Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments

Maharishi Steels P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT119TriDel

1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner disallowed abatement for the period 01.09.1997 to 19.09.1997 claimed by the appellants. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants filed an appeal.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of ingots falling under Heading 72.06 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the financial year 1997-98 compounding scheme was introduced for induction furnaces for the purpose of levy of excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules were framed under Section 3A of the Act ibid. Under Sub-rule (2), it was provided that where a manufacturer does not produce the ingots and billets of non-alloy steel during any continuous period of not less than 7 days and wishes to claim abatement under Sub-section (3) of Section 3A, the abatement shall be allowed by the Commissioner subject to fulfilment of conditions prescribed therein.One of the conditions was that the meter reading on...

Haryana Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT718TriDel

1. Both these appeals are directed against the same order-in-original No. 17/2000 dated 4-5-2000 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-Ill. The Commissioner passed the following order :- "Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case, explained above I confirm the demand of Rs. 23,77,138/- and order its recovery from M/s. Haryana Drinks by invoking the extended period under proviso to subsection (1) of section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. I order recovery of interest at appropriate rate on the duty so determined, as per provision of section 11AB ibid. I impose a penalty of Rs. 23,77,138/- on M/s. Haryana Drinks under section 11AC. I impose a penalty of Rs. 1 lakhs (Rupees One lakh only) on M/s. BFCL under section 11A read with rule 209 A. Similarly, I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) on Director & Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand only) on Shri Kulwant Sharma, Manager of M/s. Haryana Drinks under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 19...

Freedom Rubber Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC346

1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of cycle tyres falling under Subheading 4011.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. The said product was exempt from duty. The dispute involved in the present appeal arose when the Department proposed to levy duty on the intermediate product namely "rubberised cotton cord fabric" produced by the appellants and used by them captively in the manufacture of cycle tyres. The appellants had manufactured 7,95,961.300 kgs of rubbersied cotton cord fabric (in short, "RCC fabric") valued at Rs. 2,86,84,028.20 involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 24,68,403.00 and had captively consumed it for manufacture of cycle tyres during the period 01.03.1994 to 16.03.1995, in which period rubberised textile fabrics falling under Heading 59.05 of the Tariff were not exempt from duty. Department, by show-cause notice (SCN) dated 14.01.1999, proposed to recover duty as above with interest under Section 11-AB of the Central Excise Act and to impose mandatory penalty...

Niko Resources Limited Vs. Gujarat State Petroleum Corp.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ654

Devinder Gupta, J.1. The appellant presented an application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in this Court praying for interim measure of protection. The said application came up before learned single Judge on 4.6.2000. While issuing notice to the respondents for 7.8.2000 on the prayer of the appellant, a limited ex pane ad interim order was passed directing that 'any decision taken by the respondent will be subject to further orders of this Court. In the meantime, if the pipeling becomes operational, the respondents shall keep accounts of the steps and revenue taken by them.' Pursuant to the dusty notice issued, the respondent put in appearance through counsel on 7.8.2000. Time, as prayed, was allowed to file reply, which was to be filed within ten days. Three days' time was allowed to file rejoinder. Learned Single Judge, Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, made an observation that in the meanwhile, it will be i...

Bijender Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2001)DMC17

ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J. 1. By this appeal the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 444/96 arising out of F.I.R. No. 204/87 under Sections 304B/498A, IPC. The learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 29.7.1999 convicted the petitioner for an offence under Sections 498A and 306, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for four months under Section 306, IPC and further to undergo R.I. for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default S.I. for three months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does no challenge the conviction of the petitioner and, thereforee, I uphold the conviction of the petitioner. However, on the question of sentence the learned Counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone a period of PA years and the fine has already been paid and, thereforee, craves that he be ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Organisation of Chemicals and the Entir ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]247ITR721(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C (in short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1972-73 ?'2. The factual position which is almost undisputed is as follows :The assessee, a partnership firm, applied for registration for the concerned assessment year, i.e., 1972-73, relevant to the accounting period ending on June 30, 1971. The partnership was based on a partnership deed dated July 16, 1970, effective from July 1, 1970. Under the deed, the profit/ loss sharing ratio of the partners was as follows :Nameof the partnerShareof profit/lossRelationshipShriAkhil Kr. Rastogi25/80SonShriDeep Kr. Rastogi25/80SonSmt.Chandrskanta Devi Rastogi25/80...

Cit Vs. H.B. Leasing and Finance Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN15(Delhi)

Heard. Admitted. The following questions shall be adjudicated:A. Whether a tanker mounted on the chasis of the truck can be separated for the purposes of depreciation qua the truck and can it be equated with LPG cylinders for having a claim of depreciation at the rate of 100 per cent on such tanker ?B. Whether in law there can be a segregation of the parts of the truck for the purpose of claiming depreciation at the different rates on different parts ?C Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessed was eligible for depreciation at a rate of 40 per cent on leased vehicles instead of normal rate of 30 per cent even though the assessed was not carrying on the business of running them on hire ?D. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse in not appreciating(i) the real nature and character of the business of the assessee;(ii) that the assessed was carrying on the business of the leasing of vehicles and not engaged in running them on hire;(iii) that there is a dis...

Pradeep Kumar Vs. the Assistant Finance Officer, Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Since all the abovementioned three appeals have common facts and raise common question of law, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the abovementioned appeals, lie in a narrow compass. The appellants in all the abovementioned appeals had filed separate complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before District Forum (East) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The learned District Forum vide impugned orders has held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and on the above ground has dismissed the complaints, filed by the appellants. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the abovementioned appeals under Section 15 of the Act. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants on the question of admission of the abovementioned appeals at le...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Famous Iron Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT798TriDel

1. The only issue for our consideration in this appeal filed by the Revenue is, whether the description of the final products as appearing against serial No. 03 of the Table annexed to Notification No.202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-1988 (as amended) will include the tubes & pipes and blanks therefor of stainless steel. The description in the Table is as under - "Tubes and pipes and blanks therefor of steel other than seamless tubes and pipes of steel." The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, had rejected the appeal filed by the Department and had confirmed the view taken by the adjudicating authority that the expression 'steel' would cover the stainless steel tube. He has mentioned that where the intention was to deny the benefit to the products of stainless steel, it had been so mentioned and had referred to the Notification No. 175/86-C.E. wherein the description of the goods under Serial No. 1 of the Table is as under - 2. The respondents, M/s. Famous Iron Works, have praye...

Best and Crompton Engg. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT272TriDel

1. This rectification of mistake application is in respect of final order No. 534/1995, dated 20-6-1995 passed on appeal No. E/416/89 filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras against the applicants. The submission made in the miscellaneous application is that the applicants who were respondents in the appeal had filed a cross objection (E/Cross/4/90-MAS). The final order was passed without considering the defence raised in the said cross objection. The cross objection was dismissed with the following observation in paragraph 5 of the final order :- "5. The cross objection filed is only in the nature of a counter and the sam is dismissed as misconceived in law".2. It has been submitted during the hearing of the case that the appeal of the Revenue was decided ex-parte as the applicant was not heard in the matter. The appellants' cross objection was also dismissed as misconceived. It was submitted that the dismissal of the cross objection was a mistake. The applicants, as respond...