Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

Shri D.P. Kothari and C.P. Kothari Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT669TriDel

1. The Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vide his Order dt.3.4.98 confirmed the duty of Rs.14,49,000/- on M/s. Om Metals & Minerals (P) Ltd., Kota under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise rules, 1944. He also imposed a penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- on this party. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- each on Shri c.P. Kothari, Managing Director and Shri D.P. Kothari, Managing Director and Shri D.P. Kothari, Technical Director and Shri D.P. Kothari, Technical Director of the company under Rule 209-A of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri D.P. Kothari and Shri C.P. Kothari filed appeals against the above Order of the Addl. Commissioner, but the same stood dismissed by Order dt. 8.10.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur.3. The present are the second stage appeals filed by the above appellants. The appellants have submitted that in this case the main notice party viz., M/s. Om Metals & Minerals (P) Ltd.,...

Cce Mumbai-i Vs. M/S Puran Enterprises and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT70TriDel

1. Both these appeals relate to differential duty demands on Audio Cassettes. The appellants were job workers who carried out recording of music on cassettes against job contract. They paid duty at the time of the clearances of the tapes on assessable value comprising of price of audio tape and the recording charge received by them. The subsequent duty demands involved in these appeals have been made invoking the extended period as provided in priviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act holding that the assessable value should have also included a component towards cost of master cassettes and inlay. Demand has been raised beyond the normal period of six months allowed under Section 11A(1) on the basis that short levy is the result of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty.2. Arguing the appeal of M/s Swar Cassettes, the learned Consultant has stressed that the appellant had included in the assessable value are the elements of cost known to them, i.e. cost o...

M/S Eon Polymers Ltd. Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1316TriDel

1. All the appeals are directed against order in original No. 16/2000 dated 11.5.2000 of the Commissioner of Customs of Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur. Accordingly they are disposed of by this common order.2. Appellant M/s EON Polymers Ltd., Bhiwani is a 100% EOU set up for the manufacture of PET bottles. For the manufacture of such bottles in the EOU they had imported, under the EOU scheme, machinery without payment of duty. Some indigenously manufactured, machinery were also received duty (Central Excise) free for the same purpose. In the same premises the appellant also set up another unit for manufacture and supply of PET bottles to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). After investigation, the Revenue Authorities alleged that the appellant had clandestinely manufactured and cleared into the domestic area without payment of duty, PET bottles from the EOU. It was also alleged that such clearances were falsely shown as the manufacture in the appellant's unit for DTA production. The im...

M/S. Plaza Steel Rolling Mills (P) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called, Shri Joseph Pookkatt, advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants have not been able to pre-deposit the amount ordered vide stay order dated 26.9.2000 even within the extended period given by the Tribunal's order dated 11.12.2000. Shri M.M. Dubey, DR Prays for dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance.2. under Tribunal's order dated 26.9.2000, the appellants were directed to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 14 Lakhs out of total demand of Rs. 2857460/-. on request of the appellants the time was extended for making the compliance for further 12 weeks on 11.12.2000 and the matter was posted today for reporting compliance. As the compliance has not been made even within the extended period, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance. We have also gone through the application for modification and further extension of time. We do not find any merit in the same. As a result the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance....

M/S. Paramount Surgimed Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has come present on behalf of the appellants in spite of the call. The perusal of the record shows that the stay application of the appellants was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 13.4.2000.Thereafter on the last date of hearing i.e. 30.1.2000 the counsel of the appellants was unwell and the matter was adjourned for today. Today again none has come present. No request for adjournment has been also received from them. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.Operative part of the order already pronounced in the open Court on 20.2.2001....

Mecpro Heavy Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ99; 2001(76)ECC766

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Petitioner questions the legality of the action taken by the respondents No.2 and 3 (Commissioner of Central Excise and Superintendent, MOR-XII, MOD-II) requiring payment of duty payable under the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (in short, Excise Act) and the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short, the Rules). Petitioner's stand is that acting on the assurance held out by the respondents 2 and 3, it had made a declaration in terms of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (in short, the Scheme)(Chapter-IV OF Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 (in short, the Finance Act).2. After such declaration there was no scope for any demand as has been done. According to respondents, the scheme has no application to petitioners' case and thereforee the demand in order. Background facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy are essential as follows.:-A show-cause notice dated 18th March, 1996 was issued by the Commissioner Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur (in short, the Commissione...

M/S. Vishnu Promotors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Holtec Cooperative Group and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)266; 2001(58)DRJ810; 2002(1)RAJ392

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This a petition under Sections 12,13,& 14(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking appointment of another arbitrator as the petitioner has doubt about the integrity of the arbitrator who according to him biased against the petitioner from the day one in-as-much as that his counter claim filed on 18.9.99 though was allowed for consideration but inspire of allowing the consideration of the counter claim the order was passed that the same would be entertained only if the reference is made as per arbitration agreement. inspire of insistence of the petitioner that the arbitrator should make the position clear as to his counter claim, the arbitrator remained silent.2. However, the petitioner further contends that the arbitrator was to give the award within six months as per clause 24 of the Agreement and this period was extendable only with the consent of both the parties and since no such period has been extended, the Agreement ceases to exist. However, with...

Narinder Saxena Vs. Smt. Meenu Sahni

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)198; 2002(1)RAJ379

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor,J.1. On the one hand, the petitioner has sought the appointment of an Arbitrator for settling the dispute while the respondent has through application under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code called for action against the petitioner for forgery and fraud committed upon the Court.2. As per the agreement to sell, the balance of consideration amount of Rs.64 lakhs was to be received by the respondent on the completion of the transaction and the full and final payment was to be received by the respondent on or before 31.10.1997. It is alleged that even before the date of final payment to be received on 31.12.1997, Shri B.L.Chawla purporting to acting on 18.12.1997 with a view to avoid and wriggle out of the transaction by giving option either to complete the sale and receive the balance amount of consideration or refund the amount of advance received by the applicant as per terms conditions of the agreement.3. However it is contended that the aforesaid notice was not o...

Yash Pal Vs. Delhi Administration and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)321; 2001(60)DRJ647

ORDERManmohan Sarin. J. Rule.With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.1. This is the petitioner's second round of litigation. Petitioner, whose land has been acquired by the Delhi Administration, claimed allotment of a plot in lieu thereof under the scheme of the respondent.2. Petitioner had purchased 5 bids was of land at village Bahapur by Sale Deed dated 27.11.1958, which was the subject matter of acquisition. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 13.11.1959. The Sale Deed was registered subsequent thereto on 30.12.1959.3. Petitioner's claim is sought to be rejected by the respondent on the ground that on the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, he was not the recorded owner and hence was not eligible under the guide-lines and scheme. Counter affidavit is stated to have been filed by the respondent. Rejoinder filed by the petitioner is on record. Respondent fa...

Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)550; [2001]250ITR356(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These two reference applications have been registered on the motion of the assessed under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' (in short 'the Tribunal'), and the following common question has been referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner during the proceedings under section 144B(4) was right in refusing to entertain fresh evidence in the form of affidavit of legal heir of the deceased creditor ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76 and centres round the addition of Rs. 20,000. The said sum was reflected in the books of account of the assessed as cash credit in the name of one Balwant Singh. The Income-tax Officer (in short 'the ITO') held that the assessed's Explanationn was unsatisfactory as regards the nature and source of the said sum. The said finding was challenged by th...