Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 12 of about 221 results (0.020 seconds)Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT872TriDel
1. In this batch of cases which are heard together and disposed of by this common order, the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed a total duty demand of Rs. 12,40,842/- on Copper and Aluminium coils fabricated by the appellants out of Aluminium and Copper wires and strips duly insulated with paper, cotton or enamelled in reels/bobbins and drums for winding as transformer coils and utilised captively in the repair of electric transformers within their own workshop.2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Tribunal's decision in their own case vide Final Order No. E/ 275/93-B1, dated 24-9-1993 in which the Tribunal has followed its earlier order in the case of Punjab Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise, 1989 (44) E.L.T 340 in coming to its conclusion that the process adopted by the appellants of converting aluminium/copper winding and strips into transformer coils, is not a process of manufacture so as to g...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner Central Excise, Vs. M/S Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd (Now
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC700
1. In this appeal, filed by the Revene, the issue involved is whether the Modvat Credit of duty paid is available in respect of the inputs used by M/s Duracell (India) Pvt. Ltd. in the trial production.2. Shri A. K. Jain, ld. D.R., submitted that the Assistant Commissioner disallowed the Modvat Credit amounting to Rs. 8,16,142 to M/s Duracell (INdia) Pvt. Ltd as the inputs were used for trial production of finished goods which eventually turned into waste and scrap holding that no yeild of final product was obtained and no manufacture had taken place; that as this kind of production is done to develop the goods and to test the capability of the machine, it would be wrong to assume that such raw materials as inputs covered under Modvat Scheme as the purpose is not to manufacture of final product. The ld. DR, further, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the Respondent's appeal on the basis of the Provisions of Rule 57D (3) and a number of Tribunal's decisions as ...
Tag this Judgment!Rathi Super Steels Limited Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC712
1. By the captioned stay petition, the applicants have sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 57,68,933 and a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs on the applicants.2. Arguing the stay petition, Shri M. Chandrashekhar, Ld. Senior Advocate with Shri Kamaljit Singh, Ld. Advocate for the applicants submitted that the applicants started their activity in trading of iron and steel products at Ghaziabad some time in July 1993; that the applicants entered into an agreement with M/s. Rathi Alloys and Steels Limited for purchase of the manufacturing unit at A-1, Industrial Area, G.T. Road, Ghaziabad with effect from 16.8.93; that the applicants got themselves registered with the Central Excise Department with effect from 16.8.93; that the applicants were engaged in the manufacture of bars and rods; that the raw materials for the said products being ingots and billets etc.; that the Government of India allowed deemed Modvat credit on the inputs procured by the applicants from the market.The L...
Tag this Judgment!TIn Manufacturing Co. of India and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC704
1. In the impugned order Ld. Collector held that 17076 nos. of Metal Containers which were provisionally released were liable to confiscation. He, therefore, ordered appropriation of Rs. 10,000 towards fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods. Ld. Collector confirmed demand of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 2180.62 on 2363 Metal Containers found short. Ld. Collector also appropriated Rs. 50,000 towards fine in lieu of confiscation on 88.644 M.T. of tin scrap which was liable to confiscation. Ld. Collector also appropriated Rs. 10 lakhs towards fine in lieu of confiscation on 389.540 M.T. of tin sheets which were liable to confiscation. Ld. Collector also demanded Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,44,609 on 436.534 m.t. of tin sheets found short. Ld. Collector also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on M/s. Tin Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000 each on S/Shri S.P. Goel and Ravi Goel and a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000 on Shri S.U. Warsi. Ld. Collect...
Tag this Judgment!Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT221TriDel
1. The appellants herein manufacture various chemicals including Benzyl Chloride and Benzyl Cyanide for use in the sugar industry. Benzyl Chloride is manufactured by reacting Toluene, Chlorine and Caustic Soda procured from outside. Benzyl Cyanide is manufactured by reacting Benzyl Chloride, Sodium Cyanide, Triethylamine Sodium Hypochloride and Caustic soda. Phenyl Acetic Acid is manufactured by reacting Benzyl Cyanide manufactured within the factory with Sulphuric acid procured from outside. Benzyl Chloride used in the manufacture of Benzyl Cyanide and Benzyl Cyanide used in the manufacture of Phenyl Acetic Acid were being cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 176/86 and No. 217/86 dated 1-3-1986 and No. 246/86. Phenyl Acetic Acid was cleared at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 147/84-C.E., dated 18-6-1984. Exemption to interim products used captively is available under Notification 176/84 and No. 217/86 only if the final product is cleared on payment of duty....
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Tourism and Transportation Devp. Corpn. Ltd. (D.T.T.D.C.) Vs. Le ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)271; 86(2000)DLT53; (2000)126PLR30
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. I propose to dispose off the present application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 10 for payment of arrears of damages as well as future damages/mesne profits. This application has been filed in a suit for possession and recovery of sundry dues/damages. It is not in controversy that a license Deed dated 6.12.1998 has been executed by the parties. This Deed records. inter alia, that the Defendant was required to pay the Plaintiff Rs. 10,000/- per month by way of license fee, Along with a further sums representing 11 per cent of the gross revenue from the Defendant's sales. The license Deed further stipulates that the Defendant was liable to pay proportional property tax, clause 7 of the license Deed requires the Defendant to deposit one year's license fee in advance. This deposit was to be made every 11th month. Clause 10 of the license Deed mentions that in case of default of payment of the license fee interest at the rate of 15 per cent on the o...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotsna Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority Under the Kar Viva ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)461; 2000(53)DRJ696; [2000]243ITR246(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. Two short but interesting questions namely: (i) whether interest under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') forms part of 'tax arrear' as defined in Section 87(m) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme ('KVSS' for short) and (ii) if it does, whether the same could be demanded after issue of final certificate under Section 90(2) of the KVSS, arise for consideration in the present case. 2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a private limited company. For the assessment year 1988-89 it was assessed on a total income of Rs. 6,26,81,410/- and on the basis of this assessment, a tax demand of Rs. 3,61,98,513/- was created. A further sum of Rs. 1,53,31,342/- was determined as payable on account of interest under Section 215 of the Act. The petitioner challenged the levy of interest under Section 215 by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but was unsuccessful. The petitioner took the matter in further appe...
Tag this Judgment!Cit (Delhi-i) Vs. M/S. Goodyear India Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Del)359; 2000(53)DRJ324; [2000]243ITR239(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Benches, (for short 'the Tribunal') to state the case and refer the following questions, said to be of law, for the opinion of this Court. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT is justified in law : 1. In holding that the sum of Rs. 55,15,730/- paid by the assessed to Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,USA on account of technical know how fee to produce extra large OTR tyres was of revenue in nature? 2. In holding that the assessed was entitled to deduct a sum of Rs.1,31,81,180/- from the closing stock on account of excise duty paid thereon despite the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mcdowell & Co. : [1985]154ITR148(SC) wherein the Apex Court had held that the excise duty is a part of the turnover. 3. In holding that the amount of Rs. 2,52,55,428/- written back by the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Paper and Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 85(2000)DLT790; 2000(54)DRJ27; (2000)126PLR1
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') seeking a declaration that no arbitration agreement came into existence between the parties out of the tender submitted by the petitioner on 2.4.1990. 2. Briefly, the facts are that Director General of Supplies & Disposals (for short 'DGS & D') on behalf of Union of India had invited tenders to be opened on 14.3.1990 for supply of 600 M. T. paper printing coloured in reels/sheets as per ISS:1848/81 with amendments 1 and 2. In response there to, to petitioner had submitted their quotation/offer on 10.3.1990 with relevant information/documents. This quotation was not accepted and fresh quotations were invited for 5.4.1990. The petitioner in supper session of their earlier quotation again submitted quotations on 2.4.1990. This offer was initially valid up to 5.7.1990 but its validity period was extended on several dates and finally extended up to 3.10.1990 vide letter...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotsna Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority Unde the Kar Vivad ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)160CTR(Del)95
ORDERD. K. Jain, J.Two short but interesting questions namely, (i) whether interest under S. 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), forms part of tax arrear,' as defined in section 87(m) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'KVSS'), and (ii) if its does, whether the same could be demanded after issue of final certificate under section 90(2) of the KVSS, arise for consideration in the present case.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a private limited company. For the assessment year 1988-89 it was assessed on a total income of Rs. 6,26,81,410 and on the basis of this assessment, a tax demand of Rs. 3,61,98,513 was created. A further sum of Rs. 1,53,31,342 was determined as payable on account of interest under section 215 of the Act. The petitioner challenged the levy of interest under section 215 by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) but was unsuccessful. The petitioner took the matter in fur...
Tag this Judgment!