Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Subhash Behari Lal and ors. Vs. the Registrar Co-operative Societies a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)390; 92(2001)DLT375; 2001(59)DRJ411

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioners, three in number, have filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus, directing respondent No. 1 treat the petitioners as members of the Society and to forward their names to respondent No. 3 for draw of lots. Another prayer made is for a direction to respondent No.2, the then administrator, for enrooting the petitioners, as members of the society. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner does no press this prayer, as since then the Administrator has demitted office, elections have been held and the new men aging Committee has taken charge.3. I have learned counsel for the parties. The short controversy, which arises in this case is with regard to the non-forwarding of names of the petitioners in the list of approved members by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to DDA for purposes of draw of lots.4. Counsel for the parties submit that this is the sol...

Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]117TAXMAN122(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.This is assessed-petitioners second journey to this court on the question, whether permission has been rightly granted by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench C, 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 (Tribunal Rules) seeking permission to urge the following additional grounds :'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) 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 Commissioner (Appeals) should have held that the liability to repay t...

Swami Purushottamcharya Vs. Preet Freight Carrier and ors.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 24.2.2001, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1863/1999 - entitled Swami Purushottamacharya v. M/s. Preet Freight Carrier and Ors. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are, that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had engaged the services of respondent No. 3 for transporting his household goods/articles from Mumbai to Delhi. It was stated that respondent No. 3, for the abovesaid purpose, had arranged Truck No. DI 1L C0733, belonging to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was further stated, in the complaint, filed by the appellant, that 38 packages, containing household articles, were loaded in the abovesaid truck on 26.6.1999 fo...

M/S. Jpsl Marketing Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC683

1. In this case, a duty demand of Rs. 3,27,242/- was confirmed against the appellants by inclusion of notional interest in the assessable value of special purpose machines manufactured and cleared by the appellants. In addition a penalty of amount equal to duty was imposed under the provisions of Rule 1730 of the central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The assessees preferred an appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner to the Commissioner (Appeals) who directed them to make a predeposit of Rs.3 lakhs. Their appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the requirement of predeposit. In the appeal filed before the Tribunal predeposit of Rs.25,000/- was directed vide Stay Order No.266/2000A dated 6.11.2000. The appellants have complied with the stay order.2. In view of the above and in view of the fact that the lower appellate authority has not passed an order on the merits of the case, we are of the view that this is a fit case for setting a...

M/S Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are 12 appeals filed by m/s Modi Rubber Ltd. being aggrieved with the common order-in appeal dated 24.9.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghazibad. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The Matter relates to the availment of modvat credit in respect of the inputs which were alleged to have not been declared correctly in the declaration filed for availing of the benefit of modvat credit under Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').3. All the appeals were heard together on 13.3.2001 when Shri M.P. Dev Nath, Advocate, submitted that the issue for consideration in all these appeals related to the modvat credit and the allegation levelled against the appellants was that proper declarations had not been filed prior to the availment of modvat credit. The learned Advocate submitted that he was not pressing the appeal no. E/846/99-NB(S) in which under challenge is the impugned...

C.C.E, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Oswal Sugars Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Stay Petition is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dt. 23.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has allowed the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 1,08,316.00 availed by the respondents on certain capital goods viz., parts of machinery, refractory bricks, boiler, wires & cables etc. by setting aside the order passed by the Original Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) in that order has also set aside the penalty of Rs. 15,000/- imposed on the respondents by the Original Authority. I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the Revenue. It is observed from the written Memo. of Stay application filed by the Revenue that the stay against the Order-in-Appeal is being (sic) only on the ground that the same is not proper and legal. It is observed that propriety and legality of the Order-in-Appeal can be gone into in detail only at the stage of final hearing of the appeal. The R...

M/S. P.S. Hunjan and Brothers Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT604TriDel

1. The issue in this case is the admissibility of modvat credit which has been denied on the ground that invoice on the strength of which applicant took modvat credit did not contain all the necessary particulars such as name of manufacturer, manufacturer's invoice No.and date, rate of duty etc. as required in terms of notification 15/94 dated 30.3.94 and notification 21/94 dated 12.5.94. Ld. counsel draws my attention to an earlier order of the Tribunal of the same assessee which is reported in 2001(128) ELT 71 wherein Tribunal allowed the appeal on the same issue at the stay stage itself. Ld.DR therefore submits that not only this is a fit case for admission of appeal but also fit case for waiver of pre deposit and stay of recovery.3. On hearing both sides and having regard to the fact that the appeal of the same assessee has been allowed on merits on identical issue relating to the particulars of the invoice, I admit the appeal and grant waiver of pre deposit of duty and stay recov...

M/S. Rollatainers Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC660

1. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of central excise duty amounting to Rs.14,352/- confirmed against M/s. Rollatainers Limited by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).2. Shri R.C. Gupta, learned Advocate, submitted that the Applicants manufacture packing and weighing machines as per the orders placed by their customers; that as the machines are tailor made they receive advance/security deposit from their customers for fulfilment of contractual obligation and as held by the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Net1 Chromatography, 1998 (100) ELT 111 (Tribunal), notional interest on advance taken free of interest is not be included in the assessable value of the goods which are tailor made as per buyer's requirement; that similar views were held by the Tribunal in the case of Parish(SIC) Sadhan Yantra Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut, 1999 (131) RLT 567(Cegat).He also mentioned that the appeal filed against this decision has been dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported in...

M/S. Hindustan Copper Ltd. Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking, had filed these three appeals being aggrieved with the common Order-in-Appeal dated 25.09.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal.2. Following the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s.Jaypee Rewa Cement Vs. Collector of Central Excise - 2000 (38) RLT 1111 (CEGAT - Larger Bench), the Commissioner had rejected these three appeals filed by M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. The appeals were received in the Registry on 29.11.2000.3. When the matter came-up last on 9.1.2001, opportunity was given to the appellants to produce clearance from the Committee on Disputes.4. Shri M.P. Devnath, Advocate submits that while the appellants moved in the matter but yet the clearance from the Committee on Disputes has not been obtained.5. In view of the above, these three appeals are dismissed with liberty to the appellants to pray for restoration of the appeals as and when the requisite clearance from the Com...

C.C.E., Bhopal Vs. M/S. Hind Spinners

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order-in-Appeal dt.4.5.2000 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Bhopal. In this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the respondents against the Order-in-Original dt. 24.8.95 of the Asst.Commissioner of Central Excise Division-I, Bhopal. The Asst.Commissioner of Central Excise in his order had rejected the refund claim amounting to Rs. 3,96,992/- of the respondents on the following grounds:- (i) The refund claim application is not in proper format as prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Salt Act, 1944. (ii) The refund claim is not accompanied with duty paying documents as prescribed under Section 11B ibid. (iii) The export was affected against Advance licences taken by the claimant under EXIM Policy, 1992-97. They have imported duty free inputs as per the policy but such duty free inputs were never brought into their factory for production of export consignment.2. It is stated that the in...