Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Cce, Bhopal Vs. M/S. Chetan Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(125)ELT1215TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by Commissioner Central Excise against the Order in Appeal No. 721-CE/BPL/2000 dt. 9-5-2000 passed by the commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal.2. Shri S.C.Pushkarna, Ld. DR, submitted that on 22-4-98 when the Central Excise Officers visited the factory Premises of M/s Chetan Industries they found 317 Coolers and Eight Air Conditioners in excess of the balance shown in RG-1 Register; that the Assistant Commissioner, under the Adjudication Order No. 47/99 dt. 21-5-99, confiscated the seized goods ( except 2 Air Conditioners) found in excess and released them on payment of redemption fine and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-; that Commissioner (Appeals) however, set aside the Adjudication Order holding that there was nothing on record to indicate that the goods were about to be removed from the factory, relying upon the decision in the case of Balls & Clypebs 1997(92) ELT 496. He, further, submitted that it is the primary duty of an assessee to fullfil the ...

M/S. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT1084TriDel

1. This appeal filed by the assessees is against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who held the following items to be ineligible for modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the good were used in the mining area which did not form part of their factory.2. It appears that the issue which was considered by the lower appellate authority was as to whether the mining area could be covered by the definition of "factory" under Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act. The authority followed the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Madras Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE Hyderabad [1998 (74) ECR 201] and held that the mining area was not covered by the definition of factory and, therefore, the aforesaid items used outside the factory could not be held to be eligible for credit under Rule 57A. It is fairly conceded by ld. Advocate that the above issue stands aquarely covered against assessees by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Jaypee Rew...

M/S. Nahar Spinning Mills Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT498TriDel

1. The appellants are manufactures of cotton and blended yarn falling under Chapters 52 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and are availing the facility of modvat credit on inputs and capital goods under Rules 57A and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.During the period February to April 1997, they took modvat credit of the duty paid on certain goods which were claimed to be either inputs or capital goods covered by Rule 57A or Rule 57Q, as the case may be.Among such goods were lubricating oils which were claimed to be inputs and computer hardware which were claimed to be capital goods. The modvat credit taken on these goods were disallowed by the adjudicating authority, who also imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/- on the party.The order of the adjudicating authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal filed by the assessees. Hence the present appeal of the assessees before the Tribunal .2. Today there is no representation for the appellants in spite o...

M/S. Iffco Ltd. Vs. Cce, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellants are manufacturers of fertilizer. They use raw naphtha for the manufacture of fertilizer. Raw naphtha intended for use in the manufacture of fertilizer and ammonia enjoyed a lower rate of duty under Notification 75/84. Appellants were availing themselves of this benefit. The present dispute is on the basis that part of the raw naphtha received on payment of duty at concessional rate has not been used by them in the manufacture of fertilizer. Such use has been identified as in the generation of electricity used in the residential complex, workshop of the factory, Effluent Treatment Plant and in the drawing of water from borewells. Learned Consultant of the appellant submits that no duty demand could be made in respect of use other than the electricity used in the residential complex in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the appellants own case 1996 (86) ELT 177 (SC).Learned Departmental Representative submits that this Tribunal in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Punjab Communications Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by Revenue the issue involved is whether modvat credit can be availed of after six months from the date of issue of the duty paying documents.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Respondents M/s Punjab Communication Ltd. As the issue involved has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. CCE Indore, 2000 (39) RLT 440, I heard Shri S.C. Pushkarna, Ltd. DR and perused the records.3. M/s Punjab Communications Ltd. had taken modvat credit amounting to Rs. 92,323.50 p on 10-1-96 on the strength of invoice No. 278 dt.31-3-95. The Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 7/97 dt. 22-1-97, disallowed the modvat credit, holding that the credit has been taken after expiry of six months of the issue of invoices which is in contravention of Rule 57 G (2) of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, under the impugned Order held that the invoice wa...

Cci, Indore Vs. M/S. Vikram Cement

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by Revenue the issue involved is whether Modvat credit of the duty paid in respect of explosives used by M/s. Vikram Cement is available under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the respondents inspite of notice. I also observe that when the matter was listed earlier on 10.11.2000 the matter was adjourned on the request of the respondents. Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned D.R. mentioned that the issue is no more res-integra as it has been decided by the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Jay Pee Rewa Cement Vs. CCE, Raipur, 2000 (38) RLT 1111 (CEGAT). In view of this I take up the appeal for disposal after hearing learned D.R. and perusing the records.3. In this matter a show cause notice was issued to M/s. Vikram Cement on 24.3.99 for disallowing Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,36,600/-.Dy. Commissioner under adjudication Order No. 128/99 dated 25.8.99 disallowed the Modvat credit ...

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs. in the Matter of Statement Made by Shri R ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)818; 2001CriLJ1064; 89(2001)DLT572; 2001(57)DRJ523; 2001RLR144

ORDERANIL DEV SINGH, J:1. A news item appearing in the Hindustan Times dated September 28, 2000 led to issuance of a suo moto notice to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short 'MCD'). The news item report stated as follows:-'Explanation sought from MCD counselAn Explanationn has been sought from MCD counsel Raman Duggal for his reported remark in the Delhi High Court on MCD officials taking money.The remark by the MCD counsel was reportedly made before a division bench of the HC in connection with unauthorised constructions. The MCD in a press statement issued today said that Duggal exceeded his brief when he reportedly said, 'If we take any action against junior engineers, there will be none left. The officials take money and that is a ground reality.' MCD chief law officer said that the law department issued no such instructions whatsoever to the counsel. He said that Duggal has been given time till Sept. 30 to give an Explanationn.'2. Pursuant to the notice, an a...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raj Brothers

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR438(Delhi); [2001]116TAXMAN824(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to the directions given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the credits appearing in the books of the assessed-firm in the account of a sister concern, namely, Raj Bros., Tailors, the Tribunal was right in holding that the two firms, namely, Raj Bros., Tailors and Drapers and Raj Brothers Tailors, were for the purpose of assessment separate persons ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1974-75. The assessed-firm is styled as Raj Brothers, Tailors and Drapers. There is another firm in the name of Raj Brothers Tailors. The assessed-firm deals in cloth. The other firm acts as tailors only. The constitution of both the firms is same. Both the firms ha...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harsha Tractor Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]249ITR499(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN201(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi (for short the 'Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Income-tax Officer to allow depreciation on Rs. 9,00,225 of project report ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76 for which the previous year ended on September 30, 1974. The assessed claimed depreciation on the value of the project report of Rs. 9,00,225. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the project report was only a preliminary report which could not be said to form any drawing or specification or manufacturing technique. It was further observed that expend...

Tata Sons Limited Vs. Sahni and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ432; 2002(24)PTC154(Del); 2002(3)RAJ14

Sharda Agarwal, J.1. The matter is taken up as yesterday was declared a holiday. 2. On 11th May, 2000 the learned counsel for the defendants 1 & 2 was granted last opportunity of three months to obtain the instructions from his client on changing the use of the mark 'Ta-Ta' from any other name. The learned counsel for defendants 1 & 2 has not sought instructions till date and a period of more than 7 months have lapsed. An order dated 11th May, 2000 also states that in case no response is received on the next date of hearing from the defendants 1 & 2 the interim orders as prayed in terms of injunction application are liable to be passed against them. Since the learned counsel for the defendants has not sought any instructions till date and learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendants are still using the impugned trade mark 'Ta-Ta' for lottery tickets to misappropriate the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's trade mark and the use of the trade mark 'Ta-Ta' is dece...