Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Seemax Industries, Shri L.R. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC68

1. This order will dispose of three stay applications bearing Nos.E/1728 to 1730/2000-NB arising out of appeal Nos.E/3089,3092-3092/2000-NB filed by the appellants. In the first stay application waiver of Central Excise duty of Rs.6,18,72,793/- and penalty of the equal amount imposed on the first appellant by the Commissioner(Adjudication) has been claimed while in the other two stay applications waiver of penalty of Rs.3 lakhs and of Rs.1 lakh has been prayed for by the appellants No.(2) and (3) respectively which had been confirmed on them by the Commissioner(Adjudication).2. The facts giving rise to these stay applications may briefly be stated as under: 3. The company M/s.Seemax Industries Ltd. [SIL(appellant No.1)] was engaged in the manufacture of steel tubes, MS pipes and SS Mast or Towers falling under Chapter Heading 7306.90 and 7308.20 of the CETA.Earlier this company was working in the name of M/s.Steel Tube Pvt.Ltd.(in short SST). Another firm known as M/s.Structural Galva...

C.C.E., Bhopal Vs. M/S. Acc Ltd. and Anothers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue had prayed for condonation of delay in filing the supplementary appeals. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR submits that the main appeal was filed in time and there was delay only in filing the supplementary appeals and that in such circumstances the Tribunal has been condoning the delay in filing of the supplementary appeals. Shri D. Ghosh, Cost Accountant is present for TRF Ltd., Shri Kamal Jallan for Kamal Builders and Shri S.K.Bansal.CA for ACC and Sabir Khan. As the main appeal was filed in time, as per the practice of the Tribunal the delay in filing the supplementary appeals is condoned. Shri D.Ghosh, Cost Accountant submits that the main appeal of M/s. TRF Ltd. is coming for hearing on 28.5.2001. These matters will also be taken up alongwith the appeal on 28.5.2001 for mention. It is seen that the notices issued to M/s. Vijay Enterprises Ltd., M/s. Tilak Engineering Construction and M/s. Venkateswara Engg. Co. had been received back undelivered. The SDR will get the notices a...

M/S. Century Pulp and Papers Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants againt the order in appeal dated13.6.96 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing modvat credit in respect of refractory products, industrial valves and other parts of recovery bilers, & items used in electrical installations like wires and cables.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper classifiable under Heading 48.02 of the CETA. They took modvat credit of the amount in question on the duty paid 'capital goods' received and used by them within their factory for producing/processing the final product in terms of declarations filed by them under Rule 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules during the period April 1994 to November 1994. They were, however, issued various show cause notices for the recovery of the modvat amount on the ground that the goods in respect of which the modvat credit was taken did not fall within the ambit of 'capital goods' as defined in Explanation 1 appended to Rule ...

C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S. A.C.C. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue against the Two Orders dt. 27.8.99 and 31.8.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. The respondents are the manufacturers of Cement/Clinker falling under Chapter sub-heading No.2502.29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned orders has allowed the modvat credit of Rs. 4,24,531/- to the respondents on the capital goods under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. These goods are as follows: 1. Wheel Shaft and Worm Shaft - These items are the components of gear boxes which finally Transmits torque at a definite revolutions per minute to the moving processing equipment. 2. Expansion Joints (8307) - These are the parts of duets/equipments which carry hot gases required during the process of head transfer. 3. Diesel are Welding ACDB Welding (8515 & 8537) - These equipments are assembled and welded at site because of their size. No assembly of integral equipment ...

M/S. Bhushan Metallic Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1028TriDel

1. The Add1. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I vide his Order dt. 30.9.96 inter alia disallowed the modvat credit to the appellants amounting to Rs. 30,839.91 availed by them on the strength of documents issued by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. relating to the `furnace oil'. It was claimed by the party that they had produced duplicate copies of the invoices to the Range Officer and therefore, it was contended that since the documents had been produced before the competent authority, the objection would not merit to be sustained. The Add1. Commissioner in her order has observed that the prescribed document evidencing payment of duty is the duplicate copies of the invoices which had not been produced before her either by the 1d.Advocate of the notice party or by the notice party.It is further stated that the Adjudicating Authority checked up from the jurisdictional Range Office and it had been reported by the Supdt., Central Excise Range-II, Derabassi vide certificate dt...

Goyal Tax Feb. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anil Kapoor Proprietor Supriya Fashion

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)741; AIR2001Delhi341; 91(2001)DLT616

ORDERA.K.Sikri,J.1. Plaintiff has filed the Suit for recovery of Rs.5,78,931/-under order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is mentioned that the Suit is based on cheques by the defendants to the plaintiff. Some of these cheques on presentation were dishonoured and some of the cheques were not presented at all. On summons of judgment having served upon the defendant the defendant moved this is seeking unconditional leave to defend.2. In the Suit it is mentioned that defendant who is the sole proprietor of Supriya Fashion used to purchase the fabrics from the plaintiff-Company against the receipt thereof and during the course of such transaction defendants purchased cloth worth several lakhs of rupees from the plaintiff-Company and made certain payments against the same. As on 20th January, 1999 a sum of Rs.560059/- became due and against this payment defendant issued number of cheques. The goods in question against which this sum became due are covered by challans dated 12th Ju...

M/S. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)831; 2001(59)DRJ177

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This is assessed- petitioner's second journey to this Court on the question whether permission has been rightly granted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C, ( in short, the Tribunal) to the Revenue to urge additional grounds of appeal,2. For the assessment years 1991-92 to 1995-96, five appeals have been filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Separate applications dated 13.8.1999 were moved by the Revenue under Rule 11 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 ( in short, Tribunal Rules) seeking permission to urge the following additional grounds :'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the claim of enhancement in the liability of foreign loan on account of foreign exchange fluctuations debited in the profit and loss account by the assessed company was a capital loss. 2. On the basis of the facts of the case and on the principles of law, the learned CIT(A) should have ...

Jai Bhagwan Gupta Vs. Smt. Bhago Devi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)1023; 91(2001)DLT655

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the Suit for partition and rendition of accounts. The plaintiff is the son of defendant no.1 who is his mother. Defendants 2 to 5 are brothers of the plaintiff and defendants 6 to 9 are the sisters of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 9 are the legal heirs of Shri Balwant Rai who died at Delhi on 31st March. 1986. It is stated in the plaint that Shri Balwant Rai was the owner of two properties namely,1. Property No.X/431 (old No.266) Ram Nagar, Gali No.1, Gandhi Nagar Delhi. This property was constructed on a plot of land admeasuring 80 sq.yds by Shri Balwant Rai after having purchased the same from the previous owner.2. A house in village Deorah, Tehsil Kaithal (Haryana), constructed on a plot of land admeasuring 225 sq.yds.2. It is further stated that Shri Sulekh Chand father of Shri Balwant Rai and grand father of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 9 and father-in-law of defendant no.1 was owner of two properties na...

Shri G.C. Kumar and Others Vs. Shri Ashok Kumar and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)1001; AIR2001Delhi338; 92(2001)DLT1; 2001(59)DRJ322

ORDERDevinder Gupta. J.1. This is an application seeking review of the order passed by us on 6.9.2000. in FAO(OS) No.127/2000.2. ON 6.9.2000 appeal filed by the appellants against the order 23.3.2000 by learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A.Nos.8038 and 8039 of 1998 in Suit No.588 of 1975 was dismissed holding that there was no illegality and infirmity in the order dated 23.3.2000 passed by learned Single Judge.3. In order to appreciate the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it will be necessary to give relevant facts only.4. Suit No.588 of 1975 was filed in May, 1975 by late Shri Fateh Chand Kumar, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants for rendition of accounts of the dissolved partnership. IA.707/86 was filed in the said suit by the appellants and respondents 1 and 2 for recording of compromise. Ultimately on 7.5.1996 the suit was disposed of and decree was passed. Appeal against the said judgment and decree (RFA(OS) No.10/1996) is stated to have been filed b...

Kanwarjit Singh Arora Vs. Gurdeep Singh Arora

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)934; 92(2001)DLT344; 2001(59)DRJ63

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J Rule.1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sanctioned plain was for additions/alterations. Learned counsel is aggrieved by the following finding by the learned Additional District Judge:'From the site plain filed by the appellant, it is also clear that even some portion of the old existing portion was demolished, the basement was also constructed even if a small portion was not demolished for any reason, it could not make out a case of additions and alterations.'3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the plain approved was for additions/alterations, it cannot be treated as a case of rebuilding or new construction. Learned counsel for the respondent refutes these submissions by saying that even as per the property tax return filed by the petitioner, the property had been rebuilt in the year 1989-90. It is also the respondent's case in the impugned order det...