Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 22 of about 254 results (0.011 seconds)Virinder Bhatia Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]79ITD340(Delhi)
ORDERSikander Khan, A.M These appeals have been filed by the assessed against block assessment orders under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These cases belonged to one group/family in which search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act were conducted on 24-8-1995 and were concluded on 28-8-1995. This group was engaged in the business of garments export, purchase and sale of farm houses, etc. Since they are connected cases and common grounds are involved, they were heard together and are decided by this consolidated order.2. The first common ground of contention of the assessed in these cases except in the case of Mrs. Lavina Bhatia is that the search and seizure operations conducted in their cases under section 132 of the Act were improper invalid and illegal because there was no information in possession of the Director of Income-tax (Inv.) / Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.) for reasonable exercise of powers under section 132 of the Act. It is also contended...
Tag this Judgment!Agarwal Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC663
1. This appeal has come before us on a reference made by a bench of two Members. Order passed by that bench reads - "Matter referred to Larger Bench in view of conflicting orders". The conflicting orders which presumably tempted the Bench to refer the matter to Larger Bench are decisions in Ravi Steel v. CCE - Final Order No.A/246/97-NB, dated 4-2-1997 on the one hand and the decisions in Pareek Ferro (P) Ltd.v. CCE -1997 (21) RLT 178; Ravi Steel v. CCE - Final Order No.A/765-766/98-NB, dated 10-7-1998 : 1999 (107) E.L.T. 437 (Tribunal) Maitri Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chaturvedi SteelCCE v. Agarwal Steel Inds.308/99, dated 16-4-1999, on the other.2. After hearing the learned Counsel representing the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative, it is clear that the so-called conflict of views in the decisions referred to earlier is not germane for the disposal of the issue before us. Short facts which led to this appeal are as follows : 9 show cause notices were issued to the ...
Tag this Judgment!G.M. Mittal Stainless Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT523TriDel
1. After careful examination of the records and hearing both sides, I have been convinced of existence of a strong prima facie case in favour of the applicants. I, therefore, allow the stay application unconditionally and, having regard to the particular facts and circumstances of the case, proceed to dispose of the appeal finally.2. Learned Advocate, Ms. Reena Khair has reiterated the grounds of the appeal and, on the basis thereof, has submitted that the matter requires to be remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh disposal in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice.There is no serious objection to this submission.3. The jurisdictional Additional Commissioner of Central Excise had passed an order of adjudication against the present appellants, wherein a duty demand of Rs. 1,06,437.50/- by way of disallowance of Modvat credit was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the party. Aggrieved by this order, the party appealed to Commissioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Piramal Spg. Weaving Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT613TriDel
1. These appeals, at the instance of the Revenue, have come up before this Larger Bench on a reference made by bench of two Members.Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay held that exemption under Notification 201/87, dated 3-9-1987 is available to the product Design Printing Nickel Cylinders (Rollers) manufactured by the assessee since it falls under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 84.42. The stand taken by the Revenue is that though the chapter sub-heading under which the goods have been classified covers a number of different products connected with and used for printing, the notification takes within its ambit only printing frames. Consequently it is contended that the goods manufactured by the assessee does not qualify for exemption under Notification 2C1/87.2. Bench which referred the appeals for decision by Larger Bench took note of decisions rendered by benches of coordinate jurisdiction in Mafatlal Fine Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1999 (34) ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuljeet Singh @ Jeetu and Others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)12; 2000CriLJ3681
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. The petitioners have filed three separate petitions under Section 186 Cr.P.C. for deciding the following question:- 'Whether this Court or the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is competent to decide the question as to in which of the two courts, viz., the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi or the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Distt. Hoshiarpur (Punjab) enquiry or trial shall proceed in respect of offences concerning the Malta Boat tragedy? These petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The case was registered on the basis of a report dated 12.1.1997 received from the Indian Ambassador in Ethens (Greece) regarding the incident of a boat tragedy (commonly know as the Malta Boat tragedy) which occurred in the High Seas in Malta Sisly channel on the night intervening 24/25th December, in which 170 Indians were feared drowned. The Central Government entrusted the matter to the CBI for investigation. Accordingly, a case FIR No. RC 1(...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Pratap Oil Company Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi) and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2000Delhi348; 86(2000)DLT135; 2000(54)DRJ299
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of the 'No Objection Certificate' issued to it on 15.4.1998, under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules 1976. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (licensing) had cancelled the 'No Objection Certificate', following registration of an FIR under Section 407 IPC read with Sections 7, 10 and 55 of Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner. 2. The case against the petitioner was that in contravention of the Petroleum Rules, two tankers having bitumen and furnace oil, of different consignees, were unloaded at the petitioner's site unauthorizedly, one of the tankers was for goods consigned to M/s. M.C. Construction, Gohana in Haryana while the other tanker was for MCD, Timar Pur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that cancellation of the license i.e. of 'No Objection Certificate', was totally on extraneous grounds as there has been no violation of any of the terms and conditions on which the licen...
Tag this Judgment!Hav. Ved Prakash Sangwan Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)749
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, who was in the Indian Army holding the rank of Havildar, has challenged the order of dismissal dated 16.5.1994 and the letter dated 18.10.1996 by which the petitioner was denied pensionary benefits. 2. While the petitioner was in service in June, 1990, he was in his village on leave. There was some criminal case against him, and the petitioner was accused of having assaulted some persons. The trial court by order dated 16.7.1991 found the main accused Harbir Singh guilty under Section 302 IPC and the with Section 149 IPC. There were other accused and all the accused were further held guilty under Section 323 IPC. All the accused were sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and further sentenced to three months RI under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. On the basis of conviction by the trial court, the Brigadier Commander, 170 Infantry Brigade passed the following order of dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT515TriDel
1. The appellants in this case are manufacturers of Light Commercial Vehicles (LCVs) classifiable under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff. At the relevant time the appellants had imported various quantities of components for the manufacture of LCV. They were also availing of the benefit of two Customs exemption notifications namely, Notification No. 222/87 and 74/85-Cus. Notification No. 222/87 entitled manufacturers of fuel efficient LCVs, such as the ones manufactured by the appellants; to import components of such LCVs in completely knocked down (CKD) condition at concessional rate of duty. Notification No.74/85 allowed imports of components of fuel efficient LCVs which are intended for purposes of providing warranty coverage or after-sales services by the manufacturer to customers. The concessional rate of Customs duty under this notification was 50% ad valorem.2. By a Show Cause Notice dated 14-9-1992, the appellants were called upon by the Department to show cause why diff...
Tag this Judgment!Bihari Silk and Rayon Processing Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC97
1. By Order No. 661/93-WRB, dated 27-8-93, two questions were proposed to be referred to a Larger Bench. As per the order of the Hon'ble President dated 20-1-2000, the said questions have been referred to this Larger Bench. The matter was heard on 24-1-2000.2. The following are the questions which have been referred to the Larger Bench: "(a) Whether the Show Cause Notice issued without quantification of demand is legal and valid. (b) Whether, during the material period the Collector could have adjudicated upon, vide Section 11A (as it then existed) or it could only be the Asstt. Collector who was empowered to adjudicate".3. When the matter was called, none appeared for the appellants, M/s.Bihari Silk & Rayon Processing Mills (P) Ltd. We therefore proceed with the matter after hearing the ld. DRs, S/Shri S. Srivastava and R.D.Negi.4. Ld. DR submitted that the second question that has been mentioned in the referral order has already been decided by other Larger Bench.5. As regards t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT103TriDel
1. This is an application filed by the Revenue to condone delay in filing the appeal.2. Heard Shri Sumit K. Das, learned JDR for the Revenue and none appeared on behalf of the respondent.3. The order passed by the Commissioner (appeals) has been received by the department on 27-5-1994 as can be seen from column No. 3 of the appeal memo. The appeal was to be filed in the registry of the Tribunal on or before 26-8-1994 but the appeal was filed on 10-11-1994. There is a delay of nearly two months. In the application it was submitted that concerned file could not be procured from the Range office till 31-10-1994. The reason given is neither convincing nor substantiated.In the absence of the sufficient cause to condone delay, application for condonation is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by time....
Tag this Judgment!