Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments

B.H.E.L. vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC636

1. These are 18 appeals. Appeals are filed by M/s. B.H.E.L., Ranipur, accompanied with 18 Stay Applications. The amount involved in these cases is of Rs. 18,10,06,141,79 and Rs. 8,96,76,410.84 respectively.Shri Lakshmi Kumaran submitted, out of that disputed amount Rs. 5.60 Crores and Rs. 1.36 respectively has already been deposited when the matter was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals).2. After hearing for sometime with reference to the stay petition filed by the party, we felt that the matter itself can be disposed of.Accordingly these 18 appeals were taken for regular hearing with the consent of both the sides. In view of this, amount required to be deposited for the purpose of hearing the appeals is dispensed with.3. Aruging for the assessee Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran submitted that dispute is in respect of duty on bought out item, duty on interest on Advances and duty paid on various individual clearances.4. The appellants are Public Sector Undertaking manufacturing various e...

Tirupati Fibres and Indus. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC401

1. These are two appeals; one filed by M/s. Tirupati Fibres & Indus.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Tirupati'), and the other filed by the Revenue, both being aggrieved with the same order-in-appeal dated 20.10.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Jaipur. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.The matter relates to the classification of the yarn doubled with (i) polyester/viscose blended spun yarn and (ii) polyester/viscose filament yarn. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that the finished doubled yarn obtained in the above manner was classifiable under sub-heading No. 5504.22 or sub-heading No. 5506.21 of the Central Excise Tariff (CET). The Department had sought to classify the yarn in question under sub-heading No. 5504.29 or sub-heading No. 5506.29 of the CET. On this issue of classification, the Revenue has come up in appeal. The appellate authority had also held that the benefit ...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Prem De Vastra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi172; [2003]115CompCas908(Delhi); 2000(57)DRJ349

Devinder Gupta, J.1. The short question arising for determination in this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by the plaintiff Bank against the defendants respondents is about the legality and validity of allowing pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 8% p.a. instead and in place of 19% p.a. as prayed by the plaintiff appellant.2. Grievance of the plaintiff appellant is that the defendants had promised to pay interest @ 19.5% p.a. with quarterly rest on availing the credit facilities. Default was committed due to which suit had be filed by the Bank. Proceedings in the suit had dragged on for more than 12 years. As such the exercise of discretion by the trial court by allowing pendente and future interest only at the contractual rate of 8% p.a. in place of the contractual rate of at which it was claimed by the plaintiff in the suit i.e. 18% p.a. is bad in law.3. Farts in brief are that credit f...

Dy. Cit Vs. Sunder Lal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(Del)448

ORDERKrishan Swarup, A.M.In this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak dated 19-8-1994, the department is objecting to the cancellation of penalty of Rs. 9,28,658 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1991-92.2. Briefly stated, the facts concerning imposition of penalty are thus. Search and seizure operations were conducted in the case of the assessed on 26/27-6-1990, during the course of which certain valuables and documents were seized. In his statement under section 132(4) of the Act, the assessed made a surrender of Rs. 17,03,119. Return for the assessment year under consideration was filed on 30-8-1991, declaring an income of Rs. 22,19,640 in which, besides declaring the income for the current year, an amount of Rs. 17,03,119 surrendered under section 132(4) was included. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 23,36,910 and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. In the penalty orde...

Director of Income-tax (Exemption) and anr. Vs. D.L.F. Qutab Enclave C ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]248ITR41(Delhi); [2001]115TAXMAN520(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard. Questioning the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (in short 'the Tribunal'), that time deposits in a scheduled bank are covered by Section 11(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), this appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Act. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1990-91.2. The factual position in a nut shell is as follows : The assessee-trust had received premium amounting to Rs. 20,72,500 on leasing a plot of land to Dr. Sachdeva (P) Limited out of the land settled in its favour, measuring 2.77 acres, for a period of 99 years. This amount was duly reflected in the balance-sheet. The Assessing Officer found that the amount was invested in time deposit with the bank and this, according to him, did not constitute investment in a capital asset. It was, thereforee, concluded that the assessed had infringed the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act and was not entitled...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Rohtash Pal Mehta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 6.9.2000, passed by District Forum No III in Complaint Case No. 403/2000 - entitled Shri Rohtash Pal Mehta v. Executive Engineer/AFO, Delhi Vidyut Board. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Rohtash Pal Mehta had filed a complaint averring that he had purchased property bearing No. A-51/A, Manak Vihar Extension, New Delhi on 23.7.1990 from one Shri Jarnail Singh, who was the registered consumer in respect of electricity connection, bearing No. 1514666. It was stated, in the complaint by the respondent, that the respondent had been paying the electricity bills in respect of that electricity connection regularly. Even the misuse charges, levied by the appellant, had been paid by the respondent, as stated by the respondent in...

Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC556

1. This is an application filed by Punjab State Electricity Board for rectification of mistake said to have taken in Final Order No, 1093/2000-B, dated 9-6-2000.2. Shri Vikrant Kackaria, learned Advocate, submitted that the Tribunal under the said Final Order has rejected the appeal filed by them holding that the refund claim was hit by the time limit specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act; that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the refund claim only on the ground of non-production of copies of original gate pass; that their refund claim was nowhere rejected on the ground of time and as such the ground on which Tribunal has rejected the claim is altogether different and not taken by the appellants and the ground which had been dropped by the Asstt.Commissioner as well as Commissioner (Appeals). He, therefore, submitted that the Final Order has resulted from a mistake apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as altogether a new ground of time limitation has been...

Vani Spinners (P) Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT191TriDel

1. This is an appeal against confiscation of processed cotton knitted fabrics, confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 28,50,968/- under Rule 96ZQ read with Rule 9 and imposition of penalty of an equal amount of duty.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the processing of fabrics and registered with the Central Excise department for processing man-made knitted fabrics and cotton knitted fabrics. Levy on processed textile fabrics on the basis of capacity of production under Section 3A on specified processed textile fabrics as against ad valorem base levy was introduced under Notification Nos.41/98-C.E. (N.T.), 36/98-C.E. all dated 10-12-1998. The new scheme of levy applied only to the Independent Processors of specified textile fabrics. For this purpose, an independent processor has been defined as a manufacturer who is engaged exclusively in the processing of textile fabrics with the aid of power and who also have the facility in his factory including ...

Cce Vs. Multitech Auto Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC559

1. According to the Revenue which has filed the above application, a mistake arises in the Tribunal's Final Order No. 921/2000-B dated 16.6.2000 in holding that the appellants have also requested for condonation of the very short delay of two days in filing declaration under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, since no application was actually filed by them.2. I have heard submission of both sides. In paragraph 3 of the Tribunal's final order it has been held that the appellants have requested for condonation of the very short delay in filing the declaration, and that the delay cannot be the ground for denial of credit, and hence credit of Rs. 17,900 has been held to be admissible on capital goods. On perusal of the records I find that in reply to the show cause notice, assessees have asked for condonation of the delay in filing declaration and, therefore, the Tribunal has correctly held that there was a request for condonation of delay by the appellants. Hence, no error apparent fr...

Oriental Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC553

1. Arguing for the appellant, Shri Devnath submitted that the short point to be considered in this case is whether doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to provisional assessment in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act. He submitted that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to provisional assessment in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act which is similar to Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules. In support of his contention he relied upon the following decisions: -M/s. Smithkline Beecham Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad (Final Order No. 852/99 -C, dated 16-9-99)C.C.E., Meerut v. Steel and Metal Tubes (I) Ltd. - 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1201 (T) (Final Order No. 7/2000-A dated 13-1-2000) (vi) M/s. GKN Invel Transmissions Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi (Final Order No. 694/2000-A dated 30-8-2000)M/s. Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 164Kinetic Motors Co. Ltd. v. CCE 2. On the other hand Shri Jain appearing for the Revenue submitted that para 95 of the Mafatlal Indu...