Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments

Union of India and Another Vs. O.P. Bishnoi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)937; 2000(54)DRJ264

ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. The appellants by this petition under clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act, 1907 seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 11th April, 1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 243 of 1991 whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the findings of the General Security Force Court and allowed the writ petition. The prayers in the writ petition were - (a) for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings conducted by the General Security Force Court against him and; (b) direct the appellants to reinstate the respondent in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The case before the learned Single Judge was that the respondent was tried by General Security Force Court on a charge under Section 31(b) of the Border Security Force Act (for short the Act) namely :- without proper authority extract from any person money wherein he was convicted and sentenced to dismissal from service. The challenge to the order o...

Rathi India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT431TriDel

2. Pursuant to an order of this Tribunal, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise passed an Order dated 9-10-1998 sanctioning refund of an amount of Rs. 91,434.95 to the appellants.Later, the Assistant Commissioner issued corrigendum dated 9-11-1998 to the above order dated 9-10-1998, stating that the sanctioned amount of Rs. 91,434.95 was being adjusted against the Central Excise duty due from M/s. Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd. in terms of Order-in-Original No.94/97 dated 8-1-1998. As per the corrigendum; the Assistant Commissioner's order took a final shape as follows : "Consequent upon the final Order 448/98-CE dated 9-6-1998 of the CEGAT." I hereby sanction the refund of Rs. 91,434.95 to M/s. Rathi India Ltd., MIA, Alwar. However, since an amount of Rs. 363344.43 is pending realisation against M/s. Rathi Alloys & Steel Ltd., MIA, Alwar in terms of order-in-original No. 94/97 dated 8-1-1998 passed vide C. No. V (72)ll/Dem/95. The amount of the refund i.e. Rs. ...

Rajinder Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT712TriDel

1. On the basis of five invoices issued by registered dealers of input manufacturers, the appellants took Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 62,448/- on certain inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules during the period October to December 1994. Department proposed to disallow the credit so taken, alleging that the invoices did not contain full particulars prescribed in the proforma annexed to Notification No. 33/94-CE. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994. The party contested the Department's stand. The dispute was adjudicated by the jurisdictional Additional Commissioner of Central Excise. During the adjudication proceedings, the party produced certificates from the dealers stating additional particulars of manufacturer's invoices. The Additional Commissioner considered such additional particulars and, after hearing the party, passed order confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 62,448/- under Rule 57-1. In the appeal, filed by the party against the order of the Additional Commissioner, the C...

U.P. Small Industries Vs. C.C.E. Ghaziabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants have not complied with stay order No. 5/108/2001/NB dated 16.2.2001 by which they were directed to deposit entire duty amount of Rs. 1,23,828/- confirmed against them on the ground of wrongful availment of modvat credit. Time was extended for pre deposit till today. Appellants have sought modification by waiver of pre deposit on the ground that they have not yet received any amount and further on the ground that the financial position of the appellant is very weak. however, this is no ground for seeking modification since all aspects were considered at the time of passing of the stay order and further time for pre deposit is also not warranted because they have already been given sufficient time to comply with the stay order.2. In these circumstances, appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of section 35F of Central Excise Act. 1944....

J.R. Engg. Works Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT514TriDel

1. The jurisdictional Additional Commissioner of Central Excise disallowed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,65,943.50 taken by the appellants as per his order of adjudication. The ground for disallowing the Modvat credit was that all the necessary particulars as required under Notification No. 33/94-CE (NT) dated 4-7-1994 had not been stated in the dealer's invoices on the strength of which the credit had been taken. The Additional Commissioner, in her order, recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the party filed additional evidence and details of all invoices issued by the manufacturer to the supplier which contained full particulars. Even after having recorded such a finding of fact, the adjudicating authority observed, in her order, to the effect that the assessable value of the goods had not been given by the party even at the time of filing additional information in respect of 5 out of the 6 invoices in question. On the basis of this finding of fact, the adjudicating a...

Ms. Sushma and anr. Vs. National Capital Territory of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Respondent no. 2 advertised for appointment for the post of Dietician in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi in November, 1999 and in pursuance of it, the applicants had applied. There were only two posts of Dietician. It appears that more than 100 applications had been received by the respondents and hence respondents had adopted the 'short listing' keeping higher qualifications and the applications were accordingly screened. Since the applicants had not fulfilled the higher qualification prescribed for short listing, they were not called for the interview. Aggrieved by the same they have filed the present OA. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the basis for short listing was contrary to the instructions issued by respondent No. 2 which mandated either higher qualifications and experience or more experience and not only keeping higher qualifications.2. It is the case of the respondents that the candidates with three ye...

C.N.M.P. Investments (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)78ITD297(Delhi)

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28th September, 1993 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -I, New Delhi, pertaining to the assessment year 1989-90. The assessee has raised as many as six grounds of appeal.2. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri K.S.V.S. Manian has pointed out that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by all the grounds, therefore, he submitted that ground Nos. 1 and 6 may be taken. Reproduced below are ground Nos. 1 and 6 :-- " 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have accepted the claim of the appellant of the returned income and accepted the loss on purchase and sale of shares as claimed by the assessee. 6. Without prejudice the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not accepting the claim that in computing the business income under section 28 in the case of appellant, being a company, all business income will be computable as has been interpreted by the decision of Bombay Tribunal and in tha...

Smt. Ninal Lal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These three appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the CIT(A) relevant to asst. yr. 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. Since common issues are involved in these three appeals, we, therefore, proceed to dispose of these appeals by way of a common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The first ground relates to the disallowance of Rs. 2,26,000 paid to M/s N.B.E. Food Systems (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "NBEFS").The AO while framing the assessment under s. 143(3) observed that the assessee had made payment of Rs. 2,26,000 to NBEFS in which Shri B. M.Lal, the husband of the assessee was the managing director. The AO called upon the assessee to explain the nature of the payment made to the said company. It was explained that these payments were in respect of design and assembly of the plant supplied to M/s Chand Fabricators (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CFPL"). It was contended that the assessee had not undertaken the manufacture of...

Smt. Ninal Lal. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(Del)52

ORDERR.S. Syal, A.M.These three appeals have been filed by the assessed against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) relevant to assessment year 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. Since common issues are involved in these three appeals, we, thereforee, proceed to dispose of these appeals by way of a common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.ITA No. 6097 of 19892. The first ground relates to the disallowance of Rs. 2,26,000 paid to Mls N.B.E. Food Systems (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'NBEFS'). The assessing officer while framing the assessment under section 143(3) observed that the assessed had made payment of Rs. 2,26,000 to NBEFS in which Shri B.M. Lal, the husband of the assessed was the managing director. The assessing officer called upon the assessed to explain the nature of the payment made to the said company. It was explained that these payments were in respect of design and assembly of the plant supplied to M/s Chand Fabricators (P) Ltd. (hereinafter r...

Bhartia Electric Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC254

1. The issue referred to the Larger Bench is whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked in a case where a show cause notice earlier has been issued and the subsequent show cause notice is partly for a period beyond the date of the earlier show cause notice.2. In the present case, the earlier show cause notice was dated 2.7.85 and the subsequent show cause notice was dated 2.8.89, for the period September 84 to February 86. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that as the Department was aware of the facts as on 2.7.85, the period covered by the later show cause notice, beyond this period, will not be covered by the allegation of suppression of fact.3. We have heard both sides and have gone through the records. We find that similar issue had come up before a 5-Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE, Hyderabad where the Bench observed as under-- ...any show cause notice issued beyond the period of six months from the date of acquiring k...