Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments

Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC228

1. This case is arising in second round of litigation. In the first round, an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in adjudication of show-cause notice dated 15.12.94 and corrigendum thereof dated 27.10.95 issued to the appellants, was taken in Appeal (E/359/98-NB(DB)) to this Tribunal, wherein the said order was set aside as per Final Order No. A/45572000-NB(DB) dated 31.5.2000, whereby the case was remanded to the Commissioner for re-quantification of duty in terms of the order. The total demand of duty confirmed against the appellants under the aforesaid order of the Commissioner was to the tune of Rs. 15,53,867 and the penalty imposed on the party under the order was Rs. 3 lakhs. Pursuant to the remand order of this Tribunal, the Commissioner re-quantifid the demand of duty at Rs. 25,147, ordered appropriation of that amount from the pre-deposit (cash) of Rs. 1.5 lakhs made by the party in compliance with the Tribunal's interim order dated 6.3.98 and allowed refund o...

Cce Vs. Satia Paper Mills and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT178TriDel

1. In these appeals, filed by revenue, the common issue involved is whether "bleach liquor" manufactured by the Respondents is chargeable to Central Excise duty.2. We heard Shri Virag Gupta, learned DR and Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate. The learned DR submitted that the Respondents manufacture Paper and Paper Board and avail of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs vised in the manufacture of their final products; that an intermediate product, namely, Bleach Liquor, falling under sub-heading No. 2828.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act emerges during the manufacture of Paper which is used in the continuous process of manufacture of paper; that the Commissioner (Appeals) in different Orders-in-Appeal has held that the bleach liquor is not marketable as it has a very short shelf life and it is not possible to take it out from the continuous process and market it; that the Department has not produced any evidence that the impugned product is marketable and that...

Uniproducts (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT299TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of floor coverings. They claimed classification of the goods manufactured by them under sub-heading 5703.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Goods under that sub-heading were exempt. However, Commissioner of Central Excise held under his order, dated 6-1-1998 that the goods are correctly classifiable under sub-heading 5303.90. Goods under that heading were dutiable. The appellant challenged the classification order before this Tribunal and succeeded under Final Order No. 44-47/2000, dated 11-2-2001 - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 325 (T).2. The appellant claimed consequential refund of about Rs. 27 lakh for the period January 1998 to November 1998. This claim has been rejected by the lower authorities on the ground of unjust enrichment. It is the appellant's sub- mission that unjust enrichment is not attracted to the appellant's case. Appellant's contention is that they had sold the goods at the same price as before, after duty was levied under the order ...

Pawan Foam Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC518

1. The miscellaneous application seeks to restore the two appeals which were dismissed for non-prosecution as per Final Order No.A/533-34/03-NB(C) dated 1.10.2003. It is stated that the Counsel for the appellants could not attend the hearing of the case on 1.10.2003 on account of his illness and that his non-appearance on that day was not intentional. After hearing both sides, we are inclined to accept the above explanation. Accordingly, we recall the Final Order dated 1.10.2003 and restore the appeals to the respective original numbers.We also take up the appeals for final disposal.2. The appellants imported ten consignments of Toluene Di-Isocyanate (TDI, for short) during the period 28.4.94 to 6.3.95 as raw material for the manufacture of Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU, for short). The consignments were cleared against payment of customs duty at the concession rate of 20% ad valorem in terms of Notification No.36/94-Cus dated 1.3.94 which exempted Isocyanates of Chapter 28 of the F...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cement Corporation of India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None for the respondents. No request has also been received on their behalf for adjournment. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.In this appeal which has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue to the denial of modvat credit to the respondents on the aerial rope of Rs. 73512/-. The adjudicating authority disallowed modvat credit on this item and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondents. The commissioner (Appeals) has reversed that order.2. I have heard the learned JDR. The issue regarding the availability of modvat credit on the aerial rope to an assessee engaged in the manufacture of cement, already stands decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in Jay Pee Rewa vs. CCE, 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-97-SC-CX. The Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the ratio of law in these cases and allowed modvat credit to the respondents. Therefore, I do not find any illegality committed by he Commissioner ...

Jubilant Organosys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC127

1. The common issue involved in these three Appeals, filed by M/s.Jubilant Organosys Ltd., is whether their product "Anpol" is classifiable under sub-heading No. 3405.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order, or under Heading No. 14.01 as claimed by the appellants.2.1 Shri D. Sharma, learned Consultant, submitted that the Appellants manufacture poultry feed supplements using corncob produced by subjecting corncobs to process of grinding and sieving; that the residue, in the form of grit, generated during the processing of corncob is further subjected to the process of grinding and sieving and is graded according to size and is packed in bags under the brand name ANPOL; that the said grit being having high oil and water absorption capacity and being tough and free of dust is generally used in tumbling machines, vibro finishing machines, barrel finishing machines as polishing medium; that processing of unmanufa...

Deeshe Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)293

1. This stay application has been filed by the assessee praying therein for the stay of recovery of demand of Rs. 2,42,78,678/- This stay application came up for hearing on 11th February, 2004 when the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that there are other applications also filed by the same assessee pertaining to other years being Stay No. 60/Del/2004, 61/Del/2004 and 62/Del/2004 and it was in this background suggested that the applications No.68 & 69/Del/2004 which were posted for hearing be adjourned to some other date. It was the submission of assessee that the facts and the issues involved in all the stay applications are common and all the demands of the Revenue have emanated out of a common search. To the request of the assessee so made it was pointed out to the assessee to explain as to what prejudice would it cause if these applications, which were posted, were heard prior to the applications, which were not listed. To this, query of the bench the Ld. AR contended tha...

Balwanti Devi Widow of Late Shri Zile Singh and ors. Vs. Surjit Singh ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC698; 2005ACJ942; 110(2004)DLT195; 2004(73)DRJ337

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. On 27th November, 1979 an accident took place near the R.K. Puram crossing between a three wheeler scooter and a bus of the Delhi Transport Corporation (for short the DTC). Rambir Singh, son of Appellants No.1 and 2 was a passenger in the scooter and died as a result of the accident. At that time, the deceased was about 25 years of age. He had completed his graduation and was a final year student of a BAMS degree course in Ahinsa Ayurvedic College, Shankar Road, New Delhi. 2. The Appellants (Appellant No.2 has since died) filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short the MACT) seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of their son. Respondent No.1 is the driver of the bus while Respondent No.2 is the DTC and owner of the bus. Respondent No.3 is the driver of the scooter while Respondents No.4 and 5 are the owners of the scooter. Before the learned MACT, the Respondents (except DTC) were proceeded against ex parte. R...

Shri J.L. Barua Vs. Shri Sanjay Das Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT629; 2004(75)DRJ396

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. No representation/appearance has been put in for the Respondent on 14.8.2003 or today. It appears that the Plaintiff/Petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.51,000/- which was dismissed in default on 5.8.1998. An application for restoration of the suit was also dismissed on 21.1.1999 against which a Petition had been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was disposed of by Orders dated 4.4.2002 permitting the Petitioner to file either an application for restoration of suit or an Appeal. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has elected to file an application for restoration of set on 17.4.2002 i.e. within a fortnight of the disposal of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The application has been rejected by the Trial Court on the grounds that sufficient cause has not been shown for the delay. 2. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Kailash Devi v. Priti Mandal and another 1988(1) HLR 84, wherein it has been held that an a...

D.D. Gears Ltd. Vs. Secretary (Labour) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT218; 2004(73)DRJ406; [2004(102)FLR50]; 2004(3)SLJ309(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal J.1.This writ petition challenges the order dated 10th February 2000 passed by respondent No.1 Secretary Labour, NCT of Delhi under Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) prohibiting the lock out in the petitioner company as per the provisions of Sections 22 to 24 of the Act. The writ petition also challenges the order of reference dated 10th February 2000 by which the dispute qua payment of wages after 13th January 2000 under Section 10(1)(c) and (d) and Section 12(5) and the general demands of the workman have been referred for adjudication by respondent No.1. 2. The facts urged in the present writ petition by the petitioner are as follows: (a)The petitioner company was peacefully functioning till 1997 and in 1997, the respondent No.4 which is the Union of the workmen of the petitioner and some other employees indulged in illegal activities which eventually crippled the functioning of the factory of the petitioner. Consequently ...