Delhi Court February 2000 Judgments

A. Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC284

1. The issue referred to the Larger Bench is, whether a claim for refund of duty paid should be preferred within six months of the date of payment even if the goods were supplied pursuant to a contract which contained a clause for escalation of price.2. This reference has been made by Bench A of the Tribunal while doubting the correctness of the law laid down in Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1997 (95) E.L.T. 386 by the Bench consisting of two Members of this Tribunal to the effect that where the purchase orders contained price variation clause and the copies of the purchase orders and the contract were submitted alongwith the price list, the price agreed and declared would be provisional and that the approval granted to the price list by the Revenue would also be treated as provisional and the provisions of limitation contained in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act will not be attracted.3. Before reverting to the issue it would be beneficial to refer to the ...

Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC508

"In view of the above discussions, I uphold the order of the Addl. Commissioner as legal and proper. However the adjudicating authority is directed to examine if the appellant has actually reversed the amount of Rs.15,653/-, the same may be deducted from the confirmed demand, and rest amount is payable by the appellant". "M/s. Glaxo India Ltd. were taken as a going concern by M/s. Heinz India (P) Ltd., and the change required to be indicated in records in the necessary Central Excise statutory books of accounts and documents. But the party intimated about the change vide their letter, dt. 24-9-1994, whereas the relevant invoices regarding the duty paid capital goods were out during the month of June, August & Sept, 1994. It appears that the change was not immediately brought to the notice of the department but since the unit was taken as a going concern by M/s. Heinz India (P) Ltd., the normal manufacturing activity went on regularly, duty was also paid, commercial activity did no...

Vikky Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC301

1. This is an appeal against confirmation of a demand of Rs. 20,64,746.98 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 20,00,000.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are manufacturer of M.S. Ingots. The officers of the Central Excise conducted surprise checks on 22.12.92 and resumed certain records and documents in regard to availment of Modvat credit for the period from 1.4.91 to 31.3.92 and 1.4.92 to 31.3.93. Scrutiny of the records revealed that the appellants had availed Modvat credit irregularly. It was, therefore, alleged that the appellants had availed Modvat credit on the strength of documents described as material gate passes. It was also alleged that these documents contained no details regading rate of duty and amount of Modvat credit. It was also alleged that material gate passes were not specified as duty paying documents under the Central Excise Rules, that proviso to Sub-rule 2 of Rule 57G stipulated that no credit shall be taken unless the inputs are received ...

Digamber Foundry Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT140TriDel

1. In this case demand of duty of Rs. 13,57,144/- has been confirmed against the Applicants who are manufacturers of M.S. Bars and Rods on the ground that they were not eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-CE., dated 20-5-1988 since they purchased unusable rails, sleepers, fish plates, etc. (rail scrap) during auction from the Railways and used the same as raw material and the raw material was clearly recognisable as non-duty paid and that therefore the applicants should have paid appropriate duty on their final product 6 mm. Width Bars and Rods. The period in dispute is August, 1992 to February, 1994.Penalty of amount equal to duty has also been imposed.2. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The issue on merits has been decided against the assessees by virtue of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Vivek Re-rolling Mills v. C.C.E. - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 660 (T) which has been followed subsequently in the case of Rehal Industrial Corporation v. C.C.E. - 2...

Ravi Kant JaIn Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal of the assessee arises out of block assessment order dt.22nd May, 1998 for the block period ending 30th November, 1996.2. The assessee was found engaged in the business of property dealing and his main source of income was commission earned on making arrangement for hiring out or letting out of the property and from purchase and sale of immovable properties. The assessee was having close links with Kohli group. Search and seizure operation was conducted on the Kohli group on 1st November, 1996 and subsequently a search under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961, was also conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 30th November, 1996. The Assessing Officer ("AO" in short) issued a notice under s. 158BC of the Act on 9th June, 1997 calling upon the assessee to file the return for the block period. The assessee filed the return declaring Nil undisclosed income for the block period. The AO issued detailed questionnaire based on the seized material which was also served ...

Escorts Employees Ancillaries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. In an appeal filed against the order of CIT(A), Rohtak, under s.272A(2)(f) of the Act, it is contended that a penalty of Rs. 38,30,400 for alleged default for a period of 133 days in respect of each of 288 Forms No. 15H as furnished is wholly unjustified. Shri Pradeep Dinodia who appeared on behalf of the assessee submitted that as per the provisions of s. 194A(1), the assessee was required to deduct tax on the interest exceeding Rs. 2,500 paid to the depositor As per the provisions of s. 197A, no deduction of tax is required to be made in case the assessee on whose behalf tax is to be deducted furnishes declaration in writing in duplicate in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner that the tax on his total income of the previous year in which such income is to be included would be nil. The assessee is a public limited company which collects the FD from public shareholders through the broker. The broker is assigned the job of collection of FD as well furnishing of...

Ravikant JaIn Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(Delhi)797

This appeal of the assessee arises out of block assessment order dated 22-5-1998 for the block period ending 30-11-1996.The assessee was found engaged in the business of property dealing and his main source of income was commission earned on making arrangement for hiring out or letting out of the property and from purchase and sale of immovable properties. The assessee was having close links with Kohli group. Search and seizure operation was conducted on the Kohli group on Ist Nov., 1996 and subsequently a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was also conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 30-11-1996. The assessing officer (hereinafter referred to as the "assessing officer") issued a notice under section 158BC of the Act on 9-6-1997 calling upon the assessee to file the return for the block period. The assessee filed the return declaring Nil undisclosed income for the block period. The assessing officer issued detailed questionnaire based on the seiz...

Sumer Singh Vs. Sidhartha

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2000)ACC8; 2001ACJ2044; 2000VAD(Delhi)1; 85(2000)DLT544; 2000(54)DRJ255

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The above six appeals have arisen out of the judgment rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, hereinafter called the Tribunal, awarding compensation to the claimants, in the petitions for compensation filed on account of the accident which took place on the 14th of December, 1976 at about 6.30 a.m. in Sarvodaya Enclave.2. The claim petition No.78/78 was filed by Arun Jain. The claim petition No.79/80 was also filed by Arun Jain, and the claim petiton No. 80/80 was filed by Master Sidhartha and Smti Padmini.3. The person who was driving the car was Anil Kumar, who died on account of the accident the next day of the accident. His widow, Smt. Padmini Anil Kumar and his minor son, Sidhartha filed the claim petition No. 80/78 claiming a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,27,400/-.4. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the driver, Sumer Singh, of the truck, which was responsible for the accident according to the claimants, and ...

Raj Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)302; 86(2000)DLT113

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.4.1997 whereby the respondent informed the petitioner that the allotment of Flat No. 79, Section 23, Pocket i, Group I at Dwarka allotted in the name of the petitioner had been canceled in terms of the policy of the respondent as the petitioner is an owner of more than 80 square yards in property No.15/A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. To the same effect is the letter dated 13.6.1997 which is Annexure 13 to the writ petition whereunder the petitioner was asked to furnish certain documents for refund of the earnest money, the legality of which is also questioned in the present writ petition . 2. Pursuant to an advertisement of a Scheme called Registration Scheme on New Pattern-1979, the petitioner applied for allotment of a flat and deposited earnest money of Rs. 4,500/- on 24.9.1979. A draw of lots also took place for allotment of such flats under the aforesaid scheme and the petitioner was successful i...

Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)342; 86(2000)DLT246

ORDERS.N. Variava C.J.1. This Writ Petition arises out of an unfortunate incident which took place in Uphaar theatre in the evening of 13th June, 1997. A fire took place in which a number of people were killed and/or injured. All the Petitioners are those who were injured in the fire or relatives of those who were injured or killed in the fire. By this Writ Petition the Petitioners seek to highlight, what according to them are a shocking state of affairs. They claim that there is complete disregard of statutory obligations, prescribed under the law, for prevention of fire hazards in public places.2. The grievance of the Petitioners is that each and every public authority, not only failed in the discharge of its statutory obligations, but in fact acted in a manner which was hostile and foreign to the discharge of their public duties. The standards set under the statute and the rules framed for the purpose of preventing public hazards were observed only by their breach. license and permi...