Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Bharat Commerce Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules on PVC cables and PVC armoured cables on the ground that these items fell in the category of capital goods.2. On hearing the learned DR and perusing the records and noting that credit has been held to be admissible by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported in 1999 (108) ELT 47 which has been reaffirmed by the 5 Member Bench in the case of CCE vs. Surya Roshini reported in 2001 (128) ELT 293, I hold that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order since credit has been rightly held to be available on these items. Therefore, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Flex Industries Ltd. and Hind

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT303TriDel

1. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules on PVC cables and PVC armoured cables on the ground that these items fell in the category of capital goods.2. On hearing the learned DR and perusing the records and noting that credit has been held to be admissible by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported in 1999 (108) ELT 47 which has been reaffirmed by the 5 Member Bench in the case of CCE vs Surya Roshini reported in 2001 (128) ELT 293, I hold that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned orders since credit has been rightly held to be available on these items. Therefore, I uphold the impugned orders and reject the appeals....

Flex Engineering Vs. C.C.E. Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has disallowed total modvat credit of Rs.1,49.502/- availed during the months of April and May 1994 to the appellants are manufacturers of Packaging and printing Machines of Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff. Appellants are contesting denial of amount of Rs.1,47,901/- only, as balance amount of Rs. 1,601/- already stands reversed by them.2. I have heard Shri Kailash Chandra, Chartered Accountant and Shri Swatantra Kumar, Ld. DR and perused and records. My findings are recorded here under: i. Modvat credit of Rs. 73,681/- availed on Printed Plastic Film/Printed Paper Poly used for testing the packaging machines is not admissible, in view of the Tribunal's judgement in their own case reported in 1998 (102) ELT 387 in para-2. ii. Credit of Rs. 74,220/- availed on gate pass endorsed after 1.4.94 is admissible to the appellants in the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CC...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Indian Yarns Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against two separate orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules on cables and cable conductors and electric control panels on the ground that these items fell in the category of capital goods.2. On hearing the learned DR and perusing the records and noting that credit has been held to be admissible by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jawahar Mills Ltd, reported in 1999 (108) ELT 47 which has been reaffirmed by the 5 Member Bench in the case of CCE vs. Surya Roshini reported in 2001 (128) ELT 293, I hold that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned orders since credit has been rightly held to be available on these items. Therefore, I uphold the impugned orders and reject the appeals....

M/S. Indian Farmers Fertilisers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT951TriDel

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.42,75,467.04 and penalty of Rs.1,000/-. The learned Counsel submits that the impugned order is passed in pursuance in the Tribunal's remand order. He submits that the Tribunal vide Stay order NO.1243/91-C directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- for hearing the appeal and this amount is duly paid. The Tribunal after hearing the arguments remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision. Now, the present impugned order is passed in pursuant to the Tribunal's direction. He submits that as already deposited Rs.16,00,000/-hence, the deposit of remaining duty and penalty is waived.3. The applicants filed an appeal against the adjudication order and the Tribunal vide Stay order NO.1243/91-C directed the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- which is still with the Revenue.In view of this, the pre-deposit of remaing amount of duty and penalty is waived for hearing of ...

M/S. Universal Cables Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Universal Cables Ltd., the mater relates to the modvat credit, which had been denied in respect of (i) Mild Steel Drums and Drum Barrels/Segments, (ii) MOPP Fils, (iii) C.J.Kits and (iv) Collapsible Corrugated MS Reels and Wire Nails. There are some other minor items also. The modvat credit dis-allowed was to the extent of Rs.33,80,705. A penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was also imposed under the impugned order.2. Shri N.R. Khaitan, Advocate submits that out of the total amount as mentioned above, a sum of Rs.19,08,880/- has already been reversed with regard to the High Speed Diesel Oil and with regard to other items, he submits that the appellants have a good case on merits and are also facing financial difficulties. He also submits that there was no justification for imposing penalty. He however, for hearing the appeal offers to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.3. Shri Rajiv Tandon, SDR has no objection for hearing the appeal after the appellants deposit a...

Ms Kec International Ltd. Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For reasons recorded below, I dispensed with the predeposit of duty and stayed recovery thereof and proceeded to dispose of the appeal themselves as the issue lies within a very narrow compass as the issue has been settled by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal.2. In these case, modvat credit has been disallowed on the gound that the registered dealer viz. TISCO, Jaipur and SAIL, Jaipur issued modvatable invoices, but failed to submit the duplicate copy of the invoice of the manufacturer under which the goods had been received by them,as a result that verification was not possible.3. On hearing both sides and persuing the records, I find that in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. KEC International Ltd. - Final Order NO.A/1735/2000-NB dated 24.8.2000, where the Revenue had filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding credit to be admissible even though the registered dealers had not submitted the duplicate copy of the invoice, the Tribunal has upheld the Commis...

Rakesh Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)926; 92(2001)DLT171; 2001(59)DRJ182

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. (Oral)Rule.1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal,as only a short point is involved.2. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to respondents to charge the cost of flat as prevalent in 1994 and refund the balance. Further a direction is sought not to include the premium in the cost of land.3. The petitioner had applied for a DDA flat under the Ambedkar Avas Yojana by de positing Rs.12,000/-. The petitioner was allotted priority No.112. It is the petitioner's case that he was employed with the Ministry of External Affairs and was transferred to Tanzania. Petitioner vide his letter dated 7.2.1994, informed the respondents about his transfer and requested that communications be addressed to the petitioner at the Tanzania address. Petitioner claims to have addressed a communication dated 7.2.1994, notifying the respondents of his posting at Tanzania and the change of address.4. Respondents in the counter affidavit claimed that no such ...

Mr. Kanishk Khullar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)928; 92(2001)DLT220; 2001(59)DRJ211

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. Rule.1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner claims to be owner of agricultural land, admeasuring 12 bids was and 12 biswas, situated in Village Jonapur, Tehsil Meharauli, New Delhi. It is the petitioner's case that the said land is agricultural land and is used for the said purposes and there is no construction made by him there.3. Petitioner by this writ petition, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order dated 29.1.2001, determining the rateable value at Rs. 8,67,000/-. Further, bill dated 2.2.2001, in the sum of Rs. 7,25,933/- is challenged. The assessment order is a short one. It would be appropriate to reproduce the same:-'In this case a notice under Section 126 of the DMC Act, 1957 proposing the rateable value of Rs. 8,67,000/- w.e.f. 1.4.1997 on account of erection of building was issued. Shri Sunil Dhawan attended the office and stated that there is no construction at site. He has alr...

J.D. Properties Ltd. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR222(Delhi); [2001]118TAXMAN592(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. The controversy in this case lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner filed an application before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (in short 'the Commissioner'), praying for waiver of interest under Section 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), in relation to the assessment year 1999-2000. 2. The petitioner's case for waiver was based on its claim that it could not anticipate the bumper profit in the fourth quarter of the year. It was engaged in the purchase and sale of shares in the nature of spepulation. It had deposited Rs. 2,62,500 as the first Installment of advance tax and a further sum of Rs. 27,00,000 was paid on March 15, 1999, i.e., before the last date of payment of the Installment It was claimed that during the first, second and third quarters it had incurred losses. It was indicated that though for the quarter ended December 31, 1998, there was a net profit, the same was wiped off by the accumulated losses for the pr...