Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments

Pradeep Bankers Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These two appeals, preferred by the assessee, were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No. 5995/Del/1993 is against order dt. 3rd September, 1993 recorded by the CIT(A) by which penalty of Rs. 4,986 imposed by the Assessing Officer ("AO" in short) under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 stands confirmed by the CIT(A). It will be noted that assessee was expected to file return for asst. yr. 1987-88 by 30th June, 1987.However, the return was filed on 30th March, 1988. As there was delay in filing the return, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under s.271(1)(a) of the IT Act by serving a show-cause notice. It was submitted by the assessee that due to some mental tension the partner who was entrusted with the accounts could not finalise the same and Form No. 6 was also filed on 30th July, 1987, vide receipt No. 48 for extension of time. This reply of the assessee was considered by the AO who noted that assessee w...

Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ57

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for disposal. The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning the notice issued under Sub Section- 1 Clause-b of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971. Petitioner also seeks a declaration that the guide-lines by the Cabinet Committee for accommodation dated 10.10.1996 and 19.6.1997 be declared as illegal being vocative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. Petitioner also seeks a further direction to allot an accommodation to the petitioner as per the report of the Public Accounts Committee of the Lok Sabha. 2. The relevant facts of the case may be briefly noted:- (i) Petitioner is the President of Jammu and Kashmir Nationalists and Patriotic Panthers Party. He is a political activist from Jammu and Kashmir and a Former Legislator. Petitioner claims to have devoted his entire life in fighting terrorism and militancy in Kashmir valley. It is claimed ...

Anant Raj Agencies Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(3)ARBLR23(Delhi); 86(2000)DLT834; 2000(54)DRJ884

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. By this Judgment I shall dispose of two sets of applications under Order IX Rule 13 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. These applications had been filed by the Respondents pursuant to the Award passed in their respective cases having been made Rule of the Court. 2. In the first case, disputes had arisen between the parties in respect of the construction of houses under Self Financing Scheme (SFS) at Sheikh Sarai Pocket B, New Delhi. These disputes were referred to the Sole Arbitration of Shri K.D. Bali. He made and published his Award at New Delhi on 12.6.1991. Suit No. 1947/91 was initiated by the petitioner for filing of the Award and making it Rule of the Court. The consequence was that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) filed Objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which were numbered as I.A. 11630/91. Issues were framed on 10.8.1994 and on 28.2.1995 the case was adjourned for hearing as 'Short Cause' to 14.8.1995. On this dat...

Usha Udyog and M/S. R.H.L. Profiles Ltd. Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 86(2000)DLT667; 2000(54)DRJ856; 2000(71)ECC416; 2003(156)ELT201(Del)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. Common order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, the CEGAT) disposing of applications for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty confirmed on each of the applicants for entertaining appeals filed before it is the subject matter of challenge in these two petitions. Applications were filed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Act). Our order shall govern each of the writ petitions. Petitioners are manufacturing bars, rods, angles, joist channels wire rods, etc falling under Chapters 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short, Tariff Act.) and availing the benefit of exemption notification No. 202/88 dated 20.5.1988 Penalties were imposed for contravention of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short, the Rules). In case of petitioner- Usha Udyog- duty of Rs. 74,87,767.35 and a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs was imposed. In respect of petitioner-RHL Profiles duty...

Usha Udyog and anr. Vs. Cegat

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(92)LC249(Delhi)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Common order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, the CEGAT) disposing of applications for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty confirmed on each of the applicants for entertaining appeals filed before it is the subject matter of challenge in these two petitions. Applications were filed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Act). Our order shall govern each of the writ petitions. Petitioners are manufacturing bars, rods, angles, joist channels wire rods, etc. falling under Chapters 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short, Tariff Act) and availing the benefit of exemption notification No. 202/88 dated 20.5.1988. Penalties were imposed for contravention of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short, the Rules). In case of petitioner - Usha Udyog - duty of Rs. 74,87,767.35 and a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs was imposed. In respect of petitioner - RHL Profile...

Pradeep Bankers Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)70TTJ(Del)10

ORDERPhool Singh, J.M.These two appeals, preferred by the, assessee, were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. 2. ITA No, 5995/Del/1993 is against order dated 3rd Sept., 1993 recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which penalty of Rs. 4,986 imposed by the assessing officer ('assessing officer' in short) under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stands confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It will be noted that assessed was expected to file return for assessment year 1987-88 by 30th June, 1987. However, the return was filed on 30th March, 1988. As there was delay in filing the return, the assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act by serving a show-cause notice. It was submitted by the assessed that due to some mental tension the partner who was entrusted with the accounts could not finalise the same and Form No. 6 was also filed on 30th July, 1987, vide r...

Tamilnadu Petro-products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC127

1. The issue referred to us as per referral order dated 19-7-1994 in the above appeal is whether the Heat Transfer Oil (in short, HT Oil) used by the appellants as a heating medium in the process of manufacture of their main final product viz. Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB) and by-product viz. Heavy Alkylate during July-December 1989 was an eligible input for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The referring Bench had considered three decisions of three different Benches of the Tribunal. In the case of Mysore Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CCE 1994 (64) E.L.T. 484, a Bench of 2-Members (SRB) had held that 'Salt Melt" used in heat exchanger for taking away excess heat was not an eligible input for the Modvat credit under Rule 57A. In Kopran Ltd. v. CCE 1993 (67) E.L.T. 377, another 2-Member Bench (WRB) held that Liquid Nitrogen used for creating chilling and inert atmosphere for chemical reaction in the reactor vessel was eligible for the inputs-credit under Rule 57A....

Shri Jawan Mai Soni Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC142

1. On 3.4.91, the appellant Shri Jawan Mai Soni was intercepted at Jodhpur by officers of Customs. On search, 9 pieces of 99% purity silver totally weighing 4.245 kgs. valued at Rs. 26,319 were recovered on his person. On enquiry, Shri Jawan Mal Soni stated that the silver was purchased by him without any bill from one Shri Shiv Narain Agarwal. Shri Jawan Mal Soni in his statement of even date deposed that he had come to Jodhpur to purchase the silver; that he had gone to the shop of Shiv Narain Agarwal who told him to go to Tripolia Bazar, Jodhpur. Shri Shivnarain also came to Tripolia Bazar where he handed over the silver to the deponent; that while he was going near Sojati Gate, he was intercepted by the custom officers and the impugned silver was recovered from him. On specific enquiry Shri Jawan Mal stated that he had only heard that the smuggled silver used to come to Shiv Narain Agarwal. He also deposed that he used to make ornaments out of silver so purchased and then used to ...

Shri Dinesh Khindria and Dinkar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC794

1. These two appeals were heard together since they originated from a common order and involve interconnected facts.2. We have heard Shri S.C. Kathuria, Dveep Ahuja and Ms. Veena Jain, Advocates for the appellants and Shri M.M. Dube, JDR for the respondent Collector.3. Vide the impugned Order-in-Original dated 17.8.93, the Collector of Customs, New Delhi ordered absolute confiscations of two kgs. of gold seized from Shri Dinesh Khindria (one of the appellants before us) under Section 111(d) and (e) of the Customs Act, 1962. He had also directed absolute confiscation of another two kgs. of gold brought by Shri Mohit Thakur. Penalties of Rs. 15000 each were also imposed on the two present appellants and Shri Mohit Thakur.4. It is seen from the record that the appeal filed by Shri Mohit Takhur against the impugned order has been disposed of by the Tribunal vide its Final Order No. A/458/ 94-NRB dated 6.5.94 in Appeal No.C/1036/93-NB .5. The facts relating to the two appellants under cons...

Kamra Bottling Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT57TriDel

1. The appellants are the manufacturers of aerated waters. They have been denied the Modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 44,987/- by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Sikar besides imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on them. This order has been upheld by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The present appeal is against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants are not present but they have sent a letter dated 10-2-2000 requesting their appeal to be decided on merits. I have heard Shri Y.R. Kilania, JDR for the Revenue. The Assistant Commissioner in his or- der dated 29-8-95 has observed that the party availed modvat credit of the im- pugned amount on the empty glass bottles. It is stated that Shri Subhash Kamra, Partner of the party in his statement dated 9-6-94 had deposed that they had not included the value of empty glass bottles in the assessable value of their finished goods. It is observed by the Assistant Commissioner that under the E...