Delhi Court November 1997 Judgments

Pascal Paramount Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT199TriDel

1. Captioned appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No.104-123-C.E./DLH/95-1922, dated 15-9-1995 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi.2. The matter relates to the question whether an assessee has the choice to opt for Modvat credit when he is eligible to exemption under Notification No. 1/93 as amended. The lower authorities held against the appellants. Hence the appeal.3. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter sub-headings, 85.44 and 7408.19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were served with a SCN dated 30-9-1993 asking them to show cause as to why Modvat credit availed by them during the period 1-6-1993 to 31-8-1993 should not be recovered from them under Rule 57-I for wrongfully availing Modvat credit. The SCN alleged that the appellants, being not registered as a SSI unit with the prescribed authorities were governed by Clause (2) of Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2-1993 as amended since...

Durga Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT283TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Durga Steels Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the availment of the Modvat credit on the strength of endorsed bills, endorsed by M/s. Dalhousie Udyog. The bills which had been endorsed related to M/s. Partap Steel Rolling Mills (1935) Ltd. The bills had been issued on 1-6-1994, 23-6-1994, 28-6-1994 and 29-6-1994. W.e.f. 1-4-1994 the procedure with regard to the invoices on the strength of which the Modvat credit could be taken had been revised under Notification No. 15/94-CE. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 read with Notification No. 16/94-CE. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994. As the bills on the strength of which credit had been taken were issued after the date of the change over, proceedings were drawn against the appellants and a demand of Rs 98,923.36 was made which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The adjudicating authority, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, observed that M/s. Dalhousie Udyog did not fall w...

Ashi Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(74)LC535Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Presstressed Monoblock Concrete Sleepers.2. The point to be considered in this case is whether inserts supplied by the railways are to be included in the value of concrete sleepers.It was the contention of the party that inserts were supplied by railways at free of cost and as such their value has not been included in the value of concrete sleepers manufactured by the appellants.3. On the other hand, Shri Ali, Id. DR submitted that the issue involved in this case is no longer res Integra in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has held in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v.Union of India supplied by railways at free of cost are to be included. He also submitted that the Tribunal has been consistently following this view in the subsequent cases. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above, we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by t...

Siel Sugar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT54TriDel

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Vacuum Pan Sugar and molasses falling under Chapter 17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in their factory at Mawana. From 1-3-1994 they were availing of the benefit of the scheme of Modvat on capital goods, for which purpose they filed necessary declarations under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 and on which basis they took credit of the duty paid on various capital goods received by them in their factory from time to time and used the same for producing or processing or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final products. On 29-6-1995, a show cause notice was issued to them proposing denial of credit of Rs. 64,80,751/- under Rule 57U on the ground that the various items mentioned in the annexure to the notice did not qualify as capital goods within the meaning ascribed thereto in Explanation 1 to Rule 57Q and in respect of certain items, the show cause notic...

Aps Electro Stampings (i) Pvt. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee has filed these appeals against consolidated order of CIT(A), V, New Delhi dt. 4th February, 1993 mainly on the ground of rejection of application under s. 154 whereby the assessee sought deletion of deemed interest of Rs. 36,000 in the asst. yrs. 1982-83 to 1984-85.2. In this case, the AO referred to the assessment order for asst. yr.1981-82 wherein it was noted that the assessee-company's interest bearing funds of Rs. 2 lakh was utilised in acquiring shareholding of another company, namely, Ravi Containers Pvt. Ltd. Such payment was held to be capital expenditure and not incurred for the purposes of assessee's own business. For the reasons, given in the aforesaid assessment order for 1981-82, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee for interest of Rs. 36,000 in each of the 3 assessment years under consideration.3. The assessee moved an application under s. 154 for rectification of the said mistake by relying on the order of the Tribunal for asst. yr.1981-82 where...

S.K.Mishra (Air Commdr.) Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)609; 1998(44)DRJ328

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. The sort point raised in this writ petition is whether the promotion of the petitioner could be withheld or deferred on the plea that CBI report was against him particularly when as a sequel of CBI report the petitioner had already been awarded censure of 'Reproof'2. To answer this question the brief facts relevant for determination of the same are that the petitioner joined Indian Air Force on 1st December, 1961. In 1979 he was selected as a Member of the Selection Committee constituted for the purchase of Jaguar Fighter Air Craft. In 1984 he was selected as officer in charge of Advance Electronics Laboratory at Palam Airport known as AMSE. The Electronic Air Craft is an important equipment for striking ability of the Air Craft. The petitioner was associated as Technical Expert for the selection, inspection and recommendation of the craft that was proposed to be purchased for bringing the Indian Air Force on the pedestal of superior striking ability. In 1989 the ...

United India Periodicals Vs. Central Bank of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)1113; 70(1997)DLT786; 1997(43)DRJ782

K.S. Gupta, J. (1) Defendants have filed this application under Order Vii Rule 14 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code alleging that there is reference of the following documents in the paragraphs noted below of the plaint:- 1.Para 4 : Leased deed dated 21.3.75 2.Para 11 : Defendants letter dated 2.1.81 3.Para 15 : Lease deed dated 9.11.90 4.Para 28 :- Plaintiff's letters dated 31.1.92, 4.4.92, 9.11.92 & 21.5.94. 5.Para 30: - Plaintiff's legal notice dated 30.5.96: and 6.Para 31: Defendants reply dated 20.6.96.(2) Aforesaid documents have neither been filed nor copies thereof supplied to the defendants by the plaintiff. It was prayed that either the suit be rejected or the plaintiff be ordered to file the said documents and supply copies thereof to the defendants and the time for filing written statement be enlarged.(3) In the reply plaintiff has alleged that copies of the documents in question stand delivered to the defendants on March 12,1997 and the application has, thus,...

S.P. Agarwal Vs. Lt. Governor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)833; 1998(44)DRJ293

Usha Mehra, J.(1) Very interesting points have been raised in this writ petition, namely, (1) whether on account of Section 511-B(2)(i) of D.M.C.Act, on the issuing of notification dated 24th February,1997 the petitioner who was working as Additional General Manager automatically acquired the status of Member, Delhi Vidyut Board (In short the Board); (2) whether on account of the notification dated 24th February,1997 issued under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948 (hereinafter called the Act) the post of Additional General Manager in fact was re-designated as Member Board; (3) whether the right which accrued to the petitioner on account of the notification dated 24th February,1997 could not be taken away retrospectively by a subsequent notification of 27th February,1997; (4) whether after redesignation of the post as Member Board there does not exist any post of AGM; (5) whether in the absence of any specific letter of appointment issued in favor of the petitioner he cannot...

Aps Electro Stampings (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Del)626

ORDERB. S. SALUJA, J.M. :The assessed has filed these appeals against consolidated order of CIT(A), V, New Delhi dt. 4th February, 1993 mainly on the ground of rejection of application under s. 154 whereby the assessed sought deletion of deemed interest of Rs. 36,000 in the asst. yrs. 1982-83 to 1984-85.2. In this case, the AO referred to the assessment order for asst. yr. 1981-82 wherein it was noted that the assessed-company interest bearing funds of Rs. 2 lakh was utilised in acquiring shareholding of another company, namely, Ravi Containers Pvt. Ltd. Such payment was held to be capital expenditure and not incurred for the purposes of assessees own business. For the reasons, given in the aforesaid assessment order for 1981-82, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessed for interest of Rs. 36,000 in each of the 3 assessment years under consideration.3. The assessed moved an application under s. 154 for rectification of the said mistake by relying on the order of the Tribunal for ass...

Monga Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT602TriDel

1. This Appeal arises from order in original No. 60/89, dated 3-7-1989 passed by the Additional Collector, New Delhi. He confirmed the demand raised by the Assistant Collector vide show cause notice dated 25-6-1989 denying the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. The fact of the case are that the show cause notices were issued on 13-2-1987 and 7-5-1987 to M/s Monga Industries calling upon them to show cause as to why the demand raised therein should not be confirmed. The show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent. It was stated therein that they are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 in terms of para 4 as they had not submitted S.S.I, certificate issued by competent authority. After adjudiction by the Assistant Collector the matter was taken up in Appeal before the Collector (Appeals), who passed an order on 30th March, 1988 holding that the impugned order of the Assistant Collector is not sustainable and remanded the case for de novo consideration. He obser...