Delhi Court February 1998 Judgments

Shri Krishna Polyurethane Ind. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT162TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, dated 5-6-1991.2. Ld. Counsel drew attention towards the memo of appeal and the facts of the case as narrated therein and briefly recapitulated them as follows : 3. That the appellants in their only registered small scale Industrial unit and availing benefits under exemption Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended, are engaged in the manufacture of furniture and parts thereof wooden as well as those made from polyurethane foam (rigid) falling under sub-heading 9403.00.4. On 17-10-1988 officers of the Preventive Branch of Central Excise, MOD-I, New Delhi, visited the factory premises of the appellants seized 1,017 pieces of furniture parts, describing the same as 'Articles of Rigid Polyurethane Foam' valued at Rs. 1,45,440.00 and resumed their entire accounts statedly for reason that the said articles of P.U. Foam were being manufactured without obtaining a Central Excise Licence...

Shri Amrik Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the Memorandum dated 10.10.90 passed by the respondents after holding the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the AIS Rules'), and the order dated 31.5.1991 clarifying the Memorandum (Annexure A-V and A-VI).2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant who is a member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) (Punjab Cadre), while on deputation to the Centre w.e.f. 15.6.79 to 30.9.83 was charge-sheeted under Rule 8 of the AIS Rules, on the charges that he had preferred false Travelling Allowance claims when he was functioning as Controller of Publication. However, the applicant had denied these charges.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned penalty order dated 10.10.90 was sent to him by the Govt. of Punjab by their letter dated 30.10.90, i.e. one day before he retired from service on 31.10.90. In the impugned order dated 10....

Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd. Vs. M/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)666; 73(1998)DLT293

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the direction of the Rent Control Tribunal for personal presence of the petitioner's Managing Director, before taking up the appeal for admission.2. Petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal against the order of eviction, passed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The memorandum of appeal and the application for stay was signed by Mr. Govind Deora, Company Secretary, who is also the Principal Officer and holds the Power of Attorney from the Company.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal came up for admission before the Rent Control Tribunal on 13.11.1997. The learned Tribunal declined to hear the appeal and directed the Managing Director to be present in person on 18.11.1997. On 18.11.1997 when the Counsel for the petitioner, Along with Mr. Govind Deora, Company Secretary, was present and the Counsel requested for the...

income Tax Officer Vs. D. M. Enterprises

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Del)423

ORDERB. M. Kothari, A. M.The revenue has raised the following ground in this appeal :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law in allowing the status of a firm where certified copy of partnership deed as required under the provision of section 184(2) of the Income Tax Act has not been filed.'2. The assessed furnished a return of income declaring loss of Rs. 12,930. The assessing officer processed the said return under section 143(1)(a) on 18-2-1995, in which he determined the status of the firm as an (Association of person). He also disallowed the salary paid to partner amounting to Rs. 18,000 and thereby determined the assessor's income at Rs. 5,070. He levied tax at maximum marginal rates @ 40 per cent under section 167B(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) and further levied additional tax. The assessing officer had also simultaneously passed an order under section 185 on 28-2-1995 in wh...

Pharma Art Pack Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1163TriDel

1. These are appeals against the order of Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 6-9-90.2. Learned Counsel stated that both the appeals have been filed with reference to the same order-in-original passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay on 6th September, 1990.3. He stated that both the appellants are manufacturer of printed cartons, labels, packages etc. The appellants M/s. Pharma Art Pack, C-21, Shalimar Industrial Estate, Matunga, Bombay-400 019 are a proprietary concern having SSI registration whereas M/s. T.R.Corporation situated at D-6, Shalimar Industrial Estate, Matunga, Bombay - 400 019 are a proprietary firm legally different and distinct from the former. However, the Department has clubbed both of them and denied them the benefit of exemption Notification Nos. 80/80, 83/83 and 85/85 on the ground that the combined production and clearances exceeded the prescribed limits.4. It was their contention that they were distinct units having separat...

Venus Polytex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT229TriDel

1. This stay application has been filed with reference to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi dated 19-9-1997.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are manufacturers of HDPE/PP fabrics and sacks. They were availing Modvat credit during 1992-93, but w.e.f. 1-4-1993, they opted out of it and claimed exemption on clearances of Rs. 30 lakh during the period 1993-94.3. During this period they had semi-processed material in the form of semi-finished fabric which was sent out for job work and received back in the factory. They utilised it for captive consumption for manufacture of the finished products, which were duly cleared on gate passes. The value thereof was within the limit prescribed in the Notification 1/93. They availed the benefit thereof. However a show cause notice was issued on 3-3-1994 asking them to pay duty on the value of the goods sent for job work is on the ground that by inclusion thereof, prescribed limit was exceeded.4. It was their contention that t...

Sheela Foam Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT211TriDel

1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that "I have examined the case carefully. The moot question is what is waste and whether PVC profile shapes in the form of cut pieces is a waste or an input for making 'PVC Fire Retardant'. In the instant issue my predecessor had already passed Order-in-Appeal No. 538/93, dated 30-8-1993 wherein it has been held that the inputs used by the appellants for the manufacture of Tire Retardant Compound' were waste, parings and scrap of plastics (39.15) in the form of cut pieces of PVC Profiles and Modvat credit availed on PVC Profiles shapes as inputs for 'doors, windows' etc. could not be utilised towards payment of duty on 'Fire Retardant Compound'. I do not find any change in the subject matter of the present appeal than the earlier appeal. As such appellants do not appear to have a strong case. Thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed.In view of the foregoing, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Therefo...

K.R. Dongre Vs. Vidyavati

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 72(1998)DLT333; 1998(44)DRJ807

D.K. Jain, J.1. This order will dispose of IAs No. 2534/97, 3037/97 and 3683/97.2. In this suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 9 December 1990 in respect of the terrace of the ground floor of the property bearing No. E-4/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, and for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 1 March 1996 executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendant No. 3 in respect of the subject property is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in respect of the terrace rights of the ground floor and from raising any construction on the said portion of the property, the plaintiff filed is No. 2534/97 for grant of ad-interim injunction. On the said application, notice with an ex parte, ad-interim injunction order was issued on 20 March 1997 restraining the defendants from further transferring, selling, alienating or creating third party interest or oth...

Ceat Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT141TriDel

1. The stay application was heard for some time and thereafter the Bench felt in view of the directions given by the Bench by its Misc.Order No. M/192/97-NB, dated 3-10-1997 and detailed note order dated 9-1-1998, the stay application would be allowed by dispensing with the pre-deposit and the appeal itself to be taken up for disposal, as the matter lies in a short compass.2. By Show cause notice dated 5-1-1995, the appellants were called upon to explain as to why Modvat credit of Rs. 3,55,02,000/- should not be disallowed and recovered from them under Rule 57-I, of C.E. Rules, 1944. The reasons given are that during the scrutiny of the records of the appellants for the months of July, 1994 to Oct., 1994 it revealed that they had availed and utilised the Modvat credit wrongly on input 'Caprolactum' to the extent of the amount already indicated on the basis of invoices issued by Marketing Division of Gujarat State Fertilizers Company Limited, Laxmi Ganj Mandi, Gwalior (depot of the sup...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indo Chem Lab P. Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT785TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by two different orders, both passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad. As in both these appeals, common issue is involved for our consideration, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The matter relates to the eligibility of the respondents, M/s. Indo Chem Lab P. Ltd: to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. There is no dispute that the respondents were a small scale unit and were having registration from the concerned State Government authorities. The proceedings were drawn against them on the ground that in the Certificate of Registration, the syrups, drops, etc. were not included. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector and allowed the appeals of the respondents (appellants before him) on the ground that they had a valid SSI Registration Certificate and it was not necessary that all th...