Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.N. Chadha

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Del)547; [2001]249ITR31(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that Section 89(1) was applicable to the assessor's case ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the amount of leave encashmenttogether with regular salary of the assessed represented salary for more than 12 months ?' 2. The factual position, which is almost undisputable is essentially as follows :For the assessment year 1972-73 corresponding to the financial year 1971-72 the assessee, an individual, claimed relief under Section 89(1) of the Act in respect of Rs. 10,709, received on account of encashment of accumulated leave...

Common Cause Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi93

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These writ petitions have been essentially filed questioning regularisation of unauthorised colonies. The main plan of challenge is that, without definite guidelines, policy or scheme, regularizations were being effected at the ipsi dixit of the authorities. Several interim orders have been passed in the cases. Along with the affidavit dated 13th February, 2001 filed in CWP 4771/93 as amended by the affidavit dated 20th February, 2001, certain guidelines for regularisation of unauthorised colonies have been filed. Since there was no specific challenge to guidelines, if any, the present writ petitions have become infructuous. We note that stand of some is that, we should not put our seal of approval to the guidelines filed. As the applicability of the guidelines or the correctness thereof is not under challenge in any of the writ petitions, the question of our putting seal of approval or otherwise to it does not arise. It has also been urged by some that there is ...

Haridass Generators Vs. Saya Automobiles

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 21.9.2000, passed by District Forum (North-West) in Complaint Case No. 1846/99 - entitled Shri Lalit Gupta v. M/s. Saya Automobile Ltd. and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, in the present appeal, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum averring that he had booked one Maruti Car A/C Tatkal on 22.8.1996 and against the abovesaid booking a car delivered to him was not Maruti A/C Tatkal but Maruti A/C (CR4AS2) with a catalyser. The grievance of the appellant, in the complaint, was that besides not delivering the car booked by him, the car delivered to him was also defective. The appellant, in the complaint, filed by him, had claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for deficiency in...

C.C.E., Pune Vs. M/S. Philips India (Peico

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is a Revenue appeal filed against the Order dt. 24.10.94 of Commissioner (Appals), Pune. The brief facts of this case are that the respondents manufactured excisable goods falling under Chapter 85. They filed Classification List No. 52/90-91 effective from 25.5.90 and No.53/90-91 effective form 30.5.90 in respect of the following goods manufactured by them: (i) "15 AW 505/OOR Home stereo System" (consisting of Radio and Amplideck) classified under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8527.00 claiming duty @ 25% Adv. Basic + Special duty as per Notfn. No. 87/89 dated 1.3.89 as amended by Notfn. No. 71/90 dt. 20.3.90. (ii) "15 AW 606/OOR Home Stereo System" (Consisting of Radio and Amplideck), classified under Cental Excise Tariff Heading 8527.00, claiming duty @ 25% Adv. Basic + Special duty as per Notfn. No. 87/89 dated 1.3.89 as amended by Notfn. No. 71/90 dt. 20.3.90.2. Both the above Classification Lists were approved on 9.8.90. Pending approval of these Classification Lists, the ...

Reliance Chemotex Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT413TriDel

1. In this appeal the appellants have challenged the validity of the Order-in-Appeal dated 10-2-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the Order-in-Original dated 30-3-1998 confirming duty of Rs. 58,011/- on them.2. The appellants had been settled with the duty demand of Rs. 58,011/- for having not discharged the duty liability at the single yarn stage but paid duty on the doubled yarn. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the view of the Assistant Commissioner that the duty liability was required to be discharged by the appellants at the single ply yarn stage being a manufactured product and not at a later stage when it was doubled or multifolded, by applying the ratio of the law laid down in C.C.E. v. Banswara Syntex Ltd. [1996 (88) E.L.T. 645 (S.C.)]. He also accepted the waste percentage of 0.35% as fixed by the Assistant Commissioner for determining the weight of the single ply yarn for the purpose of levy of duty.3. The appellants have challenged the...

Gabriel India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT298TriDel

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Gabriel India Ltd. for restoration of appeal by recalling Final Order No. 509/2000-B dated 24-2-2000.2. Shri G. Shiv Das, learned Advocate, submitted that the applicants had never received the notice of hearing for 24th February, 2000 and in support of which they had filed an affidavit of Shri Manoj Tulsiyan, Manager Finance. He further submitted that they had also filed cross objection on 4th July, 95 against the appeal filed by the Revenue which was not considered while deciding the appeal.3. Opposing the prayer Shri M.P. Singh, learned DR, submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed by the Tribunal on merit; that the notice of hearing was sent by registered post by the Tribunal and once an intimation is sent by registered post there is presumption of service as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atma Ram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. On enquiry ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kothari Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC252

1. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the common order in appeal dated 20-1-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order-in-original dated 4-6-1999 disallowing the refund claims of the respondents.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under : 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of the pan masala/gutaka falling under Chapter Heading 2106.00 of the CETA.They are also availing the Modvat credit facility on the raw material/packing material used in the manufacture of the pan masala.They lodged two refund claims of Rs. 8,91,196/- and Rs. 81,600/- under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the goods earlier cleared by them on payment of duty were received back in the factory premises due to reddish colour and they after refining/reconditioning the same by mixing the fresh material, cleared the same again on payment of duty. They claimed the refund for having p...

M/S Trident Modular Technologies Vs. Cce, Bombay - Ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These nine appeals are directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II dated 3.06.92. The appeals were filed by the following parties: 1. M/s Trident Modular Techno- E/3600/92-B logies P. Ltd. 2. Shri Sudhir Shriram Set, E/3601/92-B Director, M/s Trident Modu- 4. Shri Elijah A.Elias, E/3603/92-B Director, M/s Trident Modu- 6. Mrs. Himadri Shachin E/3605/92-B Nanavati, Proprietress, 7. Mrs. Chitra Arunkumar Seth, E/3606/92-B Proprietress, M/s Santulan 8. Shri A.N.Narayanan, E/3607/92-B Proprietor,M/s Fridge 9. Shri Karunakar S.Shetty, E/3608/92-B Excise Clerk, M/s Trident As per the impugned order, M/s Trident Modular Technologies P.Ltd. were asked to pay Central Excise duty of Rs.31,94,857.29 and a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs was imposed on them. A redemption fine of Rs.1 lakh was also imposed on them in lieu of confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery etc. Appeal No.E/3600/92-B is against this part of the order of the Collector. The Collector, by the ...

Ashok Iron and Steel Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT496TriDel

1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether an assessee is authorised to pay the amount calculated pro-rata in case the manufacturing units product falls on account of break-down etc.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are a re-rolling mill. They are manufacturing hot rolled products. The appellant opted for discharging its duty liability under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZP. The Department provisionally fixed the Annual Production Capacity of the mill and also the duty payable per month on that basis.The appellants deposited duty for the months of Sept '97 and Oct. '97 at the rate determined by the Department. On 11-11-1997, there was a break-down in the mill requiring urgent repairs. Consequently, the mill had to be closed down resulting in non-production of the rolled products. Intimation about closure was sent to the Asstt. Commissioner as also the Commissioner. The Asstt. Commissioner, however, asked the appellant to deposit dues from Nov '97 t...

Jai Bharat Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT587TriDel

1. Present appeal is against the rejection of a Refund which was required to be paid as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 22-4-1991 within a period of three months.2. The refund arose, as observed from SCN dated 25-10-95 consequent to Tribunal's Order-in-Appeal No. 226 to 248/87B-I, dated 15-11-87 which held that their product to be 'Bars' and not Strip, Hoops and flats during the relevant period. This refund when examined in light of CEGAT decision Order 20-12-98, it was found that original documents were not submitted and the same were requisitioned by this SCN dated 25-10-95 and also the party was asked to show cause as to why the refund should not be rejected on ground of unjust enrichment and time bar.3. The appellant replied that duty was paid under protest and the Punjab & Haryana High Court had in CWP No. 773/1990 was pleased to quash the order of the department declining the claim. They also brought on record the decision of the Dy. Col...