Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Monga Brothers and Tarsemlal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT65TriDel

1. Both the appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the common order in appeal dated 25.9.99 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on Shri Rajeev Gupta, respondent and of Rs.10000/- on Shri Tarsem Lal Singla, respondent which was imposed on both of them by the Deputy Commissioner through order in original dated 16.6.98.2. The facts are not much in dispute. M/s. Monga Brothers Ltd. Company and the present respondents who were the Manager and Managing Director of the company were proceeded against on the basis of show cause notice dated 11.7.95 issued after conducting raid on their factory as clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty was detected by the Excise staff on 10.2.95. It was found during the raid that unauthenticated invoices were being prepared for clearing the goods on tractor trolly and the trucks. The record of the company was taken into possession and the statements of the respondents were also recor...

M/S. Allied Industries Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. On the last date of hearing i.e. 16.11.2000 since the matter was adjourned for today's hearing on the request of the appellants and the date was fixed in their presence, therefore no notice for hearing was sent to them. There is neither any request for further adjournment nor any representation from the appellants. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution....

Maya Spinners Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Upon careful examination of the facts and circumstances of this case as apparent on record and upon hearing both sides, I am allowing this application unconditionally and, in the interest of justice, proceeding to dispose of the appeal itself finally.2. The appellants are a 100% Export-Oriented Unit and are holders of Private Customs Bonded Warehouse Registration as well as Central Excise registration for manufacture of cotton yarn. A certain quantity of cotton yarn, manufactured by them and cleared from their factory, was exported through M/s ATL Textiles Ltd. on execution of the required bond under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules. However, it appears, the required documentary proof of export was not furnished to the Customs authority concerned. Therefore, by show-cause notice, the department sought to recover the Central Excise duty payable on the aforesaid quantity of cotton yarns, amounting to Rs.2,75,908/- and to impose penalty on the appellants. The appellants contested t...

Commissioner of Central Exicse, Vs. M/S. Boc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the controversy centres round the question as to whether the modvat credit was permissible to the respondents on liquid nitrogen/organ gases lost due to evaporation during the manufacturing process of the final products or not.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of oxygen gas dissolved acetylene etc. They claimed modvat credit on the inputs-liquid nitrogen/organ gases which were lost due to evaporation during the manufacturing process of Rs.1,28,323/- during the period December 1993 to May and of Rs.51,772/- July 1994. They were accordingly issued two show cause notices vide which they were directed to reverse these credits as the same were not available to them under Rule 57-D of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand of those show cause notices after getting the reply from the respondents through order in original and that order had been reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned ...

The Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-iii, New Delhi Vs. Shri B.R. Chaw ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)256; 90(2001)DLT181

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.(Oral)1. Pursuant to directions given by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(for short the 'Act'), following question has been referred at the instance of revenue, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C'(in short the 'Tribunal') for opinion of this Court: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, provisions of Section 41(1) of the I.T.Act, 1981 are attracted in respect of the amount of Rupees 18,255/- representing refund of additional license fee received from the Excise Department?'2. Factual position in nutshell is as follows. assessed is an individual who was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Baldev Raj and Sons. Previously M/s Baldev Raj and Sons was the name and style of a partnership firm of which M/s Lal Chand, Kidar Nath, Madho Ram, Bishamber Prashad and B.S.Chawla were the partners. assessed was the successor to the business which was being carried on by the said firm. Said firm...

M/S Uttam Singh Duggal and Company Limited Vs. Chief Engineer, Project ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)250; 91(2001)DLT108; 2001(58)DRJ336; 2001(2)RAJ183

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Three contentious points arise for determination in these proceedings. Firstly, whether the arbitrator was required to file the award in this Court for making it a rule of the Court; secondly whether the award filed by the arbitrator requires to be transferred to the District Judge, Agartala on account of the fact that the proceedings challenging the award are pending before the District Judge, Agartala and thirdly whether this Court alone has jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. 2. On filing of the award by the Arbitrator, the registry, registered it as a suit being S.No.2695-A/1999 and issued notices to the parties for filing objections within 30 days. Pursuant to the notice, the respondent namely Chief Engineer Project Setuk as well as the plaintiff M/s Uttam singh Duggal and Co. filed objections. 3. The objections of the respondents in brief are that defendant No.1, Union of India, has filed application before Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ghaziabad Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)74; [2001]249ITR244(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E ('the Tribunal' in short), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the transfer of the assessed's rights as allottee stood completed on January 5, 1971, and not on April 13, 1971, when the lease dated March 22, 1971, was got registered and thus the assessed was not liable to capital gains tax ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessed's claim for deduction of Rs. 3,74,738 on account of the provisions for staff gratuity was admissible under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1972-73 for which the...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Webbing and Belting Factory (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]248ITR539(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E (the 'Tribunal' in short), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'): 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,26,000 should be taken into account while calculating the question of interest under Section 217(1A) as advance tax payment ?' 2. The factual position is almost undisputed and is as follows : 3. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessed was required to pay advance tax in terms of Section 210 of the Act, the total amount payable being Rs. 50,594. The dates for payment of advance tax are indicated in the statute. The assessed paid the first two Installments totalling to Rs. 39,062 up to December 14, 1971. Regular assessment for the year was completed on a total income of Rs. 3,85,530 on wh...

D.R. Puri Vs. Kamlesh Sawhney and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ738

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Plaintiff has filed a suit praying, inter alia, for a direction to the Defendants to render accounts to the Plaintiff in respect of the building constructed on plot No. 18-A, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and for a decree of possession in respect of this property which is hereinafter referred to as the suit property. The plot of land is referred to as the aforesaid plot.2. The Plaintiff was allotted plot No. 18, Block A, New Friends Colony, New Delhi by a perpetual sub-lease dated 6th February, 1973 by the Delhi Development Authority. The sub-lease was duly registered and the Plaintiff also became a member of the New Friends Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Society). According to the Plaintiff, he was posted in Jaipur (Rajas-than) and on account of exigencies of services he was liable to be transferred from time to time. He also found some difficulty in obtaining building materials, particularly cement and ste...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B.R. Chawla

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Del)107

Arijit Pasayat, C.J (Oral)Pursuant to directions given by this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), following question has been referred at the instance of revenue, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') for opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, provisions of section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1981 are attracted in respect of the amount of Rupees 18,255 representing refund of additional license fee received from the Excise Department?'2. Factual position in nutshell is as follows. assessed is an individual who was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Baldev Raj and Sons. Previously M/s Baldev Raj and Sons was the name and style of a partnership firm of which M/s Lal Chand, Kidar Nath, Madho Ram, Bishamber Prashad and B.S. Chawla were the partners. assessed was the successor to the business which was being carried on b...