Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Charan Singh, Jagraj Singh Jai Vs. C.C. Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts in this case are that on 6.5.99, the Officers of Customs Headquarters (P), Lucknow at Sidhauli on Lucknow-Sitapur Highway had intercepted two trucks bearing registration Nos.HR-46-A/1846 and UP-07-A/5871. Both these trucks were loaded with Cardamom. These consignments were prima facie held to be illegally imported into India and the proceedings were initiated in respect of these consignments. These proceedings culminated in Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow passing an Order dt. 26.7.2001, in which he ordered for absolute confiscation of the Cardamom of foreign origin valued at Rs. 10 lakhs recovered from both the trucks under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. He further ordered the confiscation of both the trucks under Section 115 (2) and since the trucks had already been provisionally released to their owners, against cash securities of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000/- respectively deposited by the truck owners at the time of provisional release, the same were or...

M/S. Kareyn Dydraulics (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT180TriDel

1. In this case, the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Saharanpur vide his Order dt. 3.1.90 disallowed the modvat credit of Rs.34,668.90 to the appellants and further imposed a penalty of Rs.500/- on them. The Asst. Collector in his order has observed that under GP.1 No.60 dt.20.8.88, No.84 dt. 18.10.88 and No.105 dt. 29.12.98, the party availed modvat credit on the inputs described in the Gate Passes as "Hydro Mechanical Governing units for water turbines & spares". The Asst.Collector in his order has observed that the party in the declaration filed by them has described their final product as " Hydro Mechanical Governing Units for water turbines and their spares". It is further observed that they had declared their inputs only as "Spares for Hydro Mechanical Governing Units". Therefore, the party is not entitled for the credit on the inputs received under the aforestated Gate Passes. It is further observed that they are also not entitled for the credit on spares because proper ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Procter and Gamble

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 30.3.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had upheld the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner allowing modvat credit of the disputed amount to the respondents on the goods in question by treating the same as capital goods falling under Rule 57 Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Ld. SDR has at the very outset contended that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserved to be set aside as it has not been passed in consonance of ratio of the law laid down by five Member Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE vs. Surya Roshni [2000 (142) RLT 817]. and the matter be sent back to adjudicating authority for deciding the modvat credit claim of the respondents afresh in the light of that judgement.3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has no objection if the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for deciding whether the goods in question fall wit...

Flex Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT778TriDel

1. In these four appeals, filed by M/s Flex Industries Ltd, the issue involved is whether the Modvat Credit under Rule 57A is available in respect of evaporation boats and alternatively capital goods credit is available under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri Kailash Chander, Ld. Chartered Accountant, conceded at the outset that modvat credit under Rule 57A is not available in respect of evaporation boat in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Melton India Ltd. Vs. CCE Meerut, 2000 (121) ELT 701 (T-LB.) He further, submitted that in reply dt. 16-1-97 to the show cause notice dt. 19-12-66, the Appellants had put an alternative plea that capital goods credit would be available to them as the evaporation boats were applicances or appartus as mentioned in Explanation 1 (a) to Rule 57Q; that they had requested for allowing the capital goods credit ignoring the minor procedural irregularities. He finally submitted that the Larger Bench of the Tr...

M/S. Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are the manufacturers of Refrigerators, Washing Machines and Dish Washing Machines falling under sub-heading No.8418.10, 8450.10 and 8422.10. Their factory premises were visited by the Central Excise Officers on 28.6.94 and on taking the physical stock verification, it was found that 5519 Nos. "Timers", in respect of which the modvat credit had been availed by the party, were short.Consequently the appellants voluntarily reversed the amount of Rs.1,49,210/- in respect of the modvat credit availed on these on 26.5.97. The proceedings were initiated against them which culminated in the Dy.Commissioner, Cental Excise, Bhiwadi passing an Order dt.24.9.99. On takin g into consideration that the party has already reversed the amount involved in the Timers found short, he imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on them under Rule 173Q.2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur upheld the order passed by the original authority by dismissing the appeal of the party.3. This is ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Industrial Cables

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 23.12.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had set aside the Order-in-Original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 31.12.98 disallowing the modvat credit of Rs. 2,38,612.69 to the appellants and imposing penalty of Rs.Two lakhs under Rule 173 Q on them.2. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables falling under Chapter 85 of the CETA. They were served with a show cause notice dated 23.5.96 for recovery of the modvat credit of Rs.2,38.612.69 which they wrongly availed during the month of Septemeber, 1995. On receipt of their reply to that show cause notice wherein they tried to justify the taking of modvat credit by stating that their goods on which they had taken were capital goods covered by Rule 57 Q of the Central Excise. But the Assistant Commissioner did not accept their version and ordered the recovery of the amount in question and also imposed penalty on them as detail...

M/S Jayabharat Credit Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT467TriDel

1. The Officers of DRI, Lucknow intercepted a truck bearing Registration No.GJ-9-V-0395 on the Bansi-Naugarh Road near the Indo-Nepal border on 22.11.98. On search of that truck, a total of 13,320 pcs. of Taper Roller Bearings (Made in Romania) valued at Rs.13,98,600/- were recovered from it. These bearings and the truck valued at Rs.5,00,000/- were seized under Section 110 of t he Customs Act, 1962. From the documents recovered from the seized truck, it revealed that the owner of the truck was one Shri Lalit Kumar N Rajdeo, r/o. 17, Panch Jyoti Society, Murasa, Gujarat. Shri Lalit Kumar N Rajdeo sent an unsigned letter to the Asst. Director of DRI, Lucknow along with a copy of the sale agreement purported to have been entered into by him with one Shri Aziz-ur-Rehman, owner of M/s. New Nelco Transport Service, Mumbai for the sale of truck to Shri Aziz-ur-Rehman, Village and Post Office: Pasai Dist. Siddharthnagar, U.P.2. Shri Aziz-ur-Rehman submitted an affidavit dt. 3.5.99 to the Ass...

M/S. Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.3. The applicants had already deposited a duty amount of Rs. 4,98,011/-. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- is waived for hearing of the appeal and the recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Registry is directed to list the appeal on 03.04.2001 for arguments. (Dictated in Court)....

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)77ITD8(Delhi)

1. By this petition, the assesscc has sought stay of recovery of demand in a sum of Rs. 1,60,35,67,210 arising as a result of Assessing Officer's order under section 143(3), read with section 263 of the Income-lax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1995-96.2. With a view to appreciating the prayer of the assessee, it would be relevant to refer to the facts of the case. To be stated succinctly these are thus. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee, a Public Sector Undertaking, had filed its return declaring a total income of Rs. 9,94,40,04,774. The relevant assessment was completed by the Dy. CIT, Spl. Range-20, New Delhi vide order under section 143(3) dated 27-2-1998 on a total income of Rs. 9,95,08,43,810.In the said assessment, deduction for "licence fee" of Rs. 1,47,95,35,200 stood allowed, as claimed by the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer allowed deduction of Rs. 35,98,07,973 for cancellation of bills accounted for as income (prior period adjustments). ...

Shri Mehr Singh and Anothers Vs. Union of India and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)237; 91(2001)DLT414

ORDERKhan, J. 1. All these LPAs arise out of a common judgment of First appellate Court dated 16.1.1979 awarding compensation of Rs.15 sq. per yard for appellants land in Village Tihar, and being identical on facts and law are disposed off by this common judgment. 2. Appellants land was acquired in Village Tihar pursuant to Section 4 Notification dated 23.2.1964. Collector classified their land in Block `A' and determined its compensation at Rs.5,000/- p.b. Appellants sought reference and Reference Court awarded them Rs.10,000/- p.b. Two sets of appeals were filed against the award of ADJ-one by respondent-Union wanting reduction in awarded compensation and the other by appellants asking for higher compensation. Appeals filed by Union were dismissed and that of appellants allowed and the compensation in their case was enhanced to Rs.15,000/- p.b. They still felt dis-satisfied and have filed these LPAs praying for still higher compensation.3. Appellants have relied upon two DB Judgments...