Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments

Ashwani Kapoor Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)689; 86(2000)DLT50; 2000(56)DRJ366

C.K. Mahajan, J.1. Rule. The learned Counsel for the parties agree that this petition can be finally disposed of at this stage. 2. The petitioner prays for directions to the respondents to allot a flat of Category-I (3 bed room category) in his favor and for award of damages for the delay in the allotment of flat. 3. The petitioner is a member of respondent No.3 Society and has paid the entire amount of the costs of the flat totalling Rs. 3,73000/- by 17th July, 1995. He was expelled from the Society on 2nd November, 1992. He filed an appeal against his expulsion. The appeal was allowed on 31st July, 1995 and the expulsion order was set aside. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies rejected the proposal of expulsion and cleared the name of the petitioner for allotment of flat vide letter dated December 4, 1995. The DDA/respondent No.1 was informed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The petitioner approached the DDA for allotment of the flat. Till the filing of the petition allotmen...

M/S. Dee Dee Industries Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The short point for determination in this case is whether Modvat credit will be admissible on the strength of invoices issued by dealer who was not registered on the date of issue of invoices but was registered on or before 31.12.94.2. I have heard the rival submissions. Ld. Counsel submits that with the SCN the authorities had sent an Annexure 'A'. He submits that in this Annexure appellant is claiming Modvat credit in respect of items listed at S.No.1 to 6 and 12. He submits that he is not pressing the admissibility of Modvat credit on items covered by S.No.7 to 12.3. I have perused the Annexure. I have also seen the Registration certificate of the firm from whom the items were purchased. It is a fact that on the date of issue of invoice by these dealers, they were not registered but they were registered before 31.12.94. There are a number of decisions of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that the invoices issued by dealers registered on or before 31.12.94 will be valid duty ...

Cce Vs. Laxmi Tar Udyog

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(94)LC85Tri(Delhi)

1. Revenue has filed the captioned Reference Application stating that a point of law arises out of the Tribunal's Final Order No.A/309/98-NB(DB) dated 5.5.1998. The point of law has been formulated as: (1) Whether the option either to pay duty and avail modvat credit or avail exemption as an SSI Unit is vested in the Unit. (2) Whether provisions of Rule 57C are attracted in cases where final products are cleared without availing of exemption from whole of the duty of Excise. (3) Whether the final order No. A/309/98-NB(DB) dated 5.5.1998 is legally correct and proper or not in the light of the above question of law.2. Arguing the application for making reference to the Hon'ble High Court, Shri R.D. Negi, Id. DR submits that similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Mahesh Metal Industries for making reference to the Hon'ble High Court. He submits that the Tribunal held that a point of law arises out of the Order of the Tribuna...

Kamakhya Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT423TriDel

1. This appeal filed by the assessees is against the order of the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise disallowing abatement of duty for the period 1-9-1997 to 10-9-1997 claimed by the appellants.2. The appellants are manufacturers of M.S. Ingots and Runners and Risers falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and are working under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They came under the Compounded Levy Scheme w.e.f. 1-9-1997 and, accordingly, the provisions of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act became applicable to them w.e.f. the said date.Under Rule 96ZO (2) of the Central Excise Rules, the appellants were entitled to apply for abatement of duty for any continuous period of closure of their furnace, not less than seven days on fulfilment of the conditions laid down under the said sub-rule. The said conditions, contained in clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-rule...

BIn Sabt Jewellery Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT169TriDel

1. By Order-in-Original dated 16-8-1999, Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo Unit), New Delhi ordered confiscation of 200 T.T. Gold Bars under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with a redemption fine of Rs. 1 crore. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was also imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Act. A penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs was also imposed on M/s. Shri Ganesh Exports, A-33, Okhla Phase-1, New Delhi under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.2. The present Appeal filed by M/s. Bin Sabt Jewellery challenges the said Order insofar as it relates to them.3. We have heard Shri L.P. Asthana, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri R.D. Negi, ld. SDR for the Respondent Collector.4. The appellants are dealers in bullion in Dubai and are said to be one of the major exporters of gold bullion to India. The appellants claim that on the receipt of a FAX message from M/s. Shri Ganesh Exports, A-33, Okhla Phase-1, New Delhi for supply of 200 T.T. gold bars, the appellants despatched a co...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Galaxy (Frp) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT142TriDel

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of K.W.H. Heliplastics Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 178 held that goods, in question, are classifiable under sub-heading 39.26 of the Central Excise Tariff.3. Ld. SDR submits that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of K.W.H. Heliplastics Ltd. (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. K.W.H. Heliplastics Ltd., reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) and held that plastic tanks and vats be classifiable under Heading 3925.10 of the tariff as buildersware of plastic. He, therefore, submits that appeal be allowed.4. Ld. Counsel submits that the respondents are manufacturing gas-domes, gutters, trays & baffle plates, which are used in the sewage plants and are not covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the Hon'bl...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC719

1. All these appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the order in original dated 24-4-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had dropped the demand of duty raised through four show cause notices, by the Revenue department, against the respondents.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under : 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of woolen yarn falling under Chapter 51 of the Schedule annexed to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On scrutiny of the documents furnished by them along with R.T. 12 returns, it revealed that they had cleared the woollen yarn in plain straight reel hanks falling under sub-heading 5103.10 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act of the quantity detailed in the impugned order itself and did not pay any Central Excise Duty under Notiacation No. 90/94-C.E., dated 25-4-1994. They were accordingly served with four show cause notices. Two show cause notices one dated 30-11-1994 for t...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Addi Alloys (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC264

1. These 41 appeals filed by the Department are against the common order dated 16-2-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in appeals filed by different assessees against orders of adjudication passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioners of Central Excise. Since a common issue is involved, all these appeals are being disposed of by a common order.2. The respondents in these appeals were engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were availing the facility of Modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules during the respective periods of dispute. They took Modvat credit of the duty paid on the defective/rejected ingots received as inputs for the manufacture of alloy/non-alloy steel ingots (final products). They did so without filing D-3 declaration with the jurisdictional Central Excise Range Officers as required under Trade Notice No. 20/CE/93, dated 29-10-1993 of the Co...

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)77ITD123(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal by assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Administration) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act relevant to assessment year 1995-96. The following grounds have been taken by the assessee in its appeal:-- "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income-lax, Delhi-III, New Delhi (briefly "the CIT') erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly "the Act") alleging that order dated 12-3-1998 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT erred in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow deduction of Rs. 78,80,125 representing advance excise duty paid and reflected under the head "loans & advances". 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT erred in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude 90% of the interest income of Rs. 1,02,44,000 for the purpose ...

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by assessee against the orders of the CIT(Admn.) under s. 263 of the IT Act relevant to asst. yr. 1995-96. The following grounds have been taken by the assessee in its appeal : "1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT, Delhi-III, New Delhi erred in assuming jurisdiction under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (briefly "the Act") alleging that order dt. 12th March, 1998, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 2. That, on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT erred in directing the AO to disallow deduction of Rs. 78,80,125 representing advance excise duty paid and reflected under the head "loans & advances". 3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT erred in directing the AO to exclude 90 per cent of the interest income of Rs. 1,02,44,000 for the purpose of computing deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act. 4. That, on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT erred...