Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Ms. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is field by M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. which is a Public Sector Undertaking. The appeal is listed today for mention for the purpose of producing the clearance from the Committee of Secretaries to prosecute their appeal by the appellants. When the matter was called Shri Nand Kishore, Advocate for the appellants submits that his clients have applied to the Committee for clearance and the same is awaited.2. Since the appllant have not produced clearance from the Committee of Secretaries to prosecute this appeal, the same is dismissed with the liberty to revive the same as and when such clearance is obtained by them....

Bani Singh, Irs Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 6.8.1999, Annexure-A2 whereby on review of suspension of the applicant the competent authority, taking into account the stage of investigation of the case by the CBI and considering all relevant facts and circumstances, including the nature and gravity of the alleged offence concluded that the suspension should be continued and there was no case for revocation of suspension of the applicant.2. The applicant was in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, when he was deemed to have been suspended w.e.f. 29.8.1996 following his arrest in a criminal case against him under Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1996 as per FIR No. 71(A)/96/DLI dated 28.8.1996. It was alleged that he had acquired properties by illegal means and thus was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The applicant has filed OA No. 2761/97 before this Tribunal against the order of suspension dated 15.10.199...

Shri Daya Chand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax New Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)372; [2001]250ITR327(Delhi)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of assessed, following questions have been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(in short the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A'(for short the 'Tribunal): '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its interpretation of the provisions of sub-section (4A) of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the addition made by the lower authorities u/s 68 when the cash credits are found in the books of account seized under Section 132?' 2. The dispute relates to two years, i.e., Assessment years 1970-71 and 1972-73. Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. A search was conducted in the premises of assessed on 8th December, 1972 under Section 132 of the Act. During the course of search, certain books of account and other doc...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.C. Kashyap

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)79; [2001]249ITR297(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 (in short the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' (in short the 'Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessed is entitled to the carry forward of the loss of Rs. 31,355 under the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76 for which the relevant previous year ended on June 30, 1974. The factual background is as under :The assessed, an individual, derived income from property and also shares from registered firms. According to the Revenue, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued for the assessment year in question on December 4, 1976, and it was served on December 15, 1976. A return was filed on July 8, 1977, declaring loss of Rs. 29,5...

Daya Chand Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Del)446

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of assessed, following questions have been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), by the Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench A (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal) :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its interpretation of the provisions of sub-section (4A) of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 19612. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the addition made by the lower authorities under section 68 when the cash credits are found in the books of account seized under section 132 ?'2. The dispute relates to two years, i.e., assessment years 1970-71 and 1972-73. Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. A search was conducted in the premises of assessed on 8-12-1972 under section 132 of the Act. During the course of search, certain books of account...

Shri Periaswamy and anr. Vs. the Commissioner Mcd and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)729; 2001CriLJ1934; 90(2001)DLT333; 2001(58)DRJ109

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to stop and demolish the illegal construction being raised by respondent No.4 over building No.5570, Gali No.75, Padam Singh Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Notice to show cause was issued on 23.2.2000. As an interim measure, the Court had directed respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to permit any construction, which was in violation of the sanctioned plan or DMC Act and the building bye-laws. 2. Despite the said order having been passed on 25.2.2000, respondent/MCD booked the unauthorised construction only on 10.5.2000. Accordingly, vide order dated 31.10.2000, direction was issued for issuance of contempt notice to Sh.Rajesh Taneja, Executive Engineer (Building) as well as to Zonal Engineer (Building) to explain as to why unauthorised construction was booked on 10.5.2000, when this Court directed them not to allow any unauthorised construction on 23.2.2000. As no affidavits in response to...

M/S. Empire Fstners Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On a surprise visit by the Officers of the Central Excise to the factory premises of the appellants on 2.8.97, it was observed that the entries in their RG.1 Register in respect of the end products manufactured by them were made only upto 15.7.97, 28.7.97 and 31.7.97.On stock verification, it was found that their end product viz., M.S.Screws valued at Rs.3,49,663/- and involving a duty of Rs.31,470/- in fully packed condition were not entered into their RG.1 Register.Similarly, their modvat account of inputs was showing 'Nil' balance on 31.7.97 whereas 9,388 kgs. of M.S. Wires (raw material) valued at Rs.1,59,596/- were present in the factory premises. Consequently, the proceedings were drawn against the appellants which culminated in Dy.Commissioner (Technical) of Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh-I passing an Order dt. 19.5.99, in which he ordered for the confiscation of finished goods and raw material found in excess. He, however, gave an option to the party to get the ...

M/S. Pamwi Tissues Limited Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT126TriDel

1. After hearing the learned Counsel representing the appellants and the ld. Departmental Representative at length. We felt that the appeal itself may be taken up for consideration after dispensing with the requirement for pre-deposit of duty and penalty.2. The appeal is directed against the duty demand, claim for interest and imposition of penalty made on the appellant under adjudication order 51/CE/99 dated 30.9.99 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The issue involved in the proceedings before the Commissioner was whether the appellant had rightly been given the benefit Notification No.138/CE dated 1.3.86 in respect of 4 varieties of paper manufactured and cleared by them. The varieties of paper were glazed packaging tissue (GLPT), Laminating Base Tissue (LBT), Release Base Tissue (RBT), Coloured Release Base Tissue (CRBT). The dispute relates to the period 1.3.86 to 20.3.90. During the period the classification of the goods have been approved under Chapter Heading 4...

M/S. Standard Surfactants Ltd. Vs. Cce Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT79TriDel

1. The appellants are the manufacturers of Detergent Cake and Detergent powder. They were availing modvat credit facility on capital goods under Rule 570 of Central Excise Rules,1944. They had cleared certain inputs namely Linear Alkyl Benzene under Rule 57F(1) (ii) on 17.8.95 on payment of duty of Rs.80442/- through their RG 23 C part-II account.Similarly they had cleared the inputs under this rule on 7.8.95 by paying Rs. 1,62,518/- through the same account. The departmental authorities did not agree to their paying the duty from RG 23C part-II account and therefore, subsequently they debited the equivalent amount in their PLA on 5.2.96. They however, filed refund claims of Rs. 80,442/- and Rs.1,62,518/- on 20.2.96 with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division II, Bhopal.2. The Assistant Commissioner issued separate notices for rejecting the refund claims and vide his two orders, both dated 5.6.96, he rejected their claims time barred. The A.C. in his two orders has sta...

M/S. Mawana Sugar Works Vs. C.C.E., Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the benefit of MODVAT Credit was denied to the appellants on the ground that they had not filed any declaration in respect of Chemu-400 and Chemifloc L.T.27. In respect of the input, viz., Chemocide, it was held that the credit was taken without filing any declaration. In respect of Phosphoric Acid, the invoice was not in order as no PLA No. is mentioned and the invoice was not pre-authenticated.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants filed declaration in respect of inputs declaring MAZU-400 and Megnaflock L.T. 27, which are the same inputs under the different brand names. He submits that in respect of Chemocide, this input was received in the factory on 1.10.94 and the declaration was filed on 25.10.94 and credit was taken on 30.10.94 i.e. after filing the declaration. In respect of Phosphoric Acid, his contention is t...