Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. J.K. Cement Works Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are 15 appeals filed by different appellants being aggrieved with the two separate orders-in-appeals passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. In all these appeals common issue is involved for our consideration. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. When the matter was called, Counsel for the appellants had prayed for adjournment in his communication dated 17.05.2001, which is extracted below:- 01. That the above regular matter is fixed for hearing on 21.05.2001. 02. That the issue involved in this case is the question of admissibility of MODVAT credit on Explosives & Detonators used for blasting the limestone in the captive mines. Though the issue stands decided against the appellant by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble CEGAT, yet appeals in the case of Jay Pee Rewa Cements, Diamond Cements and Associated Cement Industries are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the same issue. It is prayed that since the i...

M/S. Hansaflown Flasto Chem. Vs. Cce, New Delhi Iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC614

1. This is an appeal against the demand of duty of Rs.18,60,560/- under Section 11AB and imposition of penalty of Rs.18,60560/- under Section 11AC.2. The facts of the case in brief are that M/S.Hansaflown Plasto Chem Limited are engaged in the manufacturer of poly Tetra Fluoro Ethylence coatings (PTFE) falling under Chapter sub-heading 3904.61. The Officers of Central Excise visited the factory premises on 13.3.95, Shri S.K.Gupta, Managing Director of M/S. Hansaflown Plastochem Limited was present. In his statement, hesitated that they were not maintaining any Central Excise records; that they were nonregistered as SSI unit. He also stated that they are having a unit in the name of M/s. Temprite Engg. Co. which was never engaged the manufacture of PTFE. He also stated that PTFE coatings obtained in liquid form ere in drums and sold in the open market or transferred to M/s. Temprite Engg. Co. for their consumption or was also consumed in M/s. Hansalflown Plastochem Limited; that they w...

1-2. Moh. Idris Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT528TriDel

1. The appellants is the owner of the Truck No.UP-53-B-2068. On 3.8.98, Silk yarn of foreign origin valued at Rs.6,19,200.00 were recovered from the above mentioned truck. The Silk yarn as well as the truck were taken into possession. The Commissioner of Customs vide adjudication order No.22/CCP/LKO/98 dated 11.9.98 confiscated the Silk yarn of foreign origin as well as the truck. The appellant filed appeal No.C/668/98-NB against the order claiming the truck. In the mean time the appellant mad ea representation to the Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner of Customs passed another order after issuing a show cause notice to the appellant No.13/CCP/LKO/99 whereby the Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the truck but gave option to the appellant to redeem the truck on payment of redemption fine of Rs.1 lakh and also imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Section 112 (b) of Customs Act, 1962.The appellant also filed Appeal No.C/402/99/NB(SM) against this order.2. As the Appeal...

M/S. Frost International Ltd. Vs. Cc, Mumbai (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC617

1. The issues raised in these appeals are identical. They relate to drawback claimed by the exporter on export of Rotomac Ball Pens to Russia. Price of each pen was stated to be Rs.8.12. On that basis, drawback was claimed. The export price having been found to be too excessive, exporters were allowed to clear the goods provisionally.Subsequently, on enquiry it was found that retail sale of same model of ball pens was of Rs.4.30 per pen in retail market while its price in the wholesale market was only Rs.1.97 per pen. On this basis it was found that the value was mis-declared in violation of the prohibitions contained in Section 11 of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, which is punishable under section 113 of the Customs Act. On this basis penalties were imposed on the exporters and the drawback claimed was limited to that which is available on pen valued at Rs.1.97 per piece.2. Main argument advanced by the Learned Counsel representing the appellant is one of vio...

M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi-iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC782

1. Appellant is manufacture of motor cycles. Their unit at Gurgaon cuts steel sheets into body frame right and left.Such parts, so cut, were then transmitted to the unit at Dharushera for further processing to bring out motor cycles.The sheets cut into body frame right and left were subjected to payment of duty at the hands of the manufacturer fixing its value at cost of material plus 4 to 5% profit. Show cause notice dated 15.11.2000 was issued demanding differential duty amounting to Rs.38,97,830 in relation to goods produced on Gurgaon Unit during the period from 1.4.97 to 31.3.2000. In reply to show cause notice it was contended that the Department was justified in loading the value of the parts produced in Gurgaon Unit by adding the profit of the entire Company. It was the assessee's contention that the profits that could have been earned on the parts produce din Gurgaon Units alone could be added to its value for reassessment of central excise duty. This contention was based on ...

Shri A.M. Shah Vs. Smt. Pushpa Sood

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)340; AIR2001Delhi451; 92(2001)DLT694; 2001(59)DRJ471

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This Revision has been preferred against the Eviction Order dated 7.12.2000 passed under Section 14D read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act). A perusal of the Petition disclose that the Landlady, who was widowed on 15.1.1989, has tow sons and two daughters. both the sons have two children each. They have the same servant for forty years and hence a room is required for him also. A Guest Room is needed inter alias for these married daughters who frequently visit their mother. The need for a Pooja room is also felt. Thus the Landlady's requirement is for at least ten rooms whereas presently only three rooms are available on the ground floor, and one room on the first floor. The Landlady has averred that she is the owner of the premises and that she has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation except the demised premises.2. In the application/affidavit seeking leave to contest it has been urged by the Tenant that the availabili...

R.L. Sahni and ors. Vs. R. Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)459; [2002]254ITR292(Delhi)

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 800 of 1991 is filed with a prayer that the proceedings in the complaint case entitled 'Ranjan Singh (Asst. CIT) v. Sahni Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. under Section 276CC read with Section 278B pending in the court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari Courts be quashed.2. It is contended before me by learned counsel that for the assessment year 1986-87, a return was required to be filed latest by June 30, 1986. However, the return was filed on May 25, 1988, and, thereforee, the Department proceeded by filing a complaint initiating prosecution under Section 276CC read with Section 278B. Learned counsel draws my attention to the proviso to Section 276CC where it is mentioned that for any assessment year commencing on or after April 1, 1975, if the tax payable by him on the total income determined on regular assessment, as reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid, and anytax deducted at source, does not exceed three thousand...

Smt. Santosh Sharma Vs. Ashok Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi422; II(2001)DMC273; 2001(59)DRJ526

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This appeal under Clauses 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 21st March 1986 of a Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 118/1982 whereby allowing the appeal of the respondent-husband, the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 23rd January, 1982 dismissing the respondent-husband's suit for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was set aside and the respondent-husband was granted a decree for divorce.2. The appellant and the respondent were married in 1977 according to Hindu Law. Soon after the marriage, their relations became bitter and ultimately the respondent filed HMA No. 470/79 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act charging his wife with cruelty. The petition was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment dated 23rd January, 1982. He thereafter filed second petition (HMA No. 129/82) for the same relief on the ground that imputations made by th...

M/S. Dcm Limited Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. 7 New Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ635

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Petitioner, in this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 questions the legality of the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax, Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal') while dealing with the appeals filed by the petitioner against the direction fro pre-deposits for entertaining the appeals filed before appellate authority. By order dated 31st January, 2001 petitioner was directed by the Tribunal to deposit Rs. 2 crores against the demands raised under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (in short 'the Act') and Rs. 75 lakhs against demands raised under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act'). First Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Commissioner Sales Tax-I had directed pre-deposit of Rs. 3 crores and Rs. 75 lakhs respectively for entertaining the first appeals filed relating to assessments for assessment year 1989-90. The total demand raised under the Act was in the neighborhood of Rs. 25.18 crores, while it was Rs...

M/S National Auto Impex Vs. M/S Autocop (India) Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT74

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Through this petition, the petitioner has sought an interim protection by way of restraining the respondent their servants, agents, representatives, dealers, sub-distributors and all other persons on their behalf from selling or offering for sale Car Security and Remote Control Central Locking System under the trade mark 'PIRANHA' and 'AUTOCOPXS' and also directing the respondents to supply the aforesaid goods to the petitioner against cash payment or current date cheques and also directing the respondents by way of mandatory injunction to clear the outstanding payment or adjust the outstanding payment.2. The aforesaid interim measures are being asked for on the basis of the agreement executed between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 on 1st of February 1995 whereby the petitioner was appointed as the distributor to sell the product of the respondent company under the trade name 'PIRANHA' for whole of India except Greater Bombay. As per clause 6 of the Agre...