Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Wings Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant for non-compliance to the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Rules,1944.3.The contention of the appellant is that the adjudicating authority imposed an penalty of Rs.10,000/- and ordered the confiscation of the goods and gave option to the appellants to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine as well as penalty. The contention of the appellant is that as per the provisions of Rule 35F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Appellate authority can waive pre-deposit of duty and penalty only on the conditions as deemed fit. Therefore, the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) for pre-deposit of redemption fine is beyond the scope of Section 35F of the Central Excise Rules,1944. It is upto the appellant to redeem the goods or not. If, appellant wants to redeem them, will pay the redemption fine and, if, they...

Cce, Raipur and M/S. Jay Pee Rewa Vs. M/S. Jay Pee Rewa Cement Ltd. an ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are two appeals - one filed by the Revenue and the other filed by M/s. Jay Pee Rewa Cement Ltd., being aggrieved with the common Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur.2. Shri M.P. Devnath, Advocate submits that in Appeal No.E/1836/95-NB (DB), the matter relates to the modvat credit on capital goods and that in the Appeal No.E/1611/96-NB, the item involved is only castables. He submits that as regards the capital goods, the matter is covered by the Larger Bench decision on the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd. - 2001 (42) RLT 817 (CEGAT - Larger Bench). He submits that as regards castables, the matter is covered by the South Zonal Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs.Chettinat Cement Corpn. Ltd. - 2001 (43) RLT 473 (CEGAT - Larger Bench).3. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR submits that a number of items are involved and the matter could be remanded back for re-examination in the light of the Larger Bench ...

Flex Engg. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicant filed this application for stay of the operation of the final Order No. A/340-341/98-NB(S) dated 17.4.98 whereby their appeal has been dismissed.2. The contention of the applicant is that now the Tribunal has referred the question of law to the Hon'ble High Court vide Order No.R/86-87/01/NB(SM) dated 6.10.2000 and the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Shri A.K. Jain, Deputy General Manager of the Company made a request that the demand involved in these appeals may not be pressed until they approach the Hon'ble High Court for appropriate orders in the Reference application. In view of these facts the application is adjourned to 2nd August, 2001. In the mean time of Revenue shall not inforce the demand involved in these appeals....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Vardhman Polytex Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT446TriDel

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order the penalty on MODVAT credit as capital goods in respect of Bus duct and Distribution Boards are allowed.3. The contention of the Revenue is that these are not capital goods as these are not covered by the definition of capital goods. These items are not used for producing or processing of any gods or bringing of any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final product.3. The Assistant Commissioner in the adjudication order specifically found that the Bus duct are spare parts of Transformer and the Transformer is an integral part of Plant. This factual aspect is not controverted by the Revenue. As these are parts of plants, therefore, these are entitled for the benefit of MODVAT credit.4. In respect of Distribution boards and penals adjudicating authority gave a finding that these are used for regular electric supply to the machines which are used in the...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kanjimal and Sons

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dt. 28th July, 1994, of CIT(A)-V, New Delhi. It pertains to the asst. yr.1986-87. "On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the penalty under Section 273(2)(a) by relying on the order of her predecessor for the asst. yr. 1980-81 who cancelled the penalty levied under Section 273(2)(a) on the basis of Delhi High Court order that penalty under Section 273 cannot be initiated in the case of reassessment whereas in the present case the penalty under Section 273 has been initiated during the course of a regular assessment." 3. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that relief in the present appeal had been granted by the CIT(A) relying upon the order for the asst. yr. 1980-81 wherein the decision of the Supreme Court had been relied upon in D.M. Manasvi v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC). The Supreme Court in D.M. Manasvi v. CIT (supra) held that it is not essential that the no...

Shri Pawan Bhartiya Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)331; 2001CriLJ3245; 92(2001)DLT198; 2001(59)DRJ437; 2002(80)ECC459

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short, 'the Constitution) legality, validity and virus of the order dated 30.07.1996 passed by respondent no. 1 ( Union of India through its Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance ) has been challenged. The said order was passed in exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short, 'the Act') for detaining the petitioner. Prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or writs, setting aside the impugned order of detention dated 30.07.1996. Stand of the petitioner in essence is that such prayer has to be accepted as:-a) there has been delay in execution of the order of detention. b) there was no consideration of several aspects, more particularly, the fact that the duty for the alleged evasion of which action was taken has already been p...

Naresh Kumar Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Davender Kumar Mittal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]107CompCas527(Delhi); 92(2001)DLT442; 2001(59)DRJ359

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The appellants filed a petition under Sections 433(a), (e) and (f) read with Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of appellant No. 2 company. A petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act was filed before the Company Law Board, prior to the filing of the aforesaid petition and certain interim orders were passed by the Company Law Board in the proceedings before it. The said petition before the Company Law Board was however subsequently withdrawn by the appellants. The appellants contend that since they subsequently came to the conclusion that survival of the company was not in the interest of its share holders, the petition was filed before this Court.2. Appellants NO. 1 had contended that he is holding more than 99% shares and he is no longer interested in the running of the Hotel at Mussorie which was the purpose of incorporation of defendant No. 2 company and thereforee appellant No. 2 company should be wound up on just and...

Sh. Baldev Raj Vs. Sh. Man Mohan and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)399; 92(2001)DLT274

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The appellants filed a suit claiming decree for partition, declaration and permanent injunction in respect of property mentioned in Annexure 'B' attached to the plaint. Along with the suit an application was filed by the appellants under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC to restrain the respondents from alienating, transferring, selling or parting with possession of House No.2575, Main Road, Raghubarpura No. 2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. After the pleadings were completed, learned Single Judge dismissed the application of the appellants by the impugned order dated 10th January, 2001. This order is under challenge in this appeal.2. The appeal was posted for preliminary hearing on 19th January, 2001 on which date submission of the learned Senior counsel for the appellants was recorded that the alleged will dated 21st March, 1984 propounded by the Respondents had not been produced in original before the learned Single Judge and was not attested in ac...

Smt. Anguri Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)1076; 2001CriLJ3697; 92(2001)DLT606

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Alleging custodial death of her late husband - Havildar Ram Swaroop, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short, the Constitution) has been filed with the following prayers:1) To summon the service/medical record of late Havildar Ram Swaroop from respondent No.3 including the post mortem reports (numbering three) conducted on his dead body. Also, all connected record of the matter be summoned from respondents 1, 3, 4, 5, etc2) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No.1 to register an offence under Section 302 IPC etc and investigations be taken up bring to book the offenders in accordance with law. If considered fit and proper the entire matter be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, for investigation and report in the interest of justice and fair play.3) To direct that a high powered medical board be constituted, consisting of impartial persons not connected with the Army...

Flower Tobacco Company Vs. Ambar Tobacco Company

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)317; 92(2001)DLT51; 2001(3)RAJ112

ORDERDevinder Gupta. J.1. This is a second appeal filed under Section 109(5) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking to challenge the order passed by learned Single Judge in appeal preferred under sub-section (3) of Section 109 of the Act against the order passed by Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi on 31.12.1981 in opposition proceedings DEL-3009.2. Facts in brief are that the application bearing No.339005 was filed by the appellant to register a Trade Mark (Label) in Class 34 consisting, inter alia, the a device of coffee pot and the words 'Abbul Dalla' in Arabic characters in respect of the specification of goods, which on subsequent amendment reads as 'Tobacco for Hooka for export only'. This application was under objection on the ground of conflict with some mark on the Register and another application pending consideration before the Trade Mark Registrar. Application was advertised on 16.7.1979 and on 1.8.1979 responden...