Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 25 of about 265 results (0.023 seconds)Chief Engineer Ranjit Sagar Dam Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC145
1. This stay application is filed by the applicants for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 27,97,12,331.82 and penalty to Rs. 5,00,00,000.00 (Rupees Five crores) and stay of the recovery proceedings.2. Arguing for the appellants Shri Vinay Garg, Advocate submitted that the point to be considered in this case is whether the item which was processed by the assessee amounts to manufacturing process and is liable to duty. He submits that Ranjit Sagar Dam Project Shapur Kandi is a project for construction of a dam in which concrete, sand, cement and steel is used as inputs. The project includes construction of Tunnels, Spillway, Power House and also Protection Works of the Dam of which "Natural/crushed Stone" was, amongst others, one of the required material for the making of 'Cement Concrete'. The Central Excise Preventive Party visited Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, Shahpur Kandi on 26.4.91 and observed that they were engaged in the construction of the dam of Ranjit Sagar Dam Proj...
Tag this Judgment!St. Stephens Hospital Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT91TriDel
1. The appellants herein imported (i) one Remote controlled X-Ray TV System with 90/45" and (ii) whole Body CT Scanner Model SCT 3000 Tx with accessories and spares from Japan vide Bill of entry dated 27-8-1990 and 27-11-1990 respectively against Customs Duty Exemption Certificates dated 28-2-1990 and 16-11-1990. The importers availed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 and cleared the goods duty free. At the time of import, they furnished an undertaking in writing to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs at the time of clearance to the effect that they shall furnish certificates evidencing installation of the imported hospital equipment and functioning of the hospital within a period of two years. Since such certificates from the prescribed authority namely DGHS or Ministry of Health and Family Welfare were not produced within the stipulated period, the Department issued show cause notice proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 36,91,763/- for non-ful...
Tag this Judgment!Kota Oxygen (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT369TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of oxygen and acetylene gases.These gases have to be filled in cylinders and delivered. Some of the buyers bring their own cylinders, get them filled in the appellants' factory and take delivery of the gas. Others receive them in cylinders belonging to the appellants or cylinders taken on hire by the appellants from others. The dispute is with regard to the appellants' claim for deduction of "cylinder maintenance charges" and "fixed rental charges" of cylinders while fixing the assessable value of gases. The period involved is March, 1994 to March, 1997.2. Gases were liable to central excise duty at specific rates up to 1-3-1994. Therefore, till 1-3-1994, the value of cylinders used for packing and the cost of maintenance of cylinders were not relevant to the collection of central excise duty on the gases. During this period, appellants were charging the same price for gas from their buyers irrespective of whether gas was delivered in cylinders supp...
Tag this Judgment!Electricity Poles Manufacturing Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT96TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Electricity Poles Manufacturing, are a unit of Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB in short). They manufactured PCC Poles falling under sub-heading 6807.00 and availed exemption under Notification No. 74/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 which exempts goods specified in the Table Annexed to it from whole of the excise duty if such goods are manufactured by a factory belonging to a State Govt. and are intended for use by any department of that Govt.2. They were issued a show cause notice dt. 2-11-1995 and corrigendum dt. 24-1-1996 calling upon them to show cause to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad why Rs. 19,35,641/- as duty not paid should not be recovered from them under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and why a penalty should not be imposed on them under Rules 9,173Q, 210 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.This duty is demanded in respect of the goods (PCC Poles) cleared by the noticees during the period from 10-6-...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Tirupati Cigarettes
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT81TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue in which the respondents are M/s. Tirupati Cigarettes Ltd., the matter relates to the accountal of cut tobacco classifiable under sub-heading No. 2403.11 of the Central Excise Tariff, received at the concessional rate of central excise duty under Chapter X Procedure of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), and the cut tobacco obtained as a result of ripping of sorts and broken cigarettes known as making waste. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 18-2-92 and show cause notice dated 24-8-95 that the factory had not accounted for during the period 1-12-94 to 31-7-95, 24,941 kgs. of cut tobacco.Central Excise duty of Rs. 6,50,296.36 was confirmed by the Asstt.Collector of Central Excise, Varanasi under Order-in-Original dated 22-5-96. On appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), observed that the shortage attributed to the weight of tissue paper in accounting of the cut tobacco issued for manuf...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Idris Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT96TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was filed on 20.12.1999 against Order-in-Original dated 31.03.1999 of the Commissioner of Customs. The impugned order was received by the party on 28.04.1999. There is delay of 147 days in the filing of the captioned appeal. The present application is for condonation of this delay.2. Carefully examined the records. Heard both sides. The main ground of this application is that the applicants were under legal advice not to file any appeal against the above order-in-original inasmuch as an appeal had already been filed by them before the Tribunal against an earlier order passed by the Commissioner in adjudication of dispute arising out of the some set of facts. Such appeal is still pending before the Tribunal and the same is also arising for regular hearing today (Appeal No. C/688/98). On a perusal of the records of Appeal No.C/688/98, I note that the said appeal is against order dated 11.09.1998 of the same adjudicating authority and that the said order was passe...
Tag this Judgment!Y.K. Khanna Vs. R.P. Ahuja and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1124
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. Award made by the sole arbitrator on 11.1.1999 is under challenge in Suit No. 1275/99 pending before learned Single Judge of Court. During pendency of the said suit various orders were passed with regard to sale of property bearing No. A-9/13-C, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in favor of respondents 1 to 4 in terms of receipt dated 12.5.1997 and for liquidating the amount due and payable to Bank of India. There were some dispute amongst some of the parties as regards the exact amount paid by respondent No.3 that whether it was Rs. 58,00,000/- or less, because of which the property instead of being sold to respondents 1 to 4 was ordered to be auctioned. On 11.8.1999 the impugned order was passed by learned Single Judge for auction of the Vasant Vihar property and for paying of the dues of Bank of India. The said order is under challenge in this appeal by Shri Y.P. Khanna. 2. On 14.9.1999 while issuing notice of show cause in appeal, operation of the impugned order was...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ambedkar Basti Vikas Sabha and Bhanwar Singh Camp (Rajasthani) Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi223
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. These two writ petitions stated to have been filed in public interest involve identical questions and thereforee, are taken up for disposal to- gether.2. Grievance in each case is that contracts of respondent No. 2 - Anil Kumar, in CW 2192/200 and Vikramjit Singh respondent No. 2 in CW 2193/2000 entered into with respondent No.1-Delhi Vidyut Board (in short, the Board) are without authority of law and have to be revoked. Instead contracts should be entered into with petitioners. 3. The prayers each of in the writ petitions are as follows: (i) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent 1 to appoint the petitioner as authorized contractor immediately; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to revoke/cancel the contract of respondent the same being void and also direct the respondents not to refund the security deposited by respondent No.2 as the same has been collected from the petitioners by respondent No.2 and the same be adjusted in ...
Tag this Judgment!Baljeet Jolly Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Del)37
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(for short the 'Act'). In relation to a miscellaneous application filed under Section 254(2) of the Act in ITA No. 1439/Del/89 relating to assessment year 1985-86, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' (in short the 'Tribunal') held that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record in relation to the addition of unexplained investments to the extent of Rs. 6 lakhs. 2. In the application filed under Section 254(2) of the Act, assessed had taken the stand that the Tribunal's conclusions were not in accordance with the facts on record. It was stated that the total amount spent by the assessed on the construction of house was Rs. 6.92 lakhs of which she spent Rs.2,85,600/- in the assessment year 1984-85, and the balance Rs. 4,06,400/- were spent in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1985-86. In explaining the sources the assessed had stated that Rs.6 lakhs ...
Tag this Judgment!Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Yogendra Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR173]
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. Rule D.B. 2. Since short point is involved the matter is taken up at this stage for final argument and disposal. 3. These three appeals arise from a common judgment of a learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petitions being CWP No. 5289/98 and CWP No. 938/99 which were filed by the respondents in these appeals. By the impugned judgment dated 3rd March, 1999 the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions directed the appellant herein to appoint those who were successful in the examination. All these appeals are disposed of by this judgment. 4. The advertisement was issued by the appellant Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan on 26.12.1996 for recruitment to the posts of Youth Co-ordinator. Respondents herein applied for the said post. Written test was held followed by interview on 7.11.1997. However, since the results were not declared, respondents herein filed the aforesaid writ petitions with the prayer that direction be issued to the appellants herein to declar...
Tag this Judgment!