Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

Anshul Kapoor Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 92(2001)DLT902

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. In response to an advertisement issued by respondent No. 2 for Special Recruitment of Stenographer Grade-Dand Lower Division Clerks for visually handicapped persons, the petitioner made an application for being appointed as a Lower Division Clerk. Respondent No. 2 had earlier invited applications through public notices advertised in the Employment News of Special Recruitment of Stenographers Grade-D and Lower Division Clerks for visually handicapped persons and the written examination for the same was fixed for 22nd October, 2000. As per the advertisement, the written examination was to be held only in Braille. One of the candidates, who was partially blind, filed a civil writ petition in this Court praying to hold the said examination in bold prints as he was not trained in Braille script. The High Court vide judgment dated 19th October, 2000 allowed the request of the candidate question papers in bold prints. High Court also directed to give an opportunity to all t...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Taluja Enterprises (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]250ITR675(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN392(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E (in short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to relief under Section 80J when he had employed more than ten workers only for nine months and had employed less than ten workers for the remaining three months ?'2. The factual position, which is almost undisputed so far as it relates to the assessment year 1974-75, is as follows. The assessed, a private limited company, adopted the calendar year as its year of accounting. It carried on manufacture and sale of wrenches, clamps, etc. A claim for relief under Section 80J of the Act was made by the assessed before the Income-tax Officer (in short, 'the ITO'), who rejected the claim ...

M/S. Vandana Exports Vs. Cc, Icd, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing their appeal, the appellants, M/s Vandana Exports are required to pre-deposit the duty amount of Rs 35,41,566/- and a penalty amount of Rs 3,50,000/-. The stay application was received in the Registry on 12.2.2001. The notice for today's hearing was issued on 1.3.2001 and a copy was endorsed to the counsel on record. The appellants under their communication dated 14.3.2001 through the Manager of the appellants' company had prayed for adjournment on the ground that the proprietor is on business tour for export promotion. It is further stated therein that he will be available only in the first week of May, 2001.2. Shri M.M. Dube, JDR, submits that in the present proceedings huge revenue is involved and no justifiable ground has been given for seeking the adjournment of the stay matter. He prays that the stay application be decided on merits after hearing his submissions.3. We find that the copy of the notice for today's hearing had also been endorsed to the counsel on rec...

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S. Dawood and Dawood, (Now Peacock

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This order will dispose of two appeals; A.No. E/2365/2000-C filed against the order dated 28.4.2000 and A.NO. E-2366/2000-C filed against the order dated 20.4.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Both these appeals have been filed by the Revenue being dissatisfied with those orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he affirmed the order-in-original and allowed the respondents benefit of notification no. 15/94-CE dated 1.3.1994 in respect of the plastic household goods including orbit trollies.2. The learned DR has assailed the validity of both these impugned orders before us on the ground that the provisions of notification no.15/94-CE dated 1.3.1994 had not been discussed by the Commissioner (Appeals) while affirming the order of the Asstt. Commissioner and that the goods manufactured by the respondents were squarely covered under Tariff Heading NO. 39.15 during the period in question i.e. 1.3.1994 to 15.3.1995 when the said notification was not in operation at all.Th...

M/S. Fancy Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Vide Stay Order No.9/2001-B dated 31.1.2001 the applicants were directed to deposit the entire duty amount of Rs.1,50,800- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order and on such deposit, the predeposit of penalty amount of Rs.1 lakh was waived and its recovery stayed pending the appeal. When the matter was called today for ascertaining compliance with the conditional stay order, there is no proof of compliance nor is there any request for adjournment/modification of the stay order. Even the stay order has been returned undelivered with the postal remarks that the "premises is always found locked" and the applicants have not furnished any other address for communication. In these circumstances, we dismiss the appeal for non-compliance under the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules....

Sh Rajesh Kumar Bubna and Sh Raj Vs. Cc, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing their appeals, Shri Rajesh Kumar Bubna is required to pre-deposit Rs 1 Lakh and Shri Ram Mangal Kunwar Rs 50,000/- which has been imposed as penalty on them by the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow, in a case of smuggling of small cardamom weighing 20 qtls.valued at Rs 12 lakh. The goods were being smuggled, according to the impugned order, from Nepal.2. Shri Prem Ranjan, advocate, submits that both these persons are of small means; they are petty traders; and are not in a position to deposit the penalty amount imposed on them. The goods have already been absolutely confiscated and they are not owning the goods. He prays for dispensing with the requirements of pre-deposit. In reply, Shri M.M.Dube, DR, submits that it is a case of smuggling from Nepal and the role of these persons has been clearly mentioned at page 16 of the adjudication order. According to the adjudicating authority, Shri Rajesh Kumar Bubna was the master mind in the act of smuggling network and Shri Raj...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S National Standard Duncon Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 21.1.2000 the issue relates to the availability of modvat credit in respect of tanks & vessels, ducting, fittings, pipes and fittings. The Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order had affirmed the order-in-original of the Asstt. Commissioner who allowed the modvat credit to the respondents in respect of the said items.2. The Revenue has come up in appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned DR assailed the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not recorded any reasons for holding the goods in question as capital goods and had also failed to examine the issue of capital goods, in the light of the ratio of the law laid down by the Five Member Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore vs Surya Roshni Ltd., 2001 (42) RLT 817 (CEGAT-LB). He has contended that the matter deserves to be sent back to th...

Shri Chandra Sekhar Juneja and Vs. C.C., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When these matters were called, none of the appellants is present.Both the appellants were sent the notices for hearing to this date by the Registery of the CEGAT on 11.1.2001. As per the record, these notices have been duly delivered to the appellants. There is no communication from the appellants either requesting for adjournment or giving the reasons for their absence. It, therefore, appears that the appellants are no interested in prosecuting their respective appeals.Both the appeal, therefore, are dismissed for non-prosecution....

C.C.E. Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Rana Mahendra Paper Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents are the manufacturers of paper and paper boards falling under Chapter 48. They availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.1,21,000/- on Electric Control Panel, Transformer and M.C. Stand part as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.The proceedings were initiated against them and the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide his Order dt. 8.4.96 denied them the modvat credit by observing that all the items do not qualify to be capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q and duty paid on these items was not admissable. He, accordingly, ordered for the recovery of aforestated amount from the respondents under Rule 57U read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The party filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his Order dt. 5.9.2000 allowed the appeal of the party with the observation that all these items are essential accessories for the proper working of the machines and are integral part of the paper mach...

M/S. Shakun Marbles (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce Jaipur-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This case involves a duty of Rs. 3223/-,a penalty of Rs. 2000/- imposed under Rule 173 q of Central Excise Rules, 1994 and a penalty of Rs. 3223/- imposed under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the appellants by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise,Jaipur vide his Order dated 23.9.99. The above order is upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 11.10.2000.2. The appellants are contesting the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). the matter is listed today for hearing the stay petition filed by the appellants. Shri A.L. Mathur, consultant appering for the appellants submits that the duty of Rs. 3223/- is already deposited by them therefore, the stay petition is against the penalty amounts of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 3223/-. It is contended by the Ld. consultant that no demand of duty is raised in the show cause notice dt 1.3.99 issued in this case and therefore since there is no demand of duty raised, the question of imposition of penalty under the provisi...