Delhi Court March 1998 Judgments

Daulat Ram Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Del)436

ORDERNA THU RAM, A.M.The appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1990-91.2. The first ground raised is against sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,510 out of the cash found at the residence amounting to Rs. 44,510 at the time of search. The facts as borne out from the records are that search and seizure operations were carried out at the business and residential premises of the assessed on 19th Sept., 1989, by the Department and as a result thereof the Revenue recovered cash, jewellery, valuable articles and books of account and documents. The assessed in the return filed on 27th March, 1991 declared an income of Rs. 1,91,370 consisting of the following(i) income as per P&L; a/c 19,609;(ii) amount surrendered out of cash found amounting to Rs. 1,64,510 during search operations 1,20,000; and(iii) current income invested in purchase of gold ornaments weighing 200 gms surrendered under s. 132(4) 57,760 1,97,3692.1. We find that during ...

Hasan Daud Rumani Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - This appeal together with the petition for waiver of pre-deposit has been filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/SDE/ZBN/7-10-B/90/891, dated 15-1-1990, under which a penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs has been imposed for contravention of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). A further penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed for contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i). The learned Adjudicating Officer has also ordered confiscation of Indian currency worth Rs. 63,000 and Rs. 60,000 in terms of section 63 of the Act. It is seen from the impugned order that the seized Indian currency amounted to Rs. 63,000 only out of which Rs. 3,000 had been duly accounted for. The appellant has also been held guilty of contravention of section 8(1) in respect of two amounts, namely, UAE Dhs. 500 and Dhs. 15 and Q. Riyals 34 but no penalty has been imposed for the said contravention. However, these foreign currencies have also been ordered to be...

Century Laminating Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT88TriDel

1. M/s. Century Laminating Co. Ltd., its 4 Directors, 3 members of the staff and the Commission Agent engaged by them have filed these appeals and the stay applications seeking waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 8,16,85,476.22 in respect of the period from 1-2-1991 to 30-9-1995, confiscated the assets of the concern allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 50 Lacs, imposed fine of Rs. 50 Lacs on each of the Directors, of Rs. 5 Lacs, Rs. 2 Lacs and Rs.l Lac on the members of the staff and of Rs. 25 Lacs on the Commission Agent.3. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Decorative Laminated Sheets and selling the goods at the factory gate and through depots situated throughout the country. It is said that the factory gate sales account for 25% of the total production and were made to 116 wholesale dealers and 75% ...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bharat Metal Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT494TriDel

1. The Department has filed this appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli dated 25-9-1990.The issue relates to eligibility for the concessional rate of duty of Rs. 1,260 per MT under Notification No. 178/88 as amended for brass sheets and circles of thickness exceeding 0.15 mm and falling under Chapter sub-heading 7409.20.2. Appellants are manufacturers of brass sheets and circles falling under Chapter 7409.20 and they were clearing their manufactured goods @ Rs. 1,260 per M.T. pursuant to Notification No. 178/88 as amended by Notification No. 68/89, dated 1-3-1989. After the introduction of the 1990-91 Budget they filed a Classification List incorporating the new Special Excise Duty Notification No. 93/90, dated 20-3-1990. The Assistant Collector modified the Classification List inasmuch as he deleted reference to Notification No. 178/88 and substituted it by reference to Notification No. 67/89, dated 1-3-1989 which provided for a rate of ...

Shook Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT249TriDel

1. This stay application is filed by the applicants for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 3,09,809.61, penalty of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- in Appeal No. E/3814/90-B and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 1,0007- in Appeal No. E/3815/90-B respectively.2. Heard both sides with reference to the application. Without going into the merits of the stay application, we find that appeal was filed as early as on 30-11-1990. Neither stay application was filed nor amount in question has been deposited and the party enjoyed this benefit for a period of about 8 years without bringing it into the notice of the Tribunal or of the department. We find it is unfair on part of the party to enjoy this benefit without filing any stay application. On this ground alone, the stay application is liable to be rejected. Accordingly we are of the view that the party is required to deposit Rs. 3,09,809.61 immediately. However, in view of the request made by the Counsel and giving credence to the s...

Rama Cables and Wires Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(77)LC331Tri(Delhi)

1. The assessee has file this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 14.5.1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi confirming the order-in-original No. 379/91 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The dispute relates to admissibility to Modvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on aluminium ingot (input) for payment of duty on the clearances of copper wire and rectangular conductors, the final products. Appellant uses aluminium ingot for manufacture of aluminium wire and conductors and uses copper ingot for manufacture of copper wire and conductors. Both the inputs and the final products are specified for the purpose of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. There is no controversy that appellant is entitled to credit of duty paid on aluminium ingot for discharging duty liability on aluminium wire and conductors and the duty paid on copper ingot for discharging the duty liability on copper wire and conductors. The appellant was not maintaini...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Lml Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT837TriDel

1. Appeal No. E/4996/91-A has been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) New Delhi. Appeal No. E/4434/92-A has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The assessee in this case is engaged in the manufacture and sale of scooters. The Department's appeal arises in relation to price list No.2/87 with effect from 3-1-87 filed under Part I and price list No. 2/87 with effect from 3-1-87 filed under Part V at the instance of the Department. These price lists related to the sales of scooter outside the State of Uttar Pradesh where sales were only to individual customers with assistance of authorised representative. The factory is situated in U.P. State. The sales in U.P. were through wholesalers who in turn effected sales to individual customers, receiving during the relevant period wholesalers' discount of Rs. 250/- per vehicle. The wholesalers in U.P. State ha...

N.D.M.C. Vs. M/S Airtech (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998RLR384

ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 6th May, 1997 whereby the petition of the respondent (petitioner in suit) under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was allowed and Mr.Justice D.R. Khanna, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as an arbitrator for adjudication and determination of claims. An application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment was filed by the appellant on 16th May, 1997 and the certified copy was prepared on 20th May, 1997. The delivery of the certified copy from the Registry was obtained by the appellant on 2nd June, 1997. The appeal was filed on 28th August, 1997 and again refiled on 4 and 6th September, 1997. 2. There was delay of eighty days in filing the appeal. Thus, CM-3166/97 has been filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condensation of delay only two paragraphs of this application may be said to be of some relevance, which read as under :That as the...

Eih Limited Vs. Jyoti Private Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 72(1998)DLT696; 1998(45)DRJ345

ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. This petition under Section 41(B) has been filed seeking injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with and/or parting with possession of the property in Oberoi Palace, Bhulewad Road, Srinagar, Kashmir and to direct the respondent to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 68,94,509 being the admitted amount. The relevant facts giving an occasion to file this petition are being briefly stated as under:2. The petitioner Eastern India Hotels Limited entered into a loan agreement dated 8th August 1980 whereunder the respondent confirmed and acknowledged having received the loan of Rs.30 lacs carrying interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the petitioner by representing itself to be the owner of land and building including all superstructure built up thereon, popularly known as Oberoi Palace Hotel, Srinagar.3. Earlier, this Oberoi Palace Hotel was leased in favor of Shri Rai Bahadur M.S. Oberoi, Chairman of the petitioner company by virtue of lease deed date...

United Engineers Vs. Ahinsa Co-op G/H Society Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(45)DRJ274; (1998)120PLR42

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. These two petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the ACT), registered as suits, seeking reference of disputes and claims mentioned in para 9 of the petitions, based on clause 6 of the Articles of Agreement, dated 30 September 1984, between the parties, are opposed by the respondent on the pleas of these being barred by time; not maintainable for non-joinder of a party and rest judicata. 2. Since the issues involved in both the matters are the same except that they pertain to contracts for two jobs, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The circumstances leading to this contest are as follows :-4. The petitioner firms are the contractors. The respondent is a Group Housing Society. The latter had to build a complex at Plot No.27-1, Sector-IX in Rohini, Delhi and for the work of sanitation (Suit No.2425-A/95) and electrification (2426-A/95) engaged the petitioners. As employer, the respondent society entered into two separa...