Delhi Court November 1997 Judgments

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Plastic Converters

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT434TriDel

1. This Reference Application is filed by the department on the ground that the following question of law arises with reference to the Final Order No. 522/97-D in Appeal No. E/4419/89-D/:- " Whether the refund claim can be granted without finalisation of classification dispute and also without following proper procedure laid down under Section 35 of the Act." 2. Heard Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR who represented the department.None appeared on behalf of the respondents.3. Shri Satnam Singh reiterated the grounds taken by the department to refer the matter.4. The department has submitted in the reference application that the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Elson Machine Pvt, Ltd. 1988 (38) E.L.T. 571 (S.C.) is in different context and the same is not applicable in terms of Section 11B of the Act. Further, it was submitted that the remedies have been made available to the assessee to challenge any decision passed by Assistant Commissioner before Commissioner (Appeals) withi...

C.C.E. Vs. Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT49TriDel

1. The common respondent in these appeals, engaged in the manufacture of Weighbridges, filed price lists Nos. 352 to 355 and 357 in 1989-90 in Part II claiming deduction of charges for installation and commissioning at the customer's premises. The Asstt. Collector granted approval but rejected the claim for deduction. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order. The Department, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal.2. The Assistant Collector relied on the respondent's own case reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 566. In that case the present respondent manufactured one of the three components of Weighbridge, namely, indicating system and procured two other ingredients, namely, platform and load cell from other sources and assembled the Weighbridge at the premises of the customer. It was held that Weighbridge as such came into existence only at the premises of the customer and that at that stage new excisable product came into existence and was dutiable as such.3. Shri M. Ali, JDR als...

B.H.P. Engineers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These cross appeals are directed against the order of CIT(A). It is relevant for the asst. yr. 1992-93. The assessee is a company. Its previous year is the financial year ending 31st March, 1992. It is engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacture of equipments such as multi-duty bucket elevators, apron conveyors, belt conveyors elevators, and process equipment, etc. The assessee had an agreement for this purpose with Rexnord Inc., USA. The assessee carried out various projects in co-operation with the U.S. company. The assessee claimed deduction under s. 80-I of the Act. While computing the said deduction under s. 80-I of the Act, the AO excluded the following items for working out the eligible profits : (i) Miscellaneous income 1,24,711 (ii) Interest from Banks 6,44,587(iii) CCS 9,73,670 (iv) Engineering services 10,76,478 Aggrieved by the said disallowance, the assessee took up the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the claim in so far as income in regard to CC...

Jai Bhagwan Gupta Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)1120; [1998]92CompCas107(Delhi); 1997(43)DRJ724

Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) This petition has been filed by one Jai Bhagwan Gupta, inter alia, claiming that this writ petition has been filed to protect the poor, illiterate and innocent people and for protection of their rights and interests arising out of financial exploitation indulged, in by Chhabra Land and Housing Ltd. - respondent No. 3 herein. The petition has been filed as a public interest writ petition seeking enquiry to be conducted on their affairs of this company and the public issue floated by the company.(2) After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents and having perused the record, we have no doubt in coming to the conclusion that this petition is far from `Public Interest Litigation' filed to protect the interest of poor and illiterate investors. It is more in nature of `Private Interest Litigation' and that too presented by concealing material facts from this Court.(3) From the documents placed Along with the counter-affidavit of the respondents,...

Mewa Singh Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)726; 69(1997)DLT943; 1998(44)DRJ20

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) In the year 1987 Subedar Mewa Singh (Petitioner) was serving the Indian Army in the Branch Recruitment Office, Secunderabad. He was attached to 3, Training Battalion, 1, Eme Centre, Secunderabad. Allegedly on 15th June, 1986. while working as Assistant Recruiting Officer, the petitioner accepted a sum of Rs.2,000.00 from one Hav. M. Kondaiah, a decoy, as a motive for procuring enrolment of a few persons. Consequently a Court of Enquiry was ordered by Head Quarters Andhra Sub Area for the purpose of investigating into the circumstances under which the petitioner allegedly took illegal gratification. The Court of Enquiry commenced the proceedings on 18th June, 1986 and the petitioner was examined as the first witness. Needless to say the petitioner claimed to be innocent. This was followed by hearing of the charge by the Commanding Officer and the recording of Summary of Evidence. Ultimately, the Commanding Officer remanded the Officer for trial by the Court Martial w...

K.S. Jawatkar Vs. Ram Nath Kurra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)978; 72(1998)DLT365; 1998(44)DRJ227

N.G. Nandi, J. (1) In view of the appearance of Mr.Sanjay Goswami for the caveator/respondent, no further order is necessitated in this caveat and the same stands disposed of. C.R.1044/97 & C.M.3674/97 (2) Notice to show cause to the respondent as to why the petition be not admitted. (3) MR. SANJAY Goswami, learned counsel wp1 leaves the service and accepts the notice. (4) In this petition under Section 25(B)8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinabove referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner (original respondent-tenant) has been assailing the order dated 19.07.1997 whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller granted eviction against the present petitioner/original respondent-tenant and decreed the petition under section 14(1)(e) of the Act. (5) One of the grounds in the present petition is that despite the order dated 3.9.96 by the High Court in CM(M)206/96 and Cm 1466/96, the Arc did not consider the merits of the grounds assigned in the application dated 29.11.1996 for the recal...

Bal Kishan Goel Vs. Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 69(1997)DLT968

Cyriac Joseph, J. (1) As per the averments in the revision petition the petitioner was allotted plot No. 4, measuring 32' x 34' situated adjacent to gate No. 2 of the Race Course at the rate of Rs. 60/ - per month by the respondent Delhi Race Course (1940) Limited. The plot was allotted for a shop. The petitioner constructed the shop at his own expenses. After constructing the shop the petitioner has been paying rent. The petitioner got registration for his shop in the name and style of M/s. B.K. Goel vide registration No. 6/28088/J dated 14.12.1987. The petitioner has also been paying the license fee to the Ndmc for the storage and sale of snacks, biscuits, bakery products, eggs, butter etc. and water and electricity charges to the respondent. The respondent with a View to harass the petitioner filed a suit No. 176/95 for possession and recovery of rent. After the completion of pleadings issues were framed on 1.5.1996. Issue No. 5 is 'whether the present suit is barred by the provisio...

B.H.P. Engineers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Del)503

ORDERV. Dongzathang, V. P.These cross appeals are directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). It is relevant for the assessment year 1992-93. The assessed is a company. Its previous year is the financial year ending 31-3-1992. It is engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacture of equipments such as multi-duty bucket elevators, apron conveyors, belt conveyors elevators, and process equipment, etc. The assessed had an agreement for this purpose with Rexnord Inc., USA. The assessed carried out various projects in co-operation with the U.S. company. The assessed claimed deduction under section 80-I of the Act. While computing the said deduction under section 80-I of the Act, the assessing officer excluded the following items for working out the eligible profits :Rs.(i) Miscellaneous income1,24,711(ii) Interest from Banks6,44,587(iii) CCS9,73,670(iv) Engineering services10,76,478Aggrieved by the said disallowance, the assessed took up the matter in appeal before the Commiss...

themis Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT187TriDel

1. The appellants herein are manufacturers of P & P Medicines falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing exemption on clinical samples to the extent of 4% of the value of duty paid on clearances during the preceding month in accordance with the provisions of Notification 48/77-C.E., dated 1-4-1977. The Department was of the view that since the products in dispute namely, Broncare Syrup 60 ml. and Broncare-5 Cough Syrup 60 ml.had the same packing, both for commercial supply as well as for clinical samples, the benefit of notification above mentioned was not available. The clinical samples bore the words "Physician samples not to be sold" and also, maximum retail price was not printed on the clinical samples. The Assistant Collector accepted the claim of the appellants that they were entitled to the benefit of the notification.However, on appeal filed by the Revenue before the Collector (Appeals), the lower appellate authority...

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT63TriDel

1. Having filed the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut confirming the demand of duty Rs. 31,56,421/- for the period April, 1993 to March, 1995 and imposing penalty of Rs. 20 lacs, the appellant has filed this application seeking waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We have heard both sides.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Branded Pan Masala, was filing price lists from time to time claiming deduction of cash discount and on provisional approval of the price lists, clearing the goods on payment of appropriate duty. Show cause notice dated 26-9-1995 was issued alleging that the cash discount was not made known to the trade and, in fact, not given also and therefore there was suppression of true assessable value with intent to evade duty and proposing demand of differential duty and also proposing imposition of penalty. Though the appellant resisted the notice, the Commissioner pa...