated and uncoated paper falling under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Notification No. 3/2001-CE grants exemption from payment of duty to paper and paper board or articles made therefrom upto the first clearance of an aggregate quantity of 3500 MTs in any financial year, subject t the condition that the pulp from which such paper is manufactured should have been made out of not less than 75% of non-conventional raw material. Adm...

Elex Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)LC719Tri(Delhi)

1. The above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the two impugned Orders one, dated 27-3-2002, vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner who confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties on them as detailed therein and another against the Order, dated 30-4-2002 through which the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the Order of the Deputy Commissioner regarding confiscation of flat knitting machines and imposition of redemption fine and penalty on them as detailed therein.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of flat knitting machines. Being a SSI unit, they had been availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 as amended and subsequent SSI Notifications including No. 8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98. But they were found using the brand name "ELEX" on those machines which belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works and as such they were not entitled to avail the benefit of SSI...

Mohan Sales (India) Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC682

1. These appeals challenge assessment of imported goods to Customs duty after enhancing their declared value. The factual particulars of declared value, enhanced assessable value etc. are available in the table reproduced below : "SI. No.Bill of Entry No. & Date Description of imported Goods Declared Value Unit per piece Assessed Value Unit per piece Assessed Value of Goods (Rs.) US$0.78 (MRP Rs. 75/-, 0.60 (MRP Rs. 65/-, 0.85 (MRP Rs. 85/-) US $ 1.00 (MRP Rs. 100/- 1.00 (MRP Rs. 100/- 1.40 (MRP Rs. 140/-) 23,01,022/- US $ 0.78 (MRP Rs. 75/-) 0.85 (MRP Rs. 85/-) 1.50 (MRP Rs. 150/-) 0.78 (MRP Rs. 75/-) US $ 0.95 (MRP Rs. 100/-) 1.10 (MRP Rs. 110/-) 1.50 (MRP Rs. 175/-) 1.00 (MRP Rs. 100/-) US $ 0.75 (MRP Rs. 75/-) US $ 1.29 (MRP Rs. 110/-) 25,24,442/- US $ 0.78 (MRP Rs. 75/- 0.78 (MRP Rs. 75/-) US $ 0.80 (MRP Rs. 80/-) 0.80 (MRP Rs. 80/-) 18,54,350/- SG $ 0.20 (MRP Rs. 15/-) SG S 0.365 (MRP Rs. 26/-) 3.13,603/- Battery Maxell AAA Size Dry Battery SG $ 0.07 (MRP Rs. 5/- ICD/180/01 ...

Hiren Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC650

1. In these 2 appeals, filed by M/s. Hiren Aluminium Ltd. and M/s.Pankaj Extrusions Ltd., the common issue involved is whether aluminium scrap imported by them is liable for confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act.2. Shri C. Hari Shanker, learned Advocate, submitted that both the appellants imported aluminium scrap of used Beverage cans (UBC) Taldork as per ISRI specifications; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Orders, have confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalty holding that the goods do not conform to the specifications for Taldork grade. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that ISRI specifications are framed basically for avoiding the dispute between the buyers and sellers and are merely the guidelines; that this has been clarified in preface to the ISRI specification which states that "specification of scrap materials are subject to negotiation between buyer and seller.Specifications vary accor...

Elex Knitting Machinery Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT499TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties on the Appellants as detailed therein.2. The Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of flat knitting machines. They had been availing the SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE, dated 28-2-93 as amended. But they were found using the brand name "ELEX" on those machines which belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works and as such according to the C. Ex. Authorities they were not entitled to avail the benefit of said notification. They were, accordingly, served a show cause notice raising the duty demand of Rs. 12,21,834/- for the period 1-10-94 to 16-9-98 and proposing imposition of penalty and payment of interest. After getting their reply, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed equal amount of penalty payable wit...

Kailash Metals Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 8.11.2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order-in-original of the Asstt. Commissioner who confirmed the duty demand, ordered the confiscation of the goods with an option to get the same redeemed on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalty, as detailed therein.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium circles falling under heading 7606.10 of the CETA. They did not take any licence by getting themselves registered under the Central Excise Act. They were using aluminium circles for the manufacture of their final products aluminium utensils. Since their final product was exempt from duty, they were liable to pay duty on the aluminium circles which they did not pay. On taking out the physical verification of the goods, certain goods were also found lying an accounted in the factory for having been not entered in the...

Albert David Limited and Shri D. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC24

1. The Appellants M/s . Albers David Ltd. are contesting the claim of the department that plastic bottles which are manufactured and cleared by them for captive consumption for being used in the packing/filling of I.V. Fluids can be subjected to excise duty. It was their argument before the Adjudicting Authority that no manufacture of "plastic bottles" ever takes place and the levy cannot be based on as possibility. Besides, they have challenged the proposal on the ground of limitation. The Commissioner in the Adjudication order has confirmed the duty demand amounting to Rs. 2, 33, 69, 238/- and imposed penalty of equal amount against the firm under Section 11-AC and ordered recovery of interest. Penalty of Rs. 1, 00, 000/- has also been imposed on D. Chitlangia, G.M. (Commercial) of the firm.3. It is pleaded that so-called plastic bottles are formed in a continuous, integrated and uninterrupted process of manufacture of packing of intravenous (IV) Fluids. The same do not have separat...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Geeta Kakkar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC478; 2005ACJ1977; 2003VIAD(Delhi)362; 2003(71)DRJ4

S.K.Mahajan, J. 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, they have been disposed of by this common order. A few facts relevant in deciding these appeals are: On 30.6.1982 when the deceased was going on his two-wheeler scooter near the Khyber Pass at about 9:15 p.m. he was hit from behind by a DTC bus which fled away from the scene after hitting the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased received injuries, which proved to be fatal. One Mr. Anil Mittal who was stated to be going behind the deceased on his motorcycle having witnessed the accident made a report about the same to the police and after investigation an FIR was registered. The driver of the DTC bus was arrested and the case, I am informed, is pending against the driver of the bus for his having caused death by rash and negligent driving. The appellants who are the wife and children of the deceased filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tri...

Shri Rajiv Lochan Vs. Shri Narender Nath

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)152; AIR2004Delhi48; 106(2003)DLT427; 2003(70)DRJ649

R.C. Jain, J.1. This case raises an important question of law-- 'Whether an order passed by an Additional District Judge ( referred to as Superior Court) during the pendency of the trial may be reviewed by a Civil Judge (referred to as Inferior Court) after the case/proceedings were transferred to his Court owning to the statutory change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the courts?'2. The facts are in a narrow compass. Rajiv Lochan-petitioner herein had filed a suit for possession of the premises and recovery of Rs. 2,85,573/- as arrears of rent in the Court of the District Judge Delhi. The suit was made over to the Additional District Judge, Delhi for trial and disposal in accordance with law. The suit was decreed pursuant to a compromise between the parties on 21.4.98. The plaintiff moved an application under Sections 151, 152, 153 CPC seeking certain clarifications in respect of the said compromise recorded by the Court. The said applications were disposed of by Ms. Sunita Gupta lea...

Shri VipIn Mehra Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR178(Delhi); 106(2003)DLT516; 2003(70)DRJ677; 2003(3)RAJ435

R.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only) is with the prayer to restrain the respondent from discontinuing or disconnecting the supply of signals to the petitioner's cable network.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is running a cable distribution network under the name and style of M/s World Vision at Model Town, Delhi. The respondent is a broadcaster providing various channels to the cable operators through out the country. According to the petitioner in the year 2002 vide a Subscription Agreement dated 14.2.2002 he was provided transmission rights of various channels by respondent for the areas comprised of Model Town Phase I, II and III, MCD Colony and Water Supply Colony, Delhi. subsequently, on his request the respondent agreed to extend his operations to the adjoining areas also consisting of Azad Pur, Adarsh Nagar, Naniwala...