Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments

Shri Pradip Vaid S/O Shri S.C. Vaid Vs. Universal Constructors (Propri ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi4; 123(2005)DLT688; 2005(82)DRJ95

1. This appeal arises from the order dated 29th October, 2004 in E.A. No. 397 of 2004 of Execution Petition No. 116 of 2001 rejecting appellant's objections against the auction and confirmation of sale of the flat No. B-53 (MIG), Puru Apartments, Plot No. 22, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the appellant claims to be a member of Veer Puru Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd, (respondent No. 2) which constructed Puru Apartments on plot No. 22, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi. Respondent No. 1 was the contractor who constructed the apartments.3. Disputes arose between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 which were referred to the arbitration by order dated 28th August, 1995 in Suit No. 1679/94. The arbitrator passed award dated 11th December, 2000 for a sum of Rs.11,51,771/- with interest at 18% per annum with effect from 1st November, 1990 up to the date of payment along with cost of Rs.50,000/-. This award became final as no objections were preferred by r...

Cce Vs. Innovative Tech Pack Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue relates to the extent of Modvat Credit available to M/s. Innovative Tech Pack Ltd. in respect of goods procured from 100% E.O.U.2. Mrs. Charul Barnwal, learned SDR, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal filed by the respondents following the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vikram Ispat v. CCE ; that the said decision of the Larger Bench is not applicable as during the relevant period, i.e. May 1999-October 1999, the provisions had been changed; that the Notification in consideration before the Larger Bench was 5/94-CE whereas in the present matter, the Notification in consideration is 21/99-CE (NT) dated 28.2.99; that, thus as per the law during the relevant period, the credit on inputs procured from 100% E.O.U. is allowable only to the extent of C.V. Duty actually paid on those inputs and since the respondents had availed of the credit in excess of C.V.Duty actually paid, they ar...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT72TriDel

1. Through this ROM, the respondents have sought the recall of the Final Order No. 714/04-B, dated 18-8-2004 vide which the appeal of the Revenue (Appellants) was accepted and the order-in-appeal was set aside.The learned Counsel has contended that since the issue regarding classification of the goods in dispute (Finned Tube for air cooler and Finned tube heat exchanger) was already pending before the adjudicating authority in terms of the order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present appeal, could not be again directed to decide the classification issue and the duty liability of the respondents on merits accordingly. Therefore, this mistake in the impugned order deserves to be rectified.3. In our view, the contention raised by the learned Counsel is misconceived and not liable to be accepted. From the record, we find that duty demand was raised against the appellants in respect of the goods in dispute by issuing them a separate show cause notice dated 13-5-1994. Th...

Prince Gutka Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC164

The appeals filed by M/s. Prince Gutka Ltd. & Ors. were allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 5.10.2001. Thereafter, on appeals tiled by the Revenue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal vide order dated 1.9.2003 to decide the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue together. In pursuance to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court all the appeals are being taken up together for hearing.2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Prince Gutka Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala under the Brand name of 'Prince Gutka' & 'Yamu'. A show cause notice was issued on 12.9.1995 to the appellants on the ground that M/s. Prince Gutka Ltd. cleared Pan Masala without payment of duty as well as by under-valuing the price of Pan Masala on which the duty has been paid. In the show cause notice a demand of Rs. 9,53,88,001.00 was demanded on account of clandestine removal of the goods and on (sic) demand of Rs. 10,88,498 was demanded on ...

Doon Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT181TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed these appeals against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby it was held that blowing charges in respect of durable and returnable cylinder is to be added in the assessable value of the gas manufactured by the appellant.2. The contention of the appellant is that this process of blowing is not part of the manufacturing process of gas. In fact this process relating to the packing material i.e. in respect of cylinder in which the gas is filled. The appellants are manufacturing oxygen gas and same were cleared in the cylinders. The cylinders are durable and returnable. On receipt of the empty cylinders in their factory, the appellant were undertaking the process of blowing for clearing the empty cylinders so that no other residual of gas remains in the cylinder. This process is undertaken to prevent any chemical reaction of the oxygen gas to be filled in the cylinders with the residual gases contained in the empty cylinder...

Hindustan Appliances Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT175TriDel

1. The Central Excise Officers visited the appellant's premises (three production units) on 8-1-2000 at 2.30 p.m. After stock verification, they seized goods valued at about Rs. 5 lakhs from these units. The ground for seizure was that those goods had not been entered in the statutory records of production (RG-I). The goods in question are mixer grinders. The explanation of the appellant, from the beginning, was to the effect that the goods treated as excess by the visiting officers were the manufacture of the day of visit, they were not fully manufactured inasmuch as the goods had not been packed and made ready for storage, sale. This explanation did not find favour with the lower authorities. The Commissioner has recorded as under :- "As regards goods stated to be lying in unpacked condition, the plea of Appellant is not forceful as they were under obligation to enter their products even if they were not packed in order to be in a ready to dispatch condition. The excisable goods on ...

National Aluminium Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Bhubaneswar -i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT183TriDel

1. The common issue raised in these appeals is whether Board's valuation Circular No.692/8/2003 dated 13.2.2003 on valuation of captively consumed goods is applicable to all pending cases or is applicable only to goods removed for captive consumption from the date of issue of that Circular.2. The period of removal of the goods for captive consumption in all these cases is prior to the issue of the Circular. The Revenue's contention is that there were previous Circulars also on the subject (No.258/92/96-CX dated 30.10.96, Order No.24/12/93 dated 31.12.93, F.No.6/12/87-CX dated 31.3.98, F.No.6/702/88-CX dated 11.3.88 etc.) and that valuation should be made for a given period in terms of the Circular in force during that particular period. This contention is made on the ground that it is well settled that Circulars are prospective in their operation. Revenue has relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Eswaran & Sons Engineers Ltd. - 2005 (179) ELT 272 (SC) ...

A.K. Trakru Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT656

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this letters patent appeal, the judgment and order of a learned single judge, allowing the writ petition of MCD ( WP 6935/03 dated 27th February, 2004) has been questioned.2. The first issue raised here is the same as in LPA 233/03, namely what is meant by to give a notice, as per Sections 126(2) and (4)(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereafter called the Act ). We have today delivered judgment dismissing the appeal of the MCD. In that judgment, it has been held that a notice is said to be given under Section 126, not on its date of dispatch under registered post, but, as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, read with Section 444 of the Act, when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, unless a contrary date is proved.3. The judgment under appeal dated 27.2.04, has relied upon the decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Khandelwal, : 101(2002)DLT169 . That judgment, as noticed by the learned single judge, was in...

National thermal Power Corporation, Korba Super thermal Power Station ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT245; 2005(81)DRJ119

Vijender Jain, J. CM No. 2897/2005Allowed subject to all just exceptions.W.P.(C) No. 3869/2005 and C.M. No. 2896/20051. This petition can be disposed of at this stage itself.2. Petitioner has filed this petition impugning the order passed by learned Single Judge appointing the Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Arbitrator could not have been appointed by the Court de horse clause 56 of the Arbitration Agreement which postulates appointment of the General Manager of the petitioner as Arbitrator. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has not sent any notice of the revocation. As a matter of fact it was the respondent who has abandoned the work and thereafter restarted the work. It is also contended on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there was dispute among the partners of the firm and, thereforee, no action for appoint...

Parveen Kumar and ors. Vs. Mcd and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT448

S.Ravindra Bhat, J.ECHO is on.1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the relief claimed is quashing of a decision of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) declining a request for permission to construct a Motel, based upon a letter dated 17.01.2003 issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).2. The petitioner owns 14 bighas and 16 bids was of land in Village Mundka, Delhi. On 16.06.1995, DDA issued a notification allowing construction of Motels in rural zones/green belt subject to certain conditions. The petitioner applied for sanction of plans for construction of a Motel on the basis of that notification. It is claimed that as per the guidelines contained in that notification of 1995, the petitioner s lands fall in the rural zone and are otherwise eligible for inside ration in terms of the notification; and that it fulfills all the conditions necessary for approval of building plans for the purpose.3. MCD issued a notice under Section 333 of the Delhi Munic...