Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments

Geeta Dhingra Vs. Kulmohan Singh Dhingra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2000)DMC364; 2000(56)DRJ470

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. On 12.1.2000 I had ordered that I.P.A 29/1999 be listed before another Bench. Subsequently, in the following month the present application has been filed seeking a clarification whether by the order dated 5.11.1999 the Court had granted interim maintenance for three months or whether the maintenance was to be paid thereafter. Since a clarification of my order was prayed for the application has been relisted before me.2. In my view the application is misconceived. No doubt, it is on interim order This is for the reason that detailed arguments are yet to be addressed by the respective Counsel for the parties. The operative part of the order is that the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,5()0/- per month effected from September, 1999 without prejudice to the contentions to be raised by them. Subsequently, on 9.2.2000 S.K. Aggarwal, J. had directed that this amount, i.e. Rs. 7,500/- be paid every month till further orders. Even if there was any clarification ...

Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Rishi K ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]112TAXMAN307(Delhi)

This is a reference under section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter referred to as `the Institute'). Proceedings were initiated against Shri Rishi K. Gupta, F.C.A., a member of the Institute (the respondent), alleging that he was guilty of professional misconduct. Starting point for the same was a complaint received by the Council of the Institute from General Manager (Inspection and Finance), State Bank of Patiala, (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'), alleging that Rishi Gobind & Associates, Chartered Accountants of which the respondent was a partner, had submitted bogus bills/receipts in respect of their claim of halting allowances and expenses for the audit of bank's four branches for the year ended 31-12-1984. Disciplinary Committee constituted under the Act came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of professional/other misconduct within the meaning...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. J.C.T. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal the issue relates to the availability of modvat credit on the goods in question, as detailed in the Order-in-original.The respondents claimed these goods as capital goods and sought modvat credit of the amount in dispute on them. They also filed requisite declaration wherein they alleged the disputed goods as capital goods.But the Assistant Commissioner did not accept the same and through the order-in-original dated 23.2.96, observed that these were not capital goods. That order of the assistant Commissioner was challenged by the respondents and the Commissioner (Appeals ) modified the same through order-in-appeal. He held that Schlathorst Open and Spinning Machine did not satisfy the definitions of 'capital goods' while other goods fell within that definition.2. The Revenue has come up in appeal against this impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the respondents had not challenged the correctness of that portion of the order-in-appeal vide which the ...

Asiatic Engg. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT161TriDel

1. The issue involved in these two appeals filed by M/s. Asiatic Engg.P. Ltd. is whether the import of High Power Air Pumps is restricted being consumer goods or High Power Air Pumps are accessories of Washing Machine? 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants imported High Power Air Pumps which were held to be consumer goods by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Bombay, who ordered confiscation of the imported goods and allowed their redemption on payment of a fine and also imposed penalty holding that the impugned goods are used in the small domestic aquarium for producing bubbles; that in the illustration printed on the cartons the product was referred to as aquarium air pump and, therefore, the goods were consumer goods as per definition in para 7(12) of EXIM Policy, 1992-97; that the appropriate EXIM Code is 841459.02 according to which the goods are restricted goods which have been imported without a valid import licence.2. Shri S.K. Sharma, learned Consultant, su...

R.M. Mittal Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT64TriDel

1. Having carefully examined the records of the case and having heard both sides, I am convinced of the existence of strong prima facie case in favour of the applicants and therefore I allow the stay application unconditionally and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself finally having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The adjudicating authority had passed order rejecting a refund claim of Rs. 1,05,000/- and directing the party to reverse the Modvat credit of the said amount taken by them on 12-12-1997. The aggrieved party filed appeal against the order of adjudication before the Commissioner (Appeals). They also filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount and for stay of recovery thereof under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants disposed of the stay application as per "interim stay order" dated 16-12-1999 declining waiver of pre-deposit...

Harbans Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT66TriDel

1. Shri Gopal Prasad, ld. Counsel arguing the application for restoration of the appeal No. C/56/99-NB filed by the Shri Harbans Singh submits that on the date of reporting compliance, the Counsel for the applicant had requested for adjournment of the case. He submits that before that date, the applicant had already filed an application for modification of stay order. He submits that this modification application was not considered and the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance. He submits that since the modification application was filed before the date of reporting compliance the modification application should have been considered before dismissing the appeal for non-compliance. He therefore prays that the appeal may be restored and the modification application may be considered.2. Shri R.D. Negi, Ld. DR submits that in the application for adjournment, there was no mention made that the applicant had already requested for modification of the stay order. He submits that the Misc.ap...

Kiran Coombers Spinners Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT207TriDel

1. When the Misc. application came up for hearing the Id. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had sent a telegram before the date fixed for hearing requesting the Tribunal for adjourning the case because of personal difficulty being faced by the counsel of the appellant. Ld. Counsel Shri H.O. Arora submits that there was no intention to avoid presence in the Tribunal on the date of hearing. Ld.Counsel therefore submits that the reference application may be restored.2. Shri R.D. Negi, Ld. SDR submits that notice was sent to the applicants and that on the date when the matter came up for hearing, there was no request available on records for adjournment. He therefore, submits that the applicant has not been able to make out a case for restoration of the reference application.3. We have heard the submissions of both the sides. On careful consideration of the submissions, we note the applicant had applied for adjournment of the case on 25-10-1999 when the case was lis...

Mittal Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC120

" Whether in view of Item No. 27(b) relating to aluminium manufactures, as it stood during the relevant period, the circles made out of duty-paid aluminium sheets were liable to duty".2. Necessity for making this reference arose due to difference of opinion between the two members of the Tribunal during the course of hearing of above captioned appeal. The Judicial Member took the view that the classification of the products 'circles' made out of duty paid aluminium sheets were dutiable under Item No. 27(b) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, while the Member, Technical (Vice-President as he then was) held a contrary view and thought of referring the matter to the Larger Bench. The third Member to whom the matter was referred to resolve the difference of opinion between the two Members of the same Bench, also endorsed the view of the Member Technical that the issue deserves to be referred to the Larger Bench.3. The learned counsel for the appellants at the outset very candidly stat...

Sant Indl. Controls (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT535TriDel

1. These are two appeals arising out of a common order No. 27/98, dated 29-4-1998 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise, New Delhi - one appeal filed by M/s. Sant Industrial [Controls] (P) Ltd. and the other appeal filed by the Revenue - involve the issue of classification of various items manufactured by the Asessee.2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Sant Industrial Controls (P) Ltd. manufacture the following items which were classified by them under different tariff headings of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They also claimed exemption under notification No.1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993. The Commissioner, Central Excise under the impugned order changed the classification of the products manufactured by them as under, confirmed the demand of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 77,66,004/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Name of the product Heading sought by Heading changed ...

Jasmine Industrial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT70TriDel

1. After hearing for sometime with reference to the stay matter we felt, that the matter itself can be disposed of on the limited issue accordingly appeal was taken up for regular hearing.2. Appearing for the appellant Shri Keshav Pandey, Manager (Excise) submitted that the issue relates to Modvat credit. Apart from the merits of the case the order suffers from denial of primaples natural justice. He said that the document relating to the discount could not be produced in time before the appellate authority because of the fact that very documents were impounded by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Inspite of the repeated requests same are not returned.In the result the same could not be produced before the Commissioner.3. On the other hand Shri P.K. Jain, SDR appearing for the Revenue referring to the Para 4 and 5 of the impugned order, and submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee but same was not availed of as can be seen from the record. On expiry of ...