Delhi Court July 2001 Judgments

M/A. Gujrat Ambhuja Cement Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23.2.2000 vide which he had affirmed the part of the order in original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 5.2.98 disallowing modvat credit of Rs. 1494370.91 on the goods in question as "capital goods"/inputs to the appellants.2. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. On the last date of hearing i.e. 23.5.2001 the matter was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel, but today none has come present. There is also no request for adjournment from them. Therefore, we proceed to decide the matter after hearing the learned SDR.3. It has been submitted by the learned SDR that the issue as to whether the goods falls within the ambit of definition of "capital goods" in terms of Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules read with Explanation I appended thereto, deserves to be re-examined in the light of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Indore ...

Jagmohan @ Mohar Singh Vs. U.O.i. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT522; 2001(59)DRJ746

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Jagmohan @ Mohar Singh, aged about 38 years is kept under detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980(hereinafter called the Act) with a vie to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order.2. The above said order was passed by the Commissioner of Police(in short C.P.) on 20th August, 2000 pursuance to the delegation of powers to him vide Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi's order dated 11th July, 2000.The order of the C.P. dated 20th August,2000 was approved by the Lt.Governor, the approving authority vide order dated 30th August, 2000.Representation made by the petitioner dated 22nd September, 2000 was rejected by the Central Government on 26th September, 2000.It was conveyed to the petitioner vide Central Government's letter dated 29 September, 2000.Representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Lt.Governor on 16 October, 2000.3. The detention order has been assailed primaril...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rani Shaver Poultry Breeding Farms (P.) ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR520(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The following question has been referred at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to Clause 6 of the partnership deed dated April 1, 1966, the hire charges receivable from the firm should be taken at Rs. 1,24,379 as provided in the books of account or at Rs. 1,87,416 equivalent to the depreciation claimed and allowed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77.3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :The assessed, a private limited company, had been carrying on poultry farm business since the accounting year 1961-62. On April 1, 1966, the assessed-company entered into a partnership arrangement with one Major General R. N. Mehra for running the farm on par...

Sita Nanda Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Del)54; [2001]251ITR575(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessed, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest of Rs. 13,630 paid by the assessed on the delayed payments of unearned increase to the Land and Development Officer was a part of the unearned increase and was admissible as such or otherwise as an expenditure under Section 48(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1972-73.3. The factual position as highlighted in the statement of case reads as follows. The previous year for the assessment year in question ended on October 3i, 1971. The assessed is an individual, deriving income from property, dividend, interest, etc. During the year under reference, the assessed had agreed to sell a prope...

M/S Indore Bottling Com. Vs. Cce Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For reasons recorded below we waived pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 80,000/- imposed upon the assessee herein (duty demand of Rs. 82,287.19/- has already been paid.) and proceeded to decided appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in manufacture of flavoured water and Soda water falling under chapter heading 22.02 and 22.01 respectively and availing the benefit exemption from duty and slab wise clearance in terms of Notification No.175/86-CE dated 1.3.86. During the visit of Central Excise Officers to the factory of the appellant on 17.7.87, it was observed that the appellant had collected additional charges from their buyer over and above the assessable value, charges so collected resulted in short payment of duty and hence show cause notice proposing recovery of duty and imposition of penalty was issued. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed duty of Rs. 82,287.19/- recovered as advertisement charges, and dropped remaining...

Sh. Mahabir Prasad Goenka Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Vide Stay Order S/72-74/2001-NB dated 7.2.2001, the Tribunal, inter alia, directed the applicant above named to deposit a sum of Rupees One Lakh out of the total penalty of Rs. 15 Lakhs imposed by the adjudicating authority. An application for rectification of mistake was filed and disposed of by Misc. Order M/101/2001-NB dated 25.5.2001, holding that the ROM application is not maintainable as it arises out an order passed in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, while Section 129B(2) provides for filing such application arising only out of an order passed in terms of Section 129(1) of the Customs Act. The applicants moved the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which directed the Tribunal to hear the ROM application. This is how the matter has come before us.2. We have heard Shri Rajesh Tiku, Learned Advocate and Shri Ashok Kumar, Learned DR. We note that in paragraph 11.2 of the adjudication order the Commissioner has held the applicant liable to penal action on the ground that it was ...

Shri Subodh Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. All these OAs involve similar issues of law and fact and are taken up together for passing this common order.2. I have heard the learned Counsel on either side at length and have perused the material placed on record.3. The applicants in these OAs have been working as Lab. Technicians (LTs), Radiographers, male and female Nurses in the Central Jail at Delhi. They have been so working from different dates and years starting 1996, so that each one of them has, on date, completed more than 4 years of continuous working. Earlier, they had apprehended termination of their engagements and have sought ad-interim orders which were granted by this Tribunal. They have continued to perform the same set of duties all along.4. During the course of hearing, on 1.6.2001, the respondents were directed to bring complete record regarding recruitment of the applicants. The learned Counsel for the respondents has accordingly produced the corresponding file maintained by the respondent-department. It w...

East India Goat SkIn Co. Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directora ...

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. Shri R.A. Quraishi, a commission agent filed an authority letter dated 4-7-2001 from the appellant-firm authorising Shri Quraishi to make representation on its behalf in this appeal. Shri Quraishi admitted that he is neither an advocate nor a Chartered Accountant. Under rule 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000, an applicant who has filed an appeal before this Tribunal can appoint a legal practitioner or a Chartered Accountant to appear and plead and act on his behalf. Shri Quraishi does fall under any of these two categories of authorised representative, he, therefore, cannot be allowed to make representation. 2. When this appeal was last fixed for hearing on 11-6-2001, notice of hearing were sent to the appellants as well as the appellants counsel Ms. Radha Rangaswamy. Both the notices were duly served on the addressees. However, no communication was received from the counsel. The firm made a written request for adjournment. The r...

M/S. Atma Tube Products Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 29,98,899.00 and penalty of Rs. 10,000.00.2. In this case the benefit of MODVAT credit was denied to the applicant on the ground that invoices on which the credit was taken were not having Vehicle number, time of removal and goods have been removed twice in the same truck within a short period of 5 to 10 minutes.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submit that applicant received the inputs under the invoices issued by the dealers.He submits that the show cause notice was issued on the scrutiny of their RG-12 Return and there is no allegation in the show cause notice that inputs were not received or not used in the manufacture of final product. His submission is that if dealer has issued invoices which are not inconformity with the Rules (SIC) the dealers are liable. His submission is that no notice has ben issued to the dealer who issued the invoices with insufficient particulars. On f...

M/S. Mawana Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT375TriDel

1. plicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 5,31,000.00 and penalty of the same amount.2. In this case the allegation is that applicants enhanced the capacity of the furnace without the permission of competent authority.3. Learned Counsel submits that applicants had not enhanced the capacity of their furnace. He submits that calculation done by the adjudicating authority for fixing their annual capacity are not in accordance with the rules. He, therefore, submits that the applicants are not liable to pay the differential amount of duty as held by the adjudicating authority.5. The case of the applicant is arguable. Taking into facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it is not a fit case for total waiver of the duty and penalty. The applicants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rupees One lakh Seventy Five thousand only) within a period of 10 weeks. On deposit of the above mentioned amount, the deposit of remaining amount of duty a...