Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments

Va Tech Escher Wyss Flovel Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC583

2. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of turbine for hydro electric equipments and parts thereof. The appellants cleared the goods by availing the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. without payment of duty. As per the condition of the notification a manufacturer has to produce the certificate issued by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary (Finance) of the State Government or Union Territory that the goods in question are required for execution of Project approved by the Government of India and is financed by the World Bank, Asian Development Bank or any other International Organisation.4. Admitted facts are that the appellants at the time of clearance of the goods had not produced any such certificate. The goods were cleared in...

Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appeal filed by the appellants was allowed by the Tribunal. The Revenue filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal by following the observation in the case of CCE, Jaipur Vs Man Structurals Limited, 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-182-SC-CX, under : "It was for the Tribunal to determine, as a fact, whether the structural that the Department sought to make exigible to excise duty in the various appeals before it were new, identifiable goods which were produced as a result of manufacture or processes and which were marketable. Depending upon its conclusion on these aspects in each of the appeals before it, it was for the Tribunal to determine whether or not the goods in guest ion in each of these appeals were exigible to excise duty. In the judgment and order of the Tribunal that is under challenge the Tribunal has failed to consider the facts of even a single of the appeals before it. It has proceeded simply upon the basis...

Shree Baidyanat Ayurved Bhawan Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT42TriDel

1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd., is whether "Shankha Pushpi" and "Janam Ghunti", manufactured by them is classifiable under sub-Heading No. 3003.31 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them, or under sub-Heading No. 3003.39 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). under the impugned order.2. Shri Vivek Kohli, learned Advocate, submitted that both the impugned products "shankha Pushpi" and "Janam Ghunti", are classical Ayurvedic Medicine, classifiable under sub-Heading No. 3003.31 as these are manufactured in accordance with the formulas given in the Authoritative textbooks, that "Shankha Pushpi" is manufactured in accordance with the formulae prescribed in the Authoritative Textbook "Ayurved Sara Sangrah" and Janam Ghunti" is manufactured in accordance with the formulae prescribed in "Siddha Bhaishjaya Manimala" - Authoritative text books on Ayurveda; that both these text books are speci...

Rama Vision Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT518TriDel

1. We find merit in the complaint of the appellant that the respondent could not have adjusted the amount of Rs. 2,78,623/- towards the duty liability under orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals), dated 23-10-2003 and 28-10-2003. The applicant submits that even before expiry of three months time due to it for filing appeal against orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondent has adjusted the above amount towards liability under the orders dated 23-10-2003 and 28-10-2003. It is the submission of the appellant that the action of the respondent is without any bona fides. The learned DR for the respondent submits that the recovery was made pursuant to the directions contained in the Central Excise, Mamal, Part III regarding "Recovery of Dues". We are not satisfied with this explanation. When there is specific direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 24-12-2003 to refund the entire amount, the respondent could not have adjusted the amount of Rs. 2,78,623/- out of the amount ...

British Health Products (India) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT346TriDel

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. British Health Products, the issue relates to the eligibility to get interest on delayed refund claim.2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture health products and medicines etc.; that certain dispute arose regarding the valuation of their goods and eligibility to avail benefit of Notification No. 175/86; that as the Commissioner of Central Excise upheld the method of valuation proposed in the show cause notice, they had started paying the duty under protest; that the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 891-902/99-A, dated 25-6-99 [2003 (162) E.L.T. 886 (T)] allowed the Appeal filed by them; that the Department filed an Appeal before the Supreme Court which was also rejected on 7-4-2000. He, further, mentioned that on receipt of the orders of the Tribunal, they had filed a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act on 20-7-99; that the Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund under Order-in-Original...

Jayanta Glass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC615

1. The dispute relates to the period for which the applicant is entitled to claim interest. According to the applicant, it is entitled to interest from 5-2-98 taking into consideration, its refund application filed on 5-2-98. The respondent on the other hand has submitted that relevant date is 6-12-2001, namely, the date of application for refund after the final order was passed by this Tribunal on 31-10-2001. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that his stand is supported by a decision bf the Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Coils (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata [2003 (153) E.L.T.290 (Cal.) = 2002 (51) RLT 1011].2. Admittedly the applicant had filed his refund application on 5-2-98 on the basis of Order-in-Original No. 23/CH 70 COMMR/CE/Calcutta-III/Adjn/97, dated 31-10-97. The above application was rejected as time-barred by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner.Appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed.Thereafter the party filed an appeal before ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lohia Starlinger Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT92TriDel

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents made export of two machines, namely, Tape Extrusion Line Model E-90B with 180 Precison Cross Winders and Circular Weaving Machine LSL 4 (SPL) and claimed the benefit under DEPB Scheme. A SCN was issued to the respondents on the ground that in fact a Tabular fabric manufacturing plant was exported by the respondent and this plant is not entitled for draw back under the DEPB Scheme.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order after considering the evidence on record and after taking into consideration the contract between the respondents and their customers held that both the machines arc different and distinct in nature and are classifiable under different chapter headings, therefore, it is not complete tabular fabric manufacturing plant. The contention of the Revenue is that it is complete tabular fabric manufacturing plant an...

Friends Auto (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT228TriDel

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Springs and Spring Leaves for use in motor vehicles. On 26-3-97, a team of Central Excise Officers visited their factory and verified the physical stock of the finished goods, whereupon a shortage of goods valued at Rs. 1,98,549/- involving Central Excise Duty of Rs. 29,782.48 was found vis-a-vis RG-1 balance. The stock verification was done under a Panchnama in the presence of Shri M.S. Chawla, Director of the appellant-company and two other witnesses. The shortage was found of 10 varieties of finished goods as per the Annexure to the Panchnama. Shri M.S Chawla instantly paid the duty of Rs. 29,782.48 on the goods found short. In his statement given to the officers on the spot, Shri Chawla acknowledged the fact that the stock-taking was conducted in his presence as well as in the presence of independent witnesses. He also stated that the production of the day was not taken into account in the stock-taking process. Regarding the shor...

National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Lloyd Insulations ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi235; 2004(1)ARBLR306(Delhi); 2004(109)AWC906; 2004(73)DRJ142

R.C. Jain, J.1. 'Can a part of the arbitral award be enforced during the pendency of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the `Act') seeking the setting aside of the other part of the award', is the short but important question which we have been called upon to answer in the present appeal.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are in a narrow compass. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to the arbitral tribunal constituted by the sole arbitrator namely Mr.Justice P.K.Bahri. Several claims and counter-claims were preferred by the parties before the arbitrator. The learned arbitrator vide his award dated 9th January, 2001 awarded a sum of Rs.13,97,072.24 in favor of the claimant Lloyd Insulation (India) Ltd. and a sum of Rs.9,85,316/- towards counter-claim in favor of M/s.National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. with the following break-up:-'28. AMOUNT DUE TO THE CLAIMANT(i)...

Harman Electronics P. Ltd. Vs. National Panasonic India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2004)BC535; 110(2004)DLT138; 2004(73)DRJ307

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order of District and Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 3rd February,2003 in CC No.1549 whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application of the accused questioning the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the complaint of the complainant.2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the cheque was issued in Chandigarh. The place of business of the complainant is in Chandigarh. The place of business of the petitioners is also at Chandigarh and cheque was presented in Chandigarh also delivered and returned at Chandigarh. However, notice under Section 138 was sent from New Delhi. Counsel submits that majority of the acts which are necessary to constitute the offence were done in Chandigarh, even notice sent from Delhi was received in Chandigarh, thereforee, the Delhi Courts had not jurisdiction to try a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments.3. Counsel for the respondent submits that in the Judgment of S...