Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

M/S. J.S. Plastic and Leatherwear Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT562TriDel

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of duty amounting to Rs.90144.00.3. The contention of the applicants is that credit was taken on the strength of original copy of invoice and they had applied to the Assistant Commissioner for permission and they had also file an affidavit in support of the ir claim with duplicate copy of the invoice as lost during the transit. Both the sides are relying upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2000 (37) RLT 501 (CEGAT-Larger Bench). The case of the applicants is arguable, prima facie, it is not fit case for total waiver of the duty.The applicants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- within a period of 6 weeks. On deposit of Rs.25,000/- the deposit of remaining amount of duty is waived for hearing of the appeal. To come up for reporting compliance on 22.3.2001....

Chander Bhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, a Constable in Delhi Police, has challenged the order dated 18.6.87 whereby he has been dismissed from service on account of remaining absent for a period of about 623 days while under suspension.He has also impugned the order dated 27.5.98 passed by the Commissioner of Police rejecting his representation against the order of punishment.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant was involved in a criminal case under Section 9 of Opium Act of the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA, for short) decided on 28.1.97. He was placed under suspension on 7.7.81 and was directed to attend roll call.Subsistence allowance of the applicant was also reduced to l/3rd of his pay since 1981.3. According to the applicant he was insisted by the respondents to attend roll call during the period of suspension. He has been issued show cause notice for remaining absent from duty. Subsequently he proceeded on 20 days special leave with effect from 11.10.84 and was due bac...

Avtar Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 90(2001)DLT815

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendant are real brothers. The property bearing No. B-3/9, Krishan Nagar, Delhi was originally owned by the father of the parties who expired in 1958. On his death, his legal heirs inherited the property, however, by a deed of a relinquishment, not disputed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendant relinquished their shares in the property in favor of their mother, respondent No. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction in the Trial Court on the allegations that the parties to the suit Along with their mother were carrying on business under the name and style of A.C. Industries. This partnership business was allegedly dissolved on 1st April, 1981 and as per settlement alleged to have been arrived at between the parties, the mother of the parties withdrew herself from the business. Plaintiff was allegedly continuing to work under the name and style of A.C. Industries in the premises and also got himself registered with the Sales Tax...

D.P. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Del)321; [2001]251ITR529(Delhi); [2001]116TAXMAN611(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessed, the following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in rejecting the assessed's claim for exemption under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in holding that the asses-see was rightly assessable on the capital gains of Rs. 52,840 for the assessment year 1972-73 ?'2. The factual position, in a nutshell, is as follows :3. The assessed, an individual, sold his property No. E-64, Greater Kailash, New Delhi (in short, 'E-64') for Rs. 2,50,000 on July 17, 1971. The cost of the property, so far as the assessed is concerned, was Rs. 1,57,554. Thus, there was a capital gain of Rs. 92,446. The assessed purchased a plot of land at E-58, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, on January 24, ...

Randhir Singh Vs. Roshanara and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002ACJ1161; 2001IVAD(Delhi)698; 90(2001)DLT304

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. One Ali Ramajan a child of eight years came under the wheel of the bus and died on 4.6.92. The bus at the relevant time was owned by respondent No.4 and was being driven by the appellant. Claiming compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased and by the impugned Award the Tribunal while holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the buss passed an Award of Rs. 50,000/- in favor of the claimant and against the driver and the owner of the bus. The learned Tribunal further directed the driver to pay 40% of the awarded amount and the balance amount was directed to be payable by the DTC. Being aggrieved by that part of the Award whereby the Tribunal had directed the driver to pay 40% of the awarded amount the present appeal was filed by the driver of the bus.2. It is contended that the appellant at the relevant time was driving the bus during the c...

D.P. Byrne Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]249ITR311(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in the course of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147(a) for including the tax paid by the employeras part of the assessed's income to revise also the rate of assessment on the footing that the assessed had not filed the declaration under section 113(3)?'2. By a common statement of case, the Tribunal has referred the question for the opinion of this court relating to several assesses. The factual position is similar in all the cases. The assesses were employees of the British Council during the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. While completing the original assessments,...

M/S. Shruti Synthetics Limited Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Arguing the applications for restoration of the appeals, Shri Upendera Sharma, ld. Advocate submits that under the instruction of his Senior on the date fixed for hearing, he had booked a ticked of bus. He submits that the bus could not reach in time in Delhi, As the court was only for the half day and as he reached the Court, the court had risen for the day. He submits that in support of his contention, he had filed as sworn in affidavit. He, therefore prays that in the circumstance, the appels may be restored.2. Shri K.Panchatcharam, ld. JDR leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench.3. I have heard the submission of the ld. Counsel for the appellant. I find that the delay in reaching the Tribunal was beyond the Control of the Counsel. In the circumstances, the request for restoration of the appeal is allowed. The appeal should now come up for hearing on 2.4.2001....

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Vardhman Spinning and Genl.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Modvat credit totalling to Rs. 1,20,078.51 taken by the respondents on various inputs namely, HSD oil, transformer oil, hydrogen peroxide, dyes and chemicals during the period of November, December, 1994 was disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner as per Order dated 31.10.97.In the appeal filed by the aggrieved assessees against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held all the above inputs to be eligible for modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules but disallowed the credit taken on hydrogen peroxide, dyes and chemicals on the ground that such credit had been taken on original invoices which were not admissible for availment of modvat credit. In the present appeal of the Revenue the appellants are aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the modvat credit on HSD oil and transformer oil.2. I have heard Ld. SDR Sh. M.D. Singh for the Revenue. There is no representation for the respondents in spite of notice of hearing.3. Ld. SDR has supp...

M/S. Kothari Fermentation and Vs. C.C.E., Ghaziabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal dated 27.12.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit was denied on parts of machinery on the ground that no declaration in respect of parts of machinery was filed by the appellants.3. The contention of the appellants is that Rule 57 T of Central Excise Rules is amended by Notification 7/99 dated 9.2.99 to effect that credit shall not be denied on the ground that the declaration filed does not contain all the details required to be contained therein. the Board issued a circular No. 441/7/99 dated 23.2.99 to follow certain guidelines in respect of notification no. 7/99 and the Board clarified that the guidelines are applicable to the pending cases also.4. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case KaMAKHYA Steels (P) ltd. vs C.C.E. reported in 2000 (40) RLT 575, after considering the amendment To Rule 57 T of Central Excise Rules, held as under : "Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, ld. Advocate ...

M/S. National Goods Carrier Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter was called, none appeared for the appellant. From the records placed before, I find that the appellant was directed under Stay Order NO. S/705/2000-NB dt. 11.9.2000 to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards penalty and to report compliance by 31.10.2000. On 31.10.2000 when the matter came up, none appeared nor was there any indication that the order directing pre-deposit of Rs. 10,000/- was complied with. Even today there is no indication in the file that the appellant has complied with the Stay Order. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act,1 1944....