Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

R.K. Mill Board (P) Ltd. and 9 ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC174

1. These ten appeals are against fixing the norms of production, confirmation of duty demand and imposition of penalties. These appeals arise out of the same impugned order, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants manufacture kraft paper. An information was received in the office of the Asst.Commissioner that this unit had been removing kraft paper manufactured by it surreptitiously without payment of duty by maintaining parallel sets of books of GP-1s/invoices and by issuing therefrom GP-1s/invoices to M/s Sapan Paper House without accountal thereof in their statutory records. At the time of visit of the Central Excise Officers to M/s RKMB, the factory manager, Shri Hari Mohan Maheshwari and Shri Jay Kumar, Accountant were present. They informed the Central Excise Officers that they were authorized signatories of M/s RKMB in the central excise matters. They produced documents/records ...

C.C.E Vs. Yash Papers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC96

1. The Revenue seeks reference of the following question of law purported to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order No.A/243/99-NB(DB) dated 13.4.99: Whether items namely wire mesh and felt can be considered as inputs eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 or not? 2. Learned Counsel for the respondents, Shri Pragyan Sharma submits that the issue does not survive since the respondents have settled the matter under Kar Vivad Samadh an Scheme; however, the question of law remains to be decided and it cannot He said that the legal question has been academic or has become in fructuous and, therefore, we proceed to consider the reference application on merits.3. We agree with the learned DR that since an identical question has already been referred to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Union Carbide reported in 1996 (86) ELT 613, the question framed in this application also requires to be referred. Hence, we allow this application and refer the ...

Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC180

1. Ld. Collector (Appeals) had upheld the order passed by the Asstt.Collector except on the point that the appellants were entitled to Modvat credit on new bottles clearly proved to be received under the gate passes which were duly endorsed by the Printer Decorators in terms of Board's instructions vide Circular No. 19/92-CX. 8. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal before us.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters. Notification No. 177/86, dated 1-3-1986 issued under Rule 57A was amended by Notification No.23/91-C.E., dated 5-7-1991 extending the Modvat credit facility to aerated waters w.e.f. 25-7-1991. The appellants filed a declaration on 1-8-1991 under Rule 57G to avail of credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They also filed a declaration of stocks of inputs lying with them on 25-7-1991 or used in the manufacture of aerated waters c...

Ducksole (i) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC330

1. In these appeals the issue relates to the classification of Tarpaulin cloth/water proof canvass cloth.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Tarpaulin cloth/wax coated water-proofed canvass. They procure grey cloth of required quality from various mills and powerloom units. That cloth is dipped by them in the tanks in which the mixture of wax, china clay, yellow chlorine etc. is transferred after heating the same in the hearing pans. Thereafter, the cloth is passed through rollers, which are operated manually and sequeezed to required thickness. After drying the cloth, it is cut and stitched also by them according to the required size with the help of manually operated stitching machines.3. According to the appellants, their product falls under Chapter 52 (Heading 52.06) whereas the stand taken up by the Revenue is that the product of the appellants is not covered by that chapter but by Chapter 59 (Heading 59.06) as held by the Collector in the impugned order.5. The le...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Parkashita Perforators

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT101TriDel

1. This is a Reference Application filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. (i) Whether the option either to pay duty and avail Modvat credit or avail exemption as an SSI Unit is vested in the Unit; (ii) Whether provisions of Rule 57C are attracted in case where final products are cleared without availing of exemption from whole of the duty of excise.2. Shri T.A. Arunachalam, ld. JDR submitted that the Respondents filed classification lists effective from 1-4-1993 and opted for payment of normal rate of duty after availing of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules; that this was disallowed to them by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the goods manufactured by them were exempted up to the limit of Rs. 30 lakhs under Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993; that the Tribunal has allowed them the benefit of Modvat credit relying on the decisions in the case of Garg Indus...

R. P. Locks Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Dy. CIT, Spl. Range-29, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'AO') dt. 29th August, 1996, under s. 158BC(c) of the Act, 1961, for the block period ending 9th August, 1995.2. In the appeal petition, as many as 17 grounds were taken. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee withdrew 6 of these grounds (Sr. Nos. 1, 3, 5 to 7 and 9). The other grounds run as under : "2. That in making the impugned assessment the learned Dy. CIT has erred in proceeding to make assessment under s. 158BC(c) of the IT Act and has also erred while making the assessment not to have followed the procedure for making the block assessment as is envisaged under s. 158BC(c) of the IT Act. 4. That the learned Dy. CIT has failed to appreciate that it is only the undisclosed income of the block period (which is the total income of the block period), is required to be computed and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV and on the...

Adwave Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)154; 84(2000)DLT638; 2000(53)DRJ262

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J. 1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the selection of respondent No. 3 as Executive Producer for the sponsored programme 'APNE ADHIKAR' by respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner had submitted scripts which were stated to be duly approved by respondents 1 and 2 but before the same could be given effect and implemented the respondents stopped the Radio programme in the end of 1995 for the reasons unknown to the petitioner. Prior to the stoppage of radio programme in 1995 the petitioner had exclusively produced about 180 episodes of the programme which had further converted into 11 different regional languages. This exclusive production assignment for the Radio programme was successfully handled by the petitioner for more than 3 years. Respondent No., 1 in 1991 and 1994-95 had adopted a procedure under which the scripts and the audio recordings of the producers were considered and studied by the Committee constituted by the ...

Jagbir Singh (Ex. Sep.) Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)176; 2000(52)DRJ557

ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been praying for writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 1.3.1993 and for direction in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents to pay 60% medical disability pension w.e.f. 23.7.1992. 2. It is the say of the petitioner that the petitioner was enrolled in the regular Army as combatant soldier after a complete medical check up on 11.12.1985 prescribed under the military rules; that the petitioner did not have any disease at the time of his enrolment/entry into military service; that the petitioner always performed his assigned duty to the satisfaction of his superiors; that the petitioner developed eye problem because of strenuous duties of artillery in the Army and he reported the matter to Army Medical Authority in the year 1990; that the Army Medical Authority administered treatment and the petitioner was placed into low medical category 'EEE'; that w...

Amit Yadav and ors. Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)180; 86(2000)DLT517; 2000(2)SLJ412(Delhi)

ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for direction to the respondent not to terminate the services of the petitioners from the post of Tr. Telephone Operators/Complaint Receiver till regular selection is made to the posts: for further direction to the respondent to consider the petitioners for regularisation on the post after giving due weightage of their past services and for grant of attached benefit of service in the matter of pay and allowances on the principle of equal pay for equal work. 2. The say of the petitioners is that the petitioners are working as Tr. Telephone Operators/Complaint Receiver in Delhi Vidyut Board on the consolidated salary of Rs. 2500/- per month; that the petitioners were appointed when they applied in response to an advertisement for the post which required the candidates to possess registration with Employment Exchange in Delhi; that before appointment, the petitioners were subje...

Thakur Dass Virmani and Others Vs. Smt. Raj Minocha and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)20; AIR2000Delhi234; 84(2000)DLT534; 2000(53)DRJ248

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by an order of grant of letter of administration, the Objectors/appellants have filed the present appeal. 2. It has been contended by Mr. Chopra, learned counsel for the appellants that a suit for partition is pending in the High Court in relation to the property in question and, thereforee, the Probate Court ought to have stayed the proceedings till the decision in the partition suit pending in the High Court. He has further contended that the Will did not inspire any confidence as the circumstances in which the Will was executed were doubtful. It has further been contented by learned counsel for the appellants that the mere fact that both the attesting witnesses were beneficiaries of the Will would create doubt about the genuineness of the Will. It has been further contended by Mr. Chopra that a material witness, advocate Tuteja was not brought in the witness box although he was an independent witness and allegedly drafted the Will and got the same ...