Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. G.L. Metalica (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT270TriDel

1. In this Appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether refund of duty is to be sanctioned to M/s. G. L. Metalica (P) Ltd. 2. Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the respondents manufacture trimmed and untrimmed sheets/circles of Copper for using them in the manufacture of handicrafts/utensils; that they were discharging the duty liability at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- PMT; that in the case of M/s. Mewar Bartan Nirman Udyog, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 423/2002-B, dated 11-9-2002; 2002 (146) E.L.T. 644 (T) has held that the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 (S.No. 181) would be available to them; that following the said decision of the Tribunal the respondents had filed the refund claim of the duty paid by them which was rejected by Deputy Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 78/2003, dated 6-8-03; that However, Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order has allowed the Appeal on the ground that...

C.C. and C.E. Vs. S. Kumar Synfab Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC755

1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether benefit of Notification No. 53/88-CE (Serial No. 39) is available to M/s. S. Kumar Synfab Ltd. 2. The respondents have requested in their letter dated 1.9.2004 to decide the matter on merit after taking into consideration the grounds of Cross Objection filed by them. We, therefore, heard Shri V. Valte, learned SDR and perused the records.3. The learned SDR submitted that the respondents manufacture Dobby Designer Cards without registering themselves as manufacturer with the Central Excise Department; that the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order, has held that dobby cards are manufactured from designed rolls of plastic and paper procured from outside on payment of duty and thus the respondents are eligible to avail of exemption under Notification No. 53/88-CE; that the benefit of this Notification is not available as the condition specified in the notification to the effect that the final product should...

Commissioner of Customs (import Vs. National Heart Centre of

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC179

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by Revenue is whether demand of Customs duty can be made from M/s. National Heart Centre of Hypertension even after more than 5 years of importing the medical equipment availing the benefit of Notification No. 64/88 Cus.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondent. However, the respondents has submitted written submissions in lieu of personal hearing. We, therefore, heard Shri O.P. Arora, learned Senior Departmental Representative, and perused the records.Learned Senior Departmental Representative mentioned that the respondents had imported a computerised stress system with treadmill on 7.4.90 and availed the benefit of Notification No. 64/88 Cus.Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 14.7.2000 was issued to them for demanding the Customs duty as they had not complied with the conditions stipulated to the Notification. The Addl. Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 42/2002 dated 30.8.2002 confiscated the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jepika Paints

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT54TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Revenue is whether the Respondents, M/s. Jepika Paints, were removing the excisable goods manufactured by them, bearing the brand name belonging to M/s. Jepika Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. 2. Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR, mentioned that the Central Excise Officers on 5-10-1995 visited the factory premises of the Respondents who manufacture oil bound distemper, Synthetic enamel paint, etc. which are cleared under the brand name "JEPIKA"; that Shri Bharat Bhushan Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Jepika Paints, deposed in his statement dated 5-10-1998 that brand name "JEPIKA" is registered in the name of M/s.Jepika Chemicals Industries Pvt. Ltd. and that from the beginning i.e.8-5-1993 he had manufactured Jepika brand oil bound distemper, etc.; that only subsequently after more than five months, in his statement dated 13-3-1996, Shri B.B. Gupta claimed that "JEPIKA" Brand had been sold to him by Sale Deed 10-1-1994 for a consideration of Rs. 21,0...

Cce Vs. Standard Niwar Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT280TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has reversed the order in original and set aside the duty and penalty against the respondents as confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The learned SDR has contended that duty and penalty has been wrongly set aside against the respondents by the Commissioner (Appeals), in the face of ample evidence to show that respondents had collected duty from the buyers but not paid to the Government. He has further argued that there is no time limit for involving Section 11-D of the Act for affecting recovery of Govt dues.2. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order by contending the Section 11-D has got no application to the case of the respondents as per the allegations made in the show cause notice and even otherwise also after a period of more than 5 years, no duty demand could not be raised by the Revenue.4. The bare perusal of the show...

Saraya Distillary Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT214TriDel

1. Shri S. P. Ojha, ld. Consultant pleaded that the appellants are receiving molasses falling under sub-heading No. 1703.10 of the Schedule to the CETA from different factories. Controlled molasses is used exclusively for manufacture of country liquor and de-controlled molasses is used for the manufacture of Indian made foreign liquor and ethyl alcohol. A part of ethyl alcohol is converted into de-natured ethyl alcohol. The Excise Department of State Government has full control over the use of controlled molasses in manufacture of country liquor and utilisation of the de-controlled molasses for manufacture of Indian made foreign liquor and ethyl alcohol and subsequent use of ethyl alcohol.2. The appellants receive de-controlled molasses on invoices and on receipt in the factory it is weighed and entered in RG-23A Part I register. Only this molasses is used for manufacture of ethyl alcohol and de-natured ethyl alcohol. The State Excise Inspector posted at the factory gives certificate ...

Executive Engineer, Mpseb Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order it is held that the fabrication by cutting and punching of holes in angles and duty paid channels transmission towers amounts to manufacture and 10% notional profit is to be added in the cost of production.3. We find that issue in respect manufacture is already covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of additional Supdt., Engineer v.CCE, Bhopal vide final order of A/379/03-NB-C dated 16.7.2003 where the tribunal held that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. In respect of the addition of 10% profit, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCC Pole Factory v. CCE-2002 (158) ELT 429 held that in case of captive consumption of the goods fabricated by the Electricity Board which are used for lines and transmission of electric energy, the addition of 10% notional profit is not sustainable in view of the above decision of the...

Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. Ltd. Vs. Urvashi Enterprises Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT569

A.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition is filed by the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. under Section 433 of the Companies Act praying for winding up of the respondent company. While admitting this petition on 1.5.2001, following order was passed:'CP 387/2000This petition is filed under Section 433 of the Companies Act praying for the winding up of the respondent company on the ground that the respondent company is indebted to the petitioner but is unable to repay the debt. Even though the petitioner had issued a statutory notice dated 3rd March, 2000 under Section 434 of the Companies Act to the registered office of the respondent company, the respondent did not even care to send a reply. Even to the notice issued by this Court to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted, there is no response from the respondent. There is no representation for the respondent despite service of notice and no reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent.3. I have considered the averments in th...

R.L. Khashu and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)SLJ109(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners 12 in number, have filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the decision of respondent No. 3 posting petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to Udhampur branch of respondent No. 3 vide Annexure P-7 dated 9th October, 2003 by which the petitioner No. 1 was deployed as Branch Manager at the Udhampur Branch permanently. Similar order dated 6th September, 2003 was passed in respect of petitioner No. 2 who was posted as Field Officer at the Udhampur Branch and asked to report for duty immediately. The remaining petitioners also assail similar contemplating action against them. Petitioners seek a direction for status quo till normalcy is restored in the State of Jammu and Kashmir or in the alternative seek direction for posting to State Bank of India being sponsor Bank.2. Notice to show cause in the case had been issued. Pleadings have been completed. Even though there are no interim orders passed, respondents have not taken any precipitative action. During the co...

Pushpa Kumari and ors. Vs. Gail (India) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT192; 2005(81)DRJ181; 2005(3)SLJ352(Delhi)

B.A. Khan, J.1. This appeal is directed against writ court orders dated 17.3.2004 and 6.9.2004 dismissing appellants' writ petition.2. Appellants are visually handicapped persons. They were selected for on-job training with Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) which was later extended by six months more. They were then asked to appear for computer proficiency test and interview by letter dated 31.8.2001 and were engaged as Assistant (Training) (S-3 Level) for one year on a consolidated stipend of Rs.6000/- per month by order passed by respondents in October 2001 and subject to various terms and conditions, one of which stipulated that period of training shall not be reckoned as service with GAIL. They were again called for computer proficiency test and interview in September 2002. They claim that they appeared in this test and interview but its result was not declared for which they filed WP(C) No. 17102-04/04 which was later dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 27.10.2004. Later the...