Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments

Premier Irrigation Equipment Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT150TriDel

1. After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 53,83,848/- and equal amount of penalty imposed upon the applicant herein. We found that it was possible to take up the appeal itself for decision and hence proceed to do at this stage after waiving the pre-deposit requirement.2. Duty demand arises as a result of holding that the appellants who were manufacturers of Sprinkler and Drip Irrigation Systems had not included administrative, selling and distribution expenses in the assessable value of the intermediate product captively consumed for the manufacture of exempted irrigation equipment.3. Several arguments are raised before us namely that the demand is barred by limitation, that administrative overheads relatable to the product manufactured have already been included and what the Department is seeking to do is to include administrative over-heads even in respect of places where no manufacturer takes place, which is not permissible...

Cce Vs. Capsugel India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue, the challenge has been made to the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority and set aside the duty demand along with the penalty, as detailed therein.2. The learned SDR has contended that since the duty paid defective goods were received back by the respondents from their buyers and after carrying out certain processes on the same, such as, sorting, re-sorting, re-packing and re-labeling etc., which amounted to manufacture in terms of Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 35, they were liable to pay the duty again at the time of clearances those very goods. He has also contended that the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory v. CCE, Chandigarh, vide Final Order No.A/374/03-NB(c) dated 9.7.2003 which has been followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court where their reference petition is pending. Th...

C.C.E. Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT229TriDel

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise allowed the assessment of the goods manufactured by the respondent herein provisionally, subject to the condition that no deduction on account of turnover discount is permitted at the time of clearances of goods from their factory to their depots as the admissibility of such turnover discount is determined at the end of the year. He held that admissibility of the turnover discount will be considered as when the contingency arises, subject to the execution of proper bond equal to three times of differential duty involved on the goods proposed to be cleared during the financial year 2004-05 backed with security of 25% of the bond value. The assessee succeeded in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the condition imposed in the provisional assessment order by the Deputy Commissioner. Hence the appeal by the Revenue.2. We have heard both sides. There is no dispute that the assessee are allowed turnover discount during the past...

Moti Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT366TriDel

2. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution as none appeared on behalf of the appellants vide order dated 14-2-1997. Earlier to that, the counsel had been appearing on behalf of the appellants and the date i.e. 14-2-1997, was fixed in the presence of the counsel. Since on 14-2-1997 none appeared on behalf of the appellants, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Whereas the present application seeking restoration of the appeal has been filed only on 2-2-2005 after a lapse of about eight years. No sufficient cause has been made out for filing this application after such an inordinate delay. The valuable right which the Revenue has acquired by the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance, to enforce the order-in-appeal against the appellants cannot be taken away, after expiry of eight years keeping in view the conduct of the appellants.Therefore, we do not find any sufficient ground to restore the appeal.The ROA application is dismissed....

Birla Tyres Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals have been directed against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has disallowed the utilization of the AED to the appellants for payment of the BED.2. The issue regarding the utilization of AED for payment of BED by an assessee during the period of dispute already stands settled vide Circular No. 700/16/2003-CX dated 6.3.2003 issued by the Board, wherein it has been clarified that credit of AED accrued earlier (prior to 1.3.2003) can be used for payment of Cenvat duty as well as WED. This circular had been also followed by the Tribunal in the case of Goodyear Sought Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, decided vide Final Order No. S/66/WZB-2004/C-I dated 16.4.2004.3. Therefore, the impugned order being contrary to the above said Board's Circular and the Tribunal's judgment, is set aside and the appeals of the appellant are allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law....

The Management of the Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. Vs. the Govt. of Nct of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT413; 2005(81)DRJ63; (2005)IILLJ936Del

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Application has been filed under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Management of the Delhi Gymkhana Club has preferred this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the Award of the Labour Court which held that the services of the Workman/Respondent/Applicant had been terminated illegally/unjustifiably and that he was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages in continuity of service.2. The ramifications arising out of Section 17 of the Act had been considered in some detail in Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.1, Delhi and Ors., 2002 (2) AD (Delhi) 112 : 2002(1996) DLT 103 wherein I had expressed the opinion that in money disputes pre-deposit of the amount is the usual practice; that there is no inherent right to an Appeal, and it flows out of a statute; since an Appeal has not been provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, an Awa...

Jugal Kishore Dawer Vs. D.R.i.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2844; 118(2005)DLT691; 2006(194)ELT399(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.CRL M A 2528/2005Allowed subject to all just exceptions.BAIL APPLN 489/20051. Notice. Mr Aggarwal accepts notice. However, he wants that this matter be taken up after two days as he says that the petitioner is involved in evasion of customs duty to the extent of about Rs.12.5 crores. He further submits that the petitioner has been absconding and investigation is pending. Mr Aggarwal also relied upon the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Jagtar Singh v. Satender Kaur @ Bhavana Grover and Ors. 2002 (6) SCALE 177 and in particular he has relied upon the sentence of which reads as under:'Normally, when the accused are absconding, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail or regular bail.'Mr Aggarwal also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Enforcement Officer, TED, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora 2000(121) ELT 7 (SC). He submits that unless the petitioner establishes that he is being unnecessarily harassed by the investiga...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashish Garg

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 16.3.2000 passed by the District Forum, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 34,260/- with interest @ 12% from the date the telephone was stolen till realisation and Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony besides Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation, the appellant has directed this appeal. 2. Admittedly the respondent purchased a mobile telephone for the price of Rs. 42,700/- from the grey market and without obtaining a bill and on the next day got the same insured from the appellant for the said amount by paying premium of Rs. 466/-. 3. Admittedly the said telephone was stolen on 1.10.1996, report of which was lodged with the police. However, the main ground for repudiating the claim of the respondent was the failure of the respondent to produce the receipt of purchase of the telephone and further that the telephone was purchased from grey market. 4. In our view it is none of the business of th...

Raj and San Deeps Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT539TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of non-alloy steel ingots which is liable to Central Excise duty. The impugned order has held that the appellant failed to pay duty of over Rs. 2.10 crores for the period September '97 to March 2000, under the compounded levy scheme.Accordingly, the order demanded the said duty amount as well as imposed as equal amount as penalty and demanded interest.2. The present appeal contends that the amount demanded under the order is not due at all and for that reason the duty and other demands made under the impugned order are required to be set aside. It is pointed out that the appellant was paying duty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules and that Rule envisages payment of a fixed sum for furnace capacity of 3 MT, and prorata payment if the capacity is more or less the 3 MT. It is being contended that the appellant's capacity was only 2.5 MTs during the relevant period and duty due on that capacity had been paid. With regard to the alleged additi...

Cce Vs. Super Plateck (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC281

2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Ld. JDR submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered various decisions relied on by the Revenue, such as:- (1) Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., 2002 (83) ECC 497 (Bom.)Media Video Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, 2003 (55) RLT 407 (CEGAT-Del.)CCE, Indore v. Caps and Caps (P) Ltd., 2004 (169) ELT 341 (Tri.-Del.)Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, He submitted that all these cases support the contention of the department and since the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered these decisions, the impugned order is liable to be stayed. After hearing the JDR, perusal of the records and the case law relied on by him, I order to maintain the status quo. The appeal is fixed for regular hearing on 11.7.2005. Notice may be issued....