Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments

Kapadia Enterprises Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT494TriDel

1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of what was commercially called 'Taspa Yarn'. The visit by Central Excise (Preventive) officers to the appellants' factory premises on 22-7-1987, followed by further investigations, revealed to the Department that the appellants had manufactured and cleared a quantity of over 11,000 Kgs of Taspa Yarn without payment of Central Excise duty during the period 26-11-1986 to 15-5-1987. Department took the view that the product was special yarn classifiable and chargeable to duty under Chapter Heading 56.06 of the Central Excise Tariff and, therefore, by show-cause notice dated 12-1-1990, directed the appellants to show cause why an amount of Rs. 3,45,368.88 should not be recovered from by them towards Central Excise duty on the aforesaid quantity of Taspa Yarn under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act (CESA) and also why penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 173Q(1)...

Haryana Acrylic Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT562TriDel

1. On the basis of investigation carried out as a sequel to the visit of Central Excise officers to the factory premises of the appellant company on 20-12-1997, the Department alleged that: (1) The appellant company removed goods involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 27,598/- against Invoice No. 198 dated 20-12-1997 against fake RG 23A, Part II entry against inadequate balance in statutory records; (2) Clandestinely removed goods involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,42,0007- on 16-124997,18-12-1997 and 19-12-1997 without issuing any invoice and without paying any duty; (3) Clandestinely removed 73,959 kgs. of finished goods involving Excise duty of Rs. 7,02,6107- without issue of invoice and without payment of duty; (4) Suppressed production of 23,187 kgs. involving duty of Rs. 2,20,2767- in their statutory records and removed without payment of duty. (5) could not account for shortage of 47 MTs of acrylic plastic scrap against which they had availed Modvat credit of Rs. 1,83,206/-. ...

Gujarat Polycrete Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT851TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Gujarat Polycrete Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification and consequential demand of central excise duty in respect of the bath tubs, shower trays, counter wash basin and other items as mentioned in the show cause notice at page 103 of the paper book. Following his earlier order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had taken a view that the goods in question were classifiable under sub-heading No. 6807.00 while the appellants had claimed their classification under sub-heading No. 3922.90 of the Tariff.2. Shri Jitender Singh, Advocate, refers to the Tribunal's Final Order No. 958/99-D, dated 3-11-1999 in the appellants own case in Appeal No.E/2078/93-D wherein the Tribunal had confirmed the classification under sub-heading No. 3922.90 as claimed by the appellants. He further submits that as a result of re-classification, the demand confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) will be no more valid. He further submits that dur...

Banwari Lal Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT383TriDel

1. These, are seven petitions praying for stay of operation of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. Since all the appeals arise out of the same order, we are disposing of these stay petitions by this common order.We heard the learned Counsel representing the appellants and the learned Departmental Representative.2. M/s. Hindustan Overseas imported zinc describing it to be zinc slabs "scull" of Netherland origin and classification claimed under chapter 7902.00 as zinc waste and scrap. Its value was declared in the bills of entry at US$ 575 per MT. The consignment was assessed by Customs authorities at an enhanced value of US$ 600 per MT based on the value of contemporaneous imports and duty was paid on the basis of that value. Goods so imported were subjected to chemical test by C.R.C.L. On such analysis it was found to be Zinc Ingots of 99.9% purity. Stickers affixed on the ingots indicated that the goods were of Russian orig...

income Tax Officer Vs. Amd Export Corporation (Kandla)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are three appeals filed by the Revenue against the orders dt.21st Oct., 1992, of the CIT (A)-XI, New Delhi, 21st Oct., 1992 and 12th Oct., 1993, of the CIT (A)-XVIII, New Delhi. They pertain to asst. yrs.1986-87, 1986-87 and 1988-89 respectively. Right at the outset it may be mentioned here that the Revenue has inadvertently filed ITA No. 368 and ITA No. 8877 against the order dt. 21st Oct., 1992, on identical grounds in duplicate by mistake. Accordingly, ITA No. 368 is treated as unadmitted and ITA No. 8877 and ITA No. 999 are being decided by a common order as issues raised therein are identical. "The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee fulfils the conditions as stipulated in Section 10A(2). The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no manufacture, production or processing has been done by the assessee-firm. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that goods have been shown as sold to the partners namely, A.M.D. Overseas (P) Ltd. and Arvind Dumra &a...

income-tax Officer Vs. Amd Export Corporation (Kandla)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are three appeals filed by the Revenue against the orders dated 21-10-1992 of the CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi, 21-10-1992 and 12-10-1993 of the CIT(A)-XVIU, New Delhi. They pertain to AYs 1986-87, and 1988-89 respectively. Right at the outset it may be mentioned here that the Revenue has inadvertently filed ITA No. 368 and ITA No. 8877 against the order dated 21-10-1992 on identical grounds in duplicate by mistake. Accordingly, JTA No. 368 is treated as unadmitted and ITA No.8877 and ITA No. 999 are being decided by a common order as issues raised therein are identical. "The ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assesses fulfils the conditions as stipulated in Section 10(A)(2). The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no manufacture, production or processing has been done by the assessee-firm. The Id.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that goods have been shown as sold to the partners namely A.M.D. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Arvind Dumra & Sons (HUF) who have claimed benefits under se...

R.K. Singh Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1187; AIR2001Delhi12; 88(2000)DLT205; 2000(55)DRJ279

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This petition stated to have been filed in public interest mainly contains the following prayer: '1. That the Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and or any other appropriate writ/ order/ direction thereby directing the respondents to take immediate steps and bring an enactment or get promulgated an ordinance by the President of India under Article 123 of the Constitution of India to the effect of prescribing higher qualifications for the legislatures (both parliamentarian and state legislatures) within a reasonable period of time. 2. This Hon'ble court may further pleased to direct the respondents to give effect to the prescribed qualifications in the next coming general election.' 2. Case of the petitioner, an advocate, who appeared in person to present the case, is that definite and minimum positive qualifications for becoming Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly should be prescribed in addition to the existing qualif...

ito Vs. Amd Export Corpn. (Kandla)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]79ITD381(Delhi)

ORDERDiva Singh, J.M.These are three appeals filed by the revenue against the orders dated 21-10-1992 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi, 21-10-1992 and 12-10-1993 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XVIII, New Delhi. They pertain to assessment years 1986-87, and 1988-89 respectively. Right at the outset it may be mentioned here that the revenue has inadvertently filed ITA No. 368 and ITA No. 8877 against the order dated 21-10-1992 on identical grounds in duplicate by mistake. Accordingly, ITA No. 368 is treated as un-admitted and ITA No. 8877 and ITA No. 999 are being decided by a common order as issues raised therein are identical.2. In ITA No. 8877/Del/92, the revenue raises the following grounds :'The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessed fulfills the conditions as stipulated in section 10(A)(2).The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that no manufacture, production or processing has been done by the assessee-firm.The learned Commi...

Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. Vs. the Chief General Manager, Mahanagar Tel ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case of the complainant is that the complainant was the subscriber of 12 telephone lines including telephone connection bearing No. 3324457, installed at the office premises of the complainant situated at 505, Surya Kiran Building, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. The telephone No. 3324457 was provided with STD facility but not dynamic STD control facility. However, the complainant received a bill dated 1.5.1990 for the period 16.2.1990 to 5.4.1990 for an exorbitant amount of Rs. 51,555/- despite the fact that the bill of the said telephone No. 3324457 had never exceeded Rs. 5,000/- in the preceding period of one year. 2. The complainant personally approached the Public Relations Officer of the O.P./MTNL and also submitted his representation regarding the excessive bill. On a further reminder from the complainant,...

Adarsh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT830TriDel

1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs, Patna has ordered absolute confiscation of bales of Shahtoosh and Pashmina seized from the godown situated at G-44 Lawrence Road and Plot No. 15, Lawrence Road, Delhi. He has directed levy and recovery of appropriate duty on goods from M/s. A to Z Handicrafts and has imposed varying amounts of penalty on several persons found to have been connected with the offence of smuggling, including the appellant.2. The appellant herein is the owner of godown situated at G-44, Lawrence Road from which 20 bales of Pashmina had bean seized by the Customs. The importer has found that the appellants godown was hired by the rent of Rs. 1700 PM for the storage of smuggled goods and Rs. 500/- was paid by one Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal for storage of the goods.3. On going through the impugned order and hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the DR, we agree with the appellant that there is no evidence brought on record to hold that th...