Delhi Court January 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Guptajee Tent and Decorators Vs. Ito
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(Del)927
In the ITAT, Delhi SMC Bench C.L. Bokolia, A.M.order C.L. Bakolia, A.M.This appeal is preferred by the assessed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi, on the ground that he has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 against the facts and circumstances of this case.2. The facts of this case are that assessed derives income as let out electrical and decorative items during the marriage ceremonies and other festivals. Survey under section 133A was carried out at the business premises of the appellant on 4-2-1992. At the time of survey, Gupta, partner of the assessed-firm, surrendered Rs. 1.5 lakhs which were not reflected in the books of account and actually utilised for purchase. This surrender was, however, retracted by a letter dated 13-2-1992. The assessing officer was, however, not impressed by the submissions made by the assessed in this letter and added Rs. 1,50,000 besides he also made an addition of Rs. 10,000 on account of profits might ...
Kailash Suneja Vs. Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)305
Judgment By the CourtAdvance copy of this application was given to the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the parties submit that this application may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 12-12-2001, passed in C.W. No. 5654/2001 titled Express Towers (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Dy. CIT & Ors. (2002) 173 CTR (Del) 447. The prayer seems to be reasonable.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. We direct the Appropriate Authority to hand over the possession on the subject property and all the title deeds, tenancy agreement, etc., and execute conveyance in favor of the petitioner on petitioner's depositing Rs. 45 lakhs with the Appropriate Authority within four weeks. The petitioner/applicant, would be under an obligation to pay other amounts, if any, which had been paid by the respondents to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to give possession within two weeks of petitioner's depositing the aforesaid amount.No further directions are necessary in thi...
Commr. of C. Ex., Chandigarh Vs. Dwarka Minerals and Chemicals P.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC469Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in these 4 appeals, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the Respondents M/s. Dwarka Mineral & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. are eligible to avail the benefit of Notification No. 5/94-C.E., dated 1-3-94 in respect of cement manufactured by them.2. Shri B.S. Mahay, learned DR, submitted that the Respondents manufacture Port Land Cement and avail of the benefit of SSI Exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE., dated 28-2-93 up to Rs. 50 lakhs; that thereafter they started to pay the duty @ Rs. 185/- M.T. in terms of Notification No. 5/94; that the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise under Adjudication Order Nos. 133-136/96, dated 8-5-96 confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty by denying the benefit of Notification No. 5/94 on the ground that proviso to Notification No.5/94 clearly provides that the notification shall not be applicable to such cements in respect of which a manufacture avails of the exemption under Notification No. 1/93; that howev...
Aditya Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT501TriDel
1. This is an appeal against disallowance of Modvat credit, imposition of penalty and demand of interest. Along with the Appeal the applicant has filed a Stay Petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and staying recovery thereof.2. Arguing the case for the applicant Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate submits that the applicant is engaged in the manufacture of cement. They placed purchase order for supply of DG Set from Wartsila India Ltd. The applicant took Modvat credit as and when the items required for DG set were received in the factory premises of the applicant. The Department alleged that the Modvat credit could not be taken by the applicant as M/s. Wartsila was to supply the DG set and install it in the factory premises of the applicant. In reply the Counsel submitted as the applicant stated that stipulation in the contract was that engine, alternator and other parts constitute DG set were to be delivered at the applicant's factory premises and since the goods...
ici India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT537TriDel
1. These are two applica tions filed by M/s. ICI India Ltd. for waiver of pre-deposit as under :Duty : Rs. 1,12,25,434/- and Rs. 31,99,921/-Penalty : Rs. 1,12,25,434/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- 2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate submitted that the applicants manufacture rubber processing chemicals and paints; that the impugned goods after undergoing manufacture and packing in bags are duly entered in the RG-1 register; that later on finding that the goods were not meeting the buyers exact specifications and requirements and were not in marketable condition were taken to the Plant for reprocessing by making suitable entries in the RG-1 register- that after the processing they are entered in RG-1 register and cleared on payment of duty for sale; that the Commissioner has demanded the duty for the extended period from April, 1993 to January, 1998 by issuing show cause notice on 4-1-99; that another show cause notice dated 29-1-99 was issued demanding duty for the period August, 1998 to ...
Shree Transformers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT120TriDel
The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner had, by order dated 31-3-95, disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 47,723/- to the appellants on various grounds. The assessee reversed the Modvat credit in their RG-23A Part-II on 6-9-95. While doing so, they recorded their protest by remarking "under protest" in the remarks column of the register. The order of the Asstt. Commissioner was subsequently taken in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who by order dated 15-9-99 allowed the Modvat credit. Subsequently, on 13-10-99, the assessee filed a refund claim for the aforesaid amount. The jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground of time-bar. The appeal preferred against his order was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Both the authorities held that the refund claim, filed long after the prescribed period of six months from the date of payment of duty, was liable to be rejected under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act inasmuch as the payment of duty (reversal of Modvat ...
Mahabir Pershad and Sons and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC358
1. These are two applications for waiver of predeposit of the following amounts of duty and penalty.2. Mrs. Reema Kair, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants manufacture tin containers without use of power; that the duty has been demanded and penalty has been imposed on the ground that they were using power in the manufacture of tin containers and by clubbing the clearances of another unit with the value of clearances of the applicants; that even before the issue of show cause notice, the applicants deposited Rs. 5 lakhs which has been ordered by the adjudicating authority to be appropriated against the demand confirmed by him. Further she submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has extended them the benefit of Modvat credit on their submission of prescribed records including duty paying documents to the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers; that under their letter dated 18lh September 2001, the applicants had submitted the necessary documents for av...
Automatic Instruments (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT782TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture Heating Thermostats and Electrical Domestic Appliances falling under sub-heading No. 9032.12 and No. 8509.On 4-5-98, the Central Excise Officers, Delhi visited the factory premises of the appellants. On physical verification of the finished goods in the presence of Shri Subhash Narang, Director of the appellants, 130 juicer mixer grinders valued at Rs. 1,39,750/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 25,155/- were found short as against the entry made in RG-1 register. On further verification, it was also found that they had also cleared 4800 pieces of heating thermostats valued at Rs. 1,86,440/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 20,002.32 under invoice Nos. 45 to 48, dated 4-5-98 but the duty was not debited in PLA. There was also no entry in the RG-1 register.Accordingly, the Officers found the shortage of the goods valued at Rs. 3,26,119/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 45,157.32. Shri Subhash Narang, Director of the party in his statement reco...
Vikas Rubber Roll Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT553TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Vikas Rubber Products against the Order-in-Appeal No. 1630/2000, dated 24-11-2000 in which Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the confiscation of 236 pieces of Rice Rubber Rolls with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 56,000/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Appellants, nor there was any request for adjournment of the matter.We, therefore, took up the appeal for disposal after perusing the records and hearing Shri B.C. Mahay, learned D.R.3. It has been mentioned by the Appellants in their memorandum of appeal that they manufacture Rice Rubber Rolls which are being sold by them under an unregistered brand name, 'FIVE STAR'; that after a surprise visit of the factory premises of the Appellants on 8-1-97 a show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of 236 pieces of Rice Rolls on the ground that they were bearing brand name 'SUPER FIVE STAR'; that the Asstt. C...
Kalinga Cable Company Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., New Delhi-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT632TriDel
1. Arguing the Stay Petition for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amounting to Rs. 1.50 lac (Rupees one lac fifty thousand) Shri Naveen Mullick and Shri V.R. Sethi, learned Advocates submit that penalty has been imposed on the applicant on the ground that certain documents were found in the factory premises of M/s. Amit Metals which showed manufacture of wires and cables finer than 6 mm. A show cause notice was issued to the applicants asking them to. explain as to why the goods received by them through Slip No. 23, dated 26-10-99 and No. 29, dated 30-10-99 recovered from the premises of M/s. Amit Metal should not be treated as showing that the applicant was concerned in purchasing transporting and keeping copper wire without payment of Central Excise duty and why a penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 should not be imposed on them. He submits that slips were in the name of Kalinga Wire wherein their firm was in the name of M/s. Kalinga Cable Company. Learned Coun...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »