Delhi Court February 1998 Judgments

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Tigrania Metal and Steel

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT193TriDel

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of metal rolls for metal rolling mills, filed classification list No. 145/89 proposing classification under Chapter sub-heading 8455.00 and claiming benefit of full exemption under Notification No. 281/86. The Assistant Collector passed an order approving the classification but denying the benefit of exemption. Demand notice was also issued in respect of the period May, 1989 to September, 1989 and the demand was ultimately confirmed by the Assistant Collector. The assessee challenged both orders by way of two appeals before the Collector (Appeals) who passed a common order confirming the denial of the benefit of the notification but directing that the cost of grooving operation on the metal materials would be the assessable value and the cost of metal material would not be included in the assessable value. In Appeal E/1914/91-A, we have...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. thermopack Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1150TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by a common order-in-appeal dated 27-2-92 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. As in both the appeals common issue is for consideration they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The respondents in one case M/s. Singh Plastic and in another case M/s. Thermopack Industries were engaged in the manufacture of article of plastics which were classifiable under Chapter Heading Nos. 39.23, 39.24 and 39.26 of the Tariff. Against Sl. No. 39 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 53/88-C.E., dated 1-3-88 all goods other than of polyurethanes classifiable under the above headings were exempted from duty subject to certain conditions. Against Sl. No. 40 the applicable rate of duty was 15% ad volarem and the exemption was unconditional.The respondents paid duty as applicable under Sl. No. 40 and availed of the Modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of s...

Modipon Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC378

1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 184/94 dt. 16.8.1994, passed by the Collector (Appeals), confirming the order of the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector in Order-in-Original confirmed a demand of Rs. 6,06,501/- in terms of the show cause notice dt. 8.7.93, wherein it was alleged that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Synthetic Filament Yarn falling under heading No.5402 and 5403 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were availing MODVAT Credit inter alia on DMT & MEG. During the month of Jan., 93 they took credit in respect of the above amount on the inputs on the strength of Photo copies/True copy/certified copies of GP lis submitted by them along with copies of RG-23A Part-I and Part-II and monthly returns. The MODVAT Credit on Photo copies/True Copies/certified copies documents was not admissible to the party as per the provision of Rule 57G of CE Rules, 1944 read with Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi's letter F.No. 267/ 6...

Liberty Group Marketing Division Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are cross-appeals, preferred by the assessee for the asst.yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88 and by the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1988-89, against the orders of the CIT(A). As the facts and certain issues involved are common, these appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. We first take up assessee's appeals for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88. The only ground taken is against upholding the disallowance of claim made under s. 80-I at Rs. 1,40,920 for asst. yr. 1986-87 and Rs. 97,494 for asst. yr. 1987-88. The assessee claimed deductions under s.80-I in the returns filed. The AO noticed from the accounts for the asst. yr. 1986-87 that an amount of Rs. 12,60,476 was debited on account of production charges. On enquiries the AO came to know that the entire stock was got manufactured from sister-concern for which such production charges were paid. When nothing was manufactured by the assessee, the basic condition of s. 80-I remained to be fulfill...

iqbal Chand Khurana Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), New Delhi, and relates to the asst. yr. 1985-86.2. We have heard the rival submissions. The return was due on 31st July, 1985. It was filed on 30th April, 1986. Interest under s. 139(8) of the Act charged for 8 months. Subsequently, by resorting to the provisions of s. 154 of the Act, interest was charged for 9 months. It was contended that the additional interest for one month cannot be charged by resorting to the provisions of s. 154. The delay was only for the completed 8 months. It was contended with reference to the decisions that interest cannot be charged for less than 30 days.3. Before us, it was argued that if there exist cleavage of judicial opinion over a particular point, s. 154 cannot be resorted to. Our attention was invited on the decision of the apex Court rendered in the case of Poothundu Plantations (P) Ltd. vs. Agrl. ITO (1996) 221 ITR 557 (SC). In this case, it was held that only an apparent er...

Mahavir Singh Vs. State (Cbi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)203; 1999CriLJ3659; 76(1998)DLT921

ORDERMohd Shamim, J.1. This is an application by the petitioner for release on bail.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.K.Sud, has argued with great zeal and fervour that the petitioner is an innocent person. He has been in custody since July 31, 1997. There is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner is simply a Head Constable. He is under law bound to obey his officers. He has got no decision-making power. He simply carried out the orders of his superiors. He has got no reason to suspect correctness on bona fides of the orders issued by his superiors. The petitioner in thus protected under sections 76 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is neither inimically disposed towards the deceased persons nor did he harbour any ill-feeling towards them. Whatever has happened in the present case at the most can be said to be a case of bona fide mistake in believing that he was justified in firing at the command of his superiors.3. According to the case o...

Sharita Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)330; 74(1998)DLT6

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The Petitioner's claim for grant of special family pension was rejected by the respondents on 22.02.1996.2. The case of the petitioner tersely stated in the following terms. The husband of the petitioner was enrolled as Craftsman (Cftn MV) in the Army, Corps of EME on 19.12.1987. The husband of the petitioner was subjected to medical examination at the time of entry into service. He was declared medically fit and placed in medical category 'AYE'.3. He was posted to 723 Transport Workshop Company of 32 AME Bn. Co 99 APO located in field area in Assam, which is presumed to be to be prone to water borne diseases because of environmental conditions. During the course of his service in the same area he developed the disease 'Non-semi nomatous Germ Cell Tumor'. He also underwent operation and on 11.12.1994 he was sent to his home town on being invalided out on medical grounds with 100% disability. On 31.12.1994 he died leaving behind him, his wife and a minor son as...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shri Jeevan Dass

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)703; 1998(45)DRJ30; 1998RLR214

A.K. Srivastava, J.1. This is a criminal revision against order dated 22.8.94 passed by a Magistrate whereby the respondent has been acquitted. Reply has been filed.2. Mr. V.K. Shali, learned counsel for the respondent makes a preliminary legal objection that this criminal revision is not maintainable as after summoning order the respondent has been acquitted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide the impugned order dated 22.8.94.3. A rejoinder was filed on behalf of revisionist in which it is averred that the revision was filed in the bonafide belief the revision was maintainable. It is also pleaded that under sub-Section (5) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the present petition may be dealt with as an appeal. That sub-Section reads as follows:(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal...

Sarup Lal Singhla Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 72(1998)DLT23; 1998(44)DRJ753

J.B. Goel, J.1. This petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') was formerly presented in the Court of Senior Sub-judge, Bhatinda. However, on being returned due to lack of territorial jurisdiction this has been presented in this Court. The plaintiff wants that the disputes be referred to an Arbitrator.2. Briefly the facts are that the work of construction of external services in Phase-III at NFL Township (Civil) Bhatinda was awarded to the plaintiff on the terms and conditions of the tender notice and a formal agreement was also entered into between the parties. The work was to start on 3rd September, 1981, and was to be completed in 15 months on 3rd December, 1982 but it was actually completed on 31st December, 1983. The plaintiff used to submit his running bills from time to time; payments against these bills were made and final bill was submitted on 6.2.84 against that payment was made on 11.6.1984. The plaintiff had furnished a 'No Claim Certifica...

Liberty Group Marketing Division Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Del)566

ORDERNathu Ram, A.M. These are cross-appeals, preferred by the assessed for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 and by the revenue for the assessment year 1988-89, against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). As the facts and certain issues involved are common, these appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. We first take up assessees appeals for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88. The only ground taken is against upholding the disallowance of claim made under section 80-I at Rs. 1,40,920 for assessment year 1986-87 and Rs. 97,494 for assessment year 1987-88. The assessed claimed deductions under section 80-I in the returns filed. The assessing officer noticed from the accounts for the assessment year 1986-87 that an amount of Rs. 12,60,476 was debited on account of production charges. On enquiries the assessing officer came to know that the entire stock was got manufactured from sister-concern for which such production charges w...