Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

H.S. Rana (Constable) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ148

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24th October, 2000,passed by the respondents intimating the petitioner that he has to vacate theGovernment accommodation in his previous Unit IOC Mathura failing which,penal rent would be recovered from the petitioner from his pay from the month ofApril, 1999.2. The petitioner was earlier posted at IOC Mathura when he was allotted a Government accommodation. The petitioner was later on transferred to CISF Unit Uri, (J&K;) on 8th April, 1999. The petitioner, however, continued to retain the Government accommodation at Mathura during the entire period when the petitioner was serving at J&K.; The petitioner, however, was transferred to Badarpur, Delhi on 1st May, 2000 and consequently the aforesaid order was issued on 24th October, 2000 directing the petitioner to vacate the Government accommodation retained by him at IOC, Mathura without any delay failing which, it was intimated to him that penal rent woul...

Cit Vs. Delhi Cattle Breeding Farms (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)477

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of revenue, following questions have been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench D (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').(i) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital gains of Rs. 7,45, 109 could not be considered for purposes of computing the commercial profits of the assessed-company for the purposes of section 104 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'(ii) 'If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether the Tribunal was right in cancelling the orders passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 104 of the Act for the two assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 ?'Dispute relates to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 and this judgment shall cover both the references.2. Factual position, in a nutshell, is as follows :assessed,...

M/S Bhagwati Steel Inds Vs. Cce Chandigarh - I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT897TriDel

1. Deemed modvat credit of Rs. 2,55,287/- taken in terms of Notification NO. 58/97 CE dated 30.8.97 has been denied to the applicants on the ground that this amount of credit was taken on inputs received from M/s Vivek Steel Industries who had not deposited the amount of interest payable on delayed payment of duty and M/s Ganpati Steel & Agro Industries who had not paid full and final duty on the inputs manufactured by them. In addition penalty of Rs. 63,822/- has been imposed upon the applicants.2. None appears for the assessee when the case is called. Since the matter has already been adjourned once, we see no reason to keep this stay application pending any longer and hence we proceed to hear Shri Prabhat Kumar, Ld SDR and peruse the records.3. The issue of admissibility of deemed credit under notification mentioned above is debatable and can be decided only when the appeal is heard finally. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we direct pre dep...

M/S. Asian Industries Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Naveen Mullick, Advocate submits that out of the amount of s.6,00,000/- ordered to be deposited by the Tribunal, the appellants have so far deposited Rs. 2.5. lakhs.2. We find for hearing their appeal, M/s. Asian Industries Ltd. were required to pre-deposit rs. 30,41,872/- as duty and equal amount of penalty. The Tribunal after taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case including the plea of financial hardship, has directed to deposit Rs. 6,00,000/- under Order dated 12.01.2001. We are not happy with the situation as explained.3. However, after hearing Shri Rajeev Tandon, SDR and going through the records as an exception, in the interest of justice, the time for pre-deposit is extended by the end of July, 2001. It is made clear if the terms of the stay order are not complied with within the period now extended, then the appeal will be dismissed without any further reference to the applications....

M/S. Ballabh Alloys Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing their appeal, M/s. Ballabh Alloys Ltd. & Ors., are required to deposit duty amount of Rs. 1,27,50,200/- and equal amount of penalty. There are penalties also against Shri Padam Jain and Shri Sandeep Jain and Shri B.K. Jain.2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri M. Chandrashekaran, Sr. Advocate refers to the earlier order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, in which the demand was of Rs. 98,25,800/- and a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- was imposed on the appellants' company in addition to the penalties on the partners, manager and one Shri B.K. Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Victory Metals, Against this order, both the assessee and the Revenue had filed appeal and when the appeal filed by the assessee came-up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal under their order dated 7.4.2000 had set aside that order and the matters have been remanded with certain directions. He submits that in the re-adjudication a higher duty and higher penalty has ben imposed. He also mentions that wh...

M/S Mecshot Blasting Equipments Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order of the adjudicating authority rejecting the assessees application for refund on the ground of limitation. The refund application field on 19.5.99 was in respect of the duty paid by the assessee for the period 21.8.93 to 27.12.93. All the payments of duty during the said period were, according to the appellants, made under protest. The appellants, however, did not file any letter of protest with the department as required under the provisions of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rule in relation to the payment of duty for the aforesaid period. In relation to payment of duty for the period, August to December 1992, they had submitted a letter to the Supdt. of Central Excise on 24.12.92, stating, inter alia, that the assessable value of the goods cleared during the said period had been computed "as per instructions of the Central Excise officers". As regards the payments of duty made during the period Aug...

Cc, New Delhi Vs. M/S Deepak Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT330TriDel

1. This application filed by Revenue is for stay of operation of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs upholding the confiscation of the imported goods but with an option to the importer to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs. The appeal filed by the importer against the confiscation is also before the Bench today. The appeal of department is against the grant of option for redemption of the goods.2. Heard ld. SDR, Sh. A.K. Jain for the applicant and ld. Advocate Sh.L.P. Asthana for the respondents.3. Ld. SDR submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no authority to grant any option for redemption of the confiscated goods in view of the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act. His submission is that the power to grant such an option under Section 125 is vested in the adjudicating authority and not on the Commissioner (Appeals) by virtue of the definition of "adjudicating authority" under Section 2(1) of the Act. This argument is contested by ld. couns...

M/S. New Agro Meca Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1021TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by m/s. New Agro MECA being aggrieved with the two separate Orders-in-Appeals passed by the commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal.3. Shri K. K. Anand, Advocate submits that the appellate authority had not afforded any opportunity to the appellants to present their case with regard to their stay applications. The stay order was passed ex parte. As the appellants did not comply with the terms of the stay order, the appeals were also dismissed without hearing. He prays that stay be granted, appeals be taken-up for hearing and the matters remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).5. After carefully considering the matter, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and with the consent of both the sides, take-up both the appeals for hearing. As the stay order in both the cases were passed without hearing the appellants, we set aside both the impugned orders-in-appeals and remand the matters to the jurisdictional Commissio...

M/S. Punjab Recorder Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT41TriDel

1. By the impugned order No. 1867/CE/CHD/99 dt. 29.10.99, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original passed by Dy.Commissioner confirming demand of Rs. 87,838-50 and imposing a penalty of Rs. one lakh under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed this Appeal No. E/401/2000-D.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Uninterrupted Power Supply System (UPS). The officers of Central Excise visited the factory premises of the appellant on 16.12.94 they found that during the period 20.3.92 to 13.7.92 the appellants had cleared Lead Acid Batteries valued at Rs. 9,07,600/- involving duty amounting to Rs. 98,838.50. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why duty amounting to Rs. 98,838.50 should not be demanded from them in-as-much as they had not been paying duty on the value of batteries bein...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing their appeal, M/s. Arpit Marbles (P) Ltd. are required to pre-deposit a duty amount of Rs.14,10,973/- under Section 11 A, Rs.92,500/- under Rule 57 U and amount of penalty.2. Shri A.L. Mathur, Advocate submits that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had not condoned the delay in filing their appeal and that the delay was caused as the dealing hand had left the service and had left the papers un-attended. He submits that the demand was hit by time bar. He prays for hearing the appeal without insisting for any pre-deposit.3. Shri Rajeev Tandon, SDR submits that it was a case of clandestine removal and in a case of clandestine removal, there was no question of any time bar and that the matter has been discussed in the order-in-original against which the appeal was filed late by the appellants. He prays that full pre-deposit should be ordered in the case for hearing their appeal.4. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts o n record, including the ...