Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Gurcharan Kaur and anr. Vs. Raja Ram and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2001)ACC462

B.A. Khan, J.1. One Baldev Singh, 25, was killed in a road accident on 17.6.1980 when hit by a tempo. He was unmarried and helping his father in his cycle shop. His parents filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 2.40 lakhs and projected his earning at Rs. 700/- per month and more if he had survived. Tribunal worked out his dependency at Rs. 200/- per month and applying a multiplier of 20 to it, awarded compensation of Rs. 48,000/- with 12% interest made payable by Insurance Company which had pleaded its liability at Rs. 50,000/- only.2. Appellants felt aggrieved of this and filed FAO No. 131/88 which was dismissed by one word order 26.7.1988. They have this LPA now claiming higher compensation on the ground that income of the deceased at the relevant time was Rs. 700/- per month and that he would have earned more in future if he had lived, supplementing the multiplicand. It is also urged that a multiplier of 45 ought to have been applied considering that the age of the decea...

Cit Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Del)340

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), filed by revenue questioning correctness of the conclusion recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal) to the effect that action taken under section 154 of the Act was not legal after issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act.2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows :For the assessment year 1989-90, due date of filing return was 31-12-1989. assessed filed return on 28-12-1989. An intimation in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act was given to the assessed on 31-3-1990, on the basis of return filed. Notice under section 143(2) was issued in the month of December, 1990 Subsequently, a notice for taking action under section 154 of the Act was issued on 28-2-1991. assessed submitted its reply on 21-3-1991, taking the stand that there was no scope for taking any action under section 154. On 27-3-1991, revise...

M/S. the Sukhjit Starch and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is a petition for stay of operation of the order impugned. It prays for waiver of predeposit of the amount of Rs. 78,111.30 directed to be levied.2. Learned counsel vehemently disputed the assertion made by the Commissioner in his order that SO2 is produced by burning of Sulphur.Prima facie, we are not inclined to accept this submission of the counsel in the absence of any scientific literature. In the common man's knowledge, Sulphur, when burnt, gives rise to Sulphur Dioxide.3. Learned counsel representing the appellant rightly and fairly stated before us that he is not urging financial difficulty of the client for getting the condition of predeposit waived, Amount of Rs. 78,111.30 is not a huge amount of tax payable by the appellant taking into consideration their financial position. We direct the appellant to deposit Rs. 78,111.30 within a period of four weeks from today. If the deposit is made as stated above, appeal will be taken up for final hearing on 19-3-2001....

Cce Meerut Vs. M/S S.R.F. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT173TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the issue involved is whether modvat Credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules is available in respect of Tungsten Wire and Triethylene Glycol, used by M/s S.R.F.Ltd. 2. Shri M.D.Sing, Ld. SDR reiterated the Submissions made in the grounds of appeal in which it has been mentioned that Tungsten Wire is akin to Machine/tool/Accessories and as such is excluded from the purview of inputs under Rule 57A. As per the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Canara Steel Ltd. Vs.U.O.I. 1988 (98) ELT 81 (Kar), the functional utility of the item used would be relevant consideration for determining whether the goods in question are inputs or merely aids for the smooth and proper functioning of the machinery.It is, further, mentioned in the grounds of appeal that Triethylene Glycol is used as solvent for cleaning a filter to make it reusable for passing liquid chemicals for manufacture of final product; that as such it is neither used in t...

M/S Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s Birla corporation Ltd, the issue involved is whether the Capital Goods Credit of the duty paid in respect of Cable Jointing kit under Rule 570 of the Central Excise Rules is available to them for want of declaration filed by them.2. When the mater was called, no one was present on behalf of the Applicants. Shri Apurva Bhattacharya, Id. Advocate, under his letter dt. 20-10-2000, has requested to decide the matter on the basis of written submissions filed on 7-8-2000. It has been submitted by them, in the written submission, that Cable Jointing Kit is basically an electrical instrument; that they have filed a Declaration under Rule 57-T on 21-3-1994 in which "Electric Instruments Chapter Heading 85" has been mentioned and as such they are eligible to Capital Goods Credit respect of Cable Jointing Kit which falls under Chapter 85 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that in the case of G.S.Auto Ltd., Vs C.C.E., 1998 (97) ELT 305 (T) and in Myso...

M/S. Shree Krishna Rolling Mills Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT722TriDel

1. In all these five appeals the issue is the same. Since the issue is the same, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The issue for determination in these appeals id whether Modvat credit can be taken by the manufacturer on the strength of transporter's copy issued by dealer who could not produce the transporter's copy under which the goods travelled to him.3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are manufacturing Iron & Steel Products. They have been procuring these goods from SAIL, TISCO, MMTC on its depots. In the instant case the depots from where the appellants received these goods were registered as dealers with the Central Excise Authorities. During the course of the scrutiny of the records of the SAIL Tisco Depot, Excise authorities noted that the SAIL Tisco deposits did not have proper duplicate copy Transporter's of the invoice. They, therefore, alleged that since the dealer did not have regular tra...

M/S. Delhi Automobiles Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This Restoration of Appeal Petition is against the Final Order No.A/2243/00//NB(SM) dt. 4.12.2000 of the CEGAT. Vide this Order, the appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission itself in terms of the second proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. I have heard Shri N.L. Jangir, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K.Jain, JDR for the Respondents. The ld. Advocate for the petitioners were not represented on the date of hearing on 4.12.2000. However, it is observed from the order of the bench dt. 4.12.2000 that the appeal has been dismissed not on account of the absence or non-representation of the petitioners but under the above stated provisions of the law. In view of these facts, therefore, there is no ground for restoration of the appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed....

C.C.E., Indore Vs. M/S. Kores (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed a refund claim for Rs.15.409/- with the Asst.Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Division-II, Indore on the ground that the consumables of the Photo Copying Machine imported by them were subjected to at higher rate of duty and cleared by them under the Bill of Entry No.233/96-97 dt. 26.7.96. The Asst. Commissioner on scrutiny of the claim of the party vide his Order dt. 13.11.96 held that the refund amount claimed by them was admissible on merits, but, he however, observed that the assessee had not submitted any documentary evidence to show that the burden of Customs duty paid in excess claimed as refund had not been passed on to the customers of the final product and that their refund claim was consequently covered under doctrine of unjust enrichment. Accordingly, he sanctioned the refund claim on merits, but directed that this amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 28B of Customs Act, 1962.2. The Respondents filed an appeal a...

M/S. Fixopan Machines (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed against the order dt. 35.5.2000 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi. By this order, the lower Appellate Authority has confirmed the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Faridabad, in which, he had denied the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 70,634/- to the appellants on the input items - 'Static Converter' and the spare parts for the Static Converter. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that neither Static Converter nor the spares for the same were declared in the declaration dt. 16.1.97. The appellants filed the declaration on 7.4.1997 for Static Converter which is beyond the period of six months. Therefore, it is not valid for the purpose of allowing modvat credit on this item.She has further observed that the appellants' plea that Control Transformer components declared in the declaration dt. 16.1.97 would cover the spares for 'Static Converters' and that the Static Converters and Control Transformers are inter...

Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi- I Vs. M/S. Hindustan Insecticides Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)116

1. These two reference applications are interlinked as they relate to the same order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-C ('Tribunal' in short) dated 23rd February, 1981 in ITA No.5039(Del)/1979. Tribunal has referred the following questions for opinion of this Court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' in short):At the instance of assessed"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenditure of Rs.1,00,500/- on account of fees paid by the assessed to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Delhi for increasing the authorised share capital of the company was a capital expenditure and not a revenue expenditure?"At the instance of Revenue"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessed is entitled to amortisation of expenditure fee as a result of increase in the share capital u/s 35-D(2)(c)(iii) of the Income...