Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

Amrit Paper Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC340

2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellant in respect of Rs. 8,42,385/- is rejected.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board falling under Chapter 48 of the Tariff. A Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 was issued whereby the product manufactured by the appellant was exempted from payment of duty during the month of March 2000. They availed the credit as well as cleared the goods under the exemption notification.Thereafter the appellant suo moto reversed the credit of Rs. 1,92,365/- to avail the exemption. Thereafter the appellant deposited the duty on 30-8-2000 for the month of March 2000 and also applied for refund of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,92,365/- which was already reversed by them. The above mentioned refund was allowed by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 13-12-2001. Thereafter, the appellant...

Cce Vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC657

1. The issue referred to the Larger Bench is whether modvat credit is admissible on capital goods used in mines.2. We have heard both sides. We note that in a recent judgment of September 2004 the Apex Court in CCE, Udaipur Vs. J.K. Udaipur Udyog - 2004 (171) ELT 289 (SC) has held that input credit is admissible only if the inputs are used in the factory of production and that explosives for blasting mines to excavate lime stone used in the manufacture of cement in a plant a few kilometers from mines did not qualify to be inputs on which credit could be taken either under Rule 57AB of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 or its amendment. In the light of this judgment we hold that the credit is not admissible on capital goods used in mines situated outside the factory premises. However, we note that throughout the proceedings the assessees have claimed that the mines are underground and, therefore, inside their factory premises. The plea is to be considered by the DB to whom the m...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. G.P.L. Polyfils Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT27TriDel

1. This order will dispose of the above captioned appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection preferred by the assessee against the common impugned order.2. The Revenue has contested the validity of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dropping the duty demand against the assessee after setting aside the order in original by holding that the product polyester staple fibre manufactured by the assessee, was not classifiable under Chapter 55 of the Tariff in view of Chapter Note 1 of Chapter 54 of the Tariff. The cross-objection had been preferred by the assessee on the ground that even no duty demand could be raised and confirmed by the adjudicating authority for want of service of proper show cause notice under Section 11A of the Act on the assessee.4. Chapter 54 of the Tariff, relates to man-made Filaments and its Chapter note I defines man-made fibres, as under :- "Throughout the First Schedule, the term man-made fibres" means staple fibres and filaments of organic poly...

Competent Busienss Machines Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The appellant made import of old and used photocopiers and filed Bill of Entry declaring the value as US$ 73,170 (C&F( (Rs. 34,02,405/-). This value was not accepted by the Revenue and SCN was issued for enhancement of the value and for confiscation of the goods on the ground that these are consumer good which requires specific licence for import.3. The adjudicating authority determined the value at US$ 1,30,050 (C&F) Rs. 60,47,325/- and ordered the confiscation of the goods and allowed to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 9,07,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 4,20,000/- was also imposed under Section 112(a) of Customs Act.4. The contention of the appellant is that at the time of import, the appellant filed a Chartered Engineer Certificate declaring the value of the goods as decland to in the BE. The contention is that the goods were again examined by the Charte...

Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC597

1. The benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 4/97-CE dated 1.3.97 has been disallowed on waste including noil yarn waste and guaranteed stock of manmade fabrics of polyester on the ground that the conditions stipulated in S. No. 110 of the Table thereto have not been fulfilled. Under S. No. 110 exemption is available to "all goods produced in a factory other than a factory producing manmade staple fibres or manmade filament yarns of organic polymers by manufacturing processes, either by polymerisation of organic polymers........." The finding of the department is that the waste arose in the course of manufacture of manmade staple/fibres by polymerisation of organic polymers and hence excluded from the benefit of the notification is based upon the report of the Chief Chemist, CRCL.2. We have heard both sides. The Chief Chemist, CRCL vide his report dated 4.8.97 has opined as under: Sub:- Production of Polyester Fibre using Dimethyl Taraspthlate (DMT) and monoethylene Glycol...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sanabil Impex (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT201TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 188/CE/APPL/KNP/04, dated 31-3-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the enhancement of the assessable value of the goods imported by M/s. Sanabil Impex (P) Ltd. 2. We have heard Shri S. M. Tata, learned SDR for the Revenue, and Shri T. D. Chopra, Representative, of the respondent company. The respondent had imported Brass Scrap Night and Ivory and filed Bill of Entry on 12-5-2000. The Additional Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No.25/02 dated 28-2-2002, enhanced the value of both the types of brass scrap on the basis of Floor Price Circular dated 13-12-1999 issued by the Mumbai Customs under which the minimum price of Brass Scrap Night has been fixed. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, under the impugned Order has set aside the Order-in-original on the ground that the transaction value has to be accepted for assessment unless the Department has evidence to prove that it is not the corr...

Additional Commissioner of Vs. Nestle India Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)53

1. Appeal in ITA No. 4545/Del/2000 is the appeal filed by the Revenue on 20th Nov., 2000, against the order of the CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi, dt.31st Aug., 2000, in the case of the assessee in relation to order of assessment under Section 143(3) for the asst. yr. 1997-98. In response, the assessee has filed on 12th Sept., 2002, a cross-objection numbered as CO No. 135/Del/2002. Appeal in ITA No. 2239/Del/2002 is the appeal filed by the assessee on 23 May, 2002, against the order of the CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, dt. 21st Feb., 2002, in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for the asst. yr.1998-99.2. As the common facts and disputes are involved in these appeals and the cross-objection, the same were argued together by the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative.We are disposing them by this consolidated order for convenience.3. The main dispute in these appeals pertains to the deduction claimed by the assessee-compa...

S.S. Chowdhary Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT622; 2005(79)DRJ711; 2006(2)SLJ249(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. These petitions raise a common question of law, and are based on facts which are similar in material content. The Petitioners have been convicted under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine. Both the Petitioners have filed appeals against Sentence, which has ordered to remain suspended during the pendency of the respective Appeals. The Petitioners claimed for the quashing of the dismissal order and for their reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The Petitioners also pray for subsistence allowance.2. Article 311 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that 'where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge' he may be dismissed from service. Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services Rules envisages an imposition of a penalty on a Government servant on the ground of con...

Satpal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT607; 2005(80)DRJ263; 2006(2)SLJ240(Delhi)

ORDER AND DISCIPLINE OF THE FORCEIn that he, at 1500 hrs on 23.9.98 at Goalpara BOP left the BOP with a civilian, namely, Tapas Kumar Manda, r/o Village Dakshinpara Ghojadanga area and consumed illicit alcohol and quarreled with civilian, in violation of Unit order No.HQ/127 Bn/SOP/97/22644-54 dated 01.12.97IIND CHARGE BSF ACT - 68 SECTION 26INTOXICATIONIn that he, while deployed at BOP Goalpara on 23.9.98 at around 1600 hrs was found in a state of intoxication.'4. Finding the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid charges, he was awarded sentence of dismissal from service vide order dated 30th of March, 1999.5. On 6th of July, 1999, the petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of dismissal, which was, however, dismissed by the Director-General, BSF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and the order in that regard was conveyed to the petitioner by BSF Headquarters vide letter No. 6/50/99-Pet/CLO(D&L;)/BSF/3643-47 dated 17.9.1999.6. The respondents, in their counter-affidavit, ...

Lt. Col. M.P.S. Gill Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(79)DRJ618; 2006(2)SLJ84(Delhi)

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner was commissioned on June 11, 1977, as 2nd Lieutenant in Artillery Regiment of Indian Army. In due course, he rose to the rank of Lt.Colonel by December, 1994. On his turn for further promotion to the rank of Colonel, he was bye-passed by virtue of being not approved by the Selection Board. A non-statutory complaint to the respondent No. 2 against his supersession, filed by the petitioner on May 12, 1997, was rejected by an order dated June 6, 1997. He, on July 28, 1997, made a statutory complaint to respondent No. 1 but the same was also rejected vide order dated 12.11.1997. This was followed by another statutory complaint dated 11th February/31st March, 1998 to respondent No. 1 impugning the ACR for the period 6/92-4/93. The respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 14.5.1998 declared the same as untenable. By his letter dated 14.5.1998, the petitioner requested respondent No. 2 for reconsideration of his aforesaid statutory complaint. He, however, di...