Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2003 Page 1 of about 249 results (0.022 seconds)Vardhman Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT311TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against a common order-in-appeal dated 8-3-2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the duty and penalties on the appellants as detailed therein. The facts are not much in dispute. Appellant No. 1 is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium ladders under the brand name of "SUMER" which belongs to appellant No. 4. On conducting enquiries by the Central Excise Officers, it revealed that this brand name was got registered by appellant No. 4 with Trade Mark authorities in the year 1971 and they had been getting the aluminium ladders manufactured from appellant No. 1 under that brand name, on payment of fabrication charges. Similarly, appellant No. 3 had also been getting the ladders manufactured from appellant No. 1 in that very manner. On completion of enquiry, show cause notice was served through which duty demand of Rs. 14,71,045/- for the period 1994-95 to 28-9-1996 was raised by denying the benefit of exemption under No...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Cylinders and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT474TriDel
1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s. Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers Ltd., the issue involved is whether the refund claims, filed by them, are hit by the time-limit specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri Pankaj Mallick, Chartered Accountant, submitted that the appellants manufacture L.P.G. cylinders; that they had supplied the cylinders to M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC) on payment of Central Excise duty; that, subsequently, M/s. HPCL and IOC revised the prices of cylinders downward w.e.f. July, 1999; that they had filed refund claims for the period from July, 1999 to March, 2000; that the Assistant Commissioner has rejected both the refund claims as time-barred as the same were filed in February and March, 2001 in respect of cylinders cleared during the period July, 1999 to March, 2000; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also, under the impugned order, has rejected their appeals.The learned Advocate, fu...
Tag this Judgment!Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC202
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants made import of 11 segments of line pipes as per requirement of ONGC project. The line pipes were required to be installed for water injection to agument oil production. All the line pipes except one segment were for installation at Bombay High platform and are used for connecting two designated platforms and in this process the middle portion of line pipes passes through non-designated area.3. On 9.3.2000, the Commissioner of Customs (Export) permitted the appellants to file Bill of Entry for 10,387.50 metres of line pipes for designated areas for clearance on payment of duty and allowed the transhipment of the remaining line pipes to be laid in non-designated areas without payment of duty but against execution of bond, thereafter customs authorities demanded duty in respect of quantity of line pipes.The appellants paid duty un...
Tag this Judgment!Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC188
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-CE is available to them.2. Shri S.A. Gundecha, Director of appellant company, submitted that the appellants manufacture motor vehicles; that they supply Temp Traveller Ambullances and Temp Trax Town & Country Vehicles to the Government of Karnataka, Health & Family Welfare Department for the Second State Health Systems Development Project, which was financed by an International Development Association and was approved by the Government; that they had filed a classification declaration under the provisions of Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules; that they had also addressed a communication to the Assistant Commissioner informing him about the supply of vehicles to the approved project and claimed exemption under Notification 108/95; that, subsequently, the matter was also discussed personality by their representative with the Assistant Commissioner; that the...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Financer and Storage Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)247
1. These are three appeals by the same assessee, namely, M/s Prakash Finance & Storage, Muzaffarnagar, against the combined order of learned CIT(A) dt. 4th Jan., 2000, for asst. yrs, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92.Since facts and circumstances relating to these appeals are common and further since common issues are involved in these appeals, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Shri K.L. Aneja, advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee whereas Shri V.K. Goel, Departmental Representative represented the Department.3. Following common grounds have been taken by the assessee in these appeals : "1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming AO's action in initiating action under section 147 by issuance of notice under section 148 which were claimed to be void ab initio and without any justification. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that AO has rightly added th...
Tag this Judgment!Shri M.L. Aggarwal Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)505; 107(2003)DLT611
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The respondent came out with the Rohini Residential Scheme in 1981 and the petitioner made an application for allotment of a plot of land in MIG category on 24.4.1981.2. The terms and conditions of the scheme had been annexed to the writ petition and the relevant portion of the same is as under:'1. ELIGIBILITY: (ii) The individual or his wife/her husband or any of his minor children do not own in full or in part on lease-hold or free-hold basis any residential plot of land or a house or have not been allotted on hire-purchase basis a residential flat in Delhi/New Delhi or Delhi Cantonment. If, however, individual share of the applicant in the jointly owned plot or land under the residential house is less than 65 sq.mtrs., an application for allotment of plot can be entertained. Persons who own a house or a plot allotted by the Delhi Development Authority on an area of even less than 65 sq. mts. shall not, however, be eligible for allotment.' 3. An undertaking w...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sanjay Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2004(2)SLJ358(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 9th August, 2002 passed in I.D. No. 15/99. By the impugned order, the Labour Court found that the workman had completed 240 days of service and that the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. The reinstatement was granted accordingly.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Ms. Tuli has submitted that the said finding is contrary to the provisions of law laid down by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Malkiat Singh v. Labour Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh and Anr., 1996(4) SLR 333. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following finding from the above judgment :'.....From averments made in the written statement, it is clear that the petitioner was not paid the wages for Sundays and other holidays. thereforee, the Sundays and other holidays for which no wages have been paid, cannot he counted while computing the continuous service of the petitioner. It has been he...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer, Central Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC281
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the Deputy Commissioner who rejected the refund claim of the appellants. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the generation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy. They have their divisions an sub-stations for that purpose in different parts of the State (Chattisgarh). As their activities of revetting, punching, bolting, cutting, drilling, etc., were considered as amounting to manufacture of the goods, they were called upon by the Department to pay the duty and also to take the Licence. They accordingly acted and paid the duty but denied that their activity amounted to manufacture of the goods. Thereafter, they lodged a claim for refund of the duty paid by them during 1.4.75 to 31.3.88 mainly on the ground that the CEGAT in the case of Arum Industries, 1986 (9) ECC 35 (T): 1986 (25) EL...
Tag this Judgment!NitIn Spinners Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT275TriDel
M/s. Nitin Spinners Ltd., appellants are 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of cotton and polyester cotton yarn. They procured fibre glass and aluminium sections without payment of duty under notification No. 1/95-C.E., dated 4-1-95 by issuing CE-3 certificates. The said notification permits 100% EOU to obtain excisable goods from the domestic unit in connection with "manufacture and packing of articles". The appellants claimed that fibre glass and aluminium sheets have been used by them in their factory for construction of false ceilings which in a special type of civil work. The appellant's case is that false ceiling works as an insulation and is an essential item to be installed with the humidification plant. It was pleaded that being a part of the humidification plant, the false ceilings and the material going into the construction/fabrication of the false ceilings should be treated as capital goods for the purpose of Notification No. 1/95-C.E.3. Learned D.R. strongly pleads that...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Gum and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC289
1. In this Appeals, filed by M/s. Hindustan Gum and Chemicals Ltd., the issue involved in whether TPT-12 (treated Tamarind Kernel Powder) is classifiable under Heading 11.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as product of milling industry or under Heading 13.01 as a gum as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, in their two factories at Viramgam and Bhiwani, are engaged in the activity of getting Tamarind Kernel Powder (TKP) from various manufactures which is soluble in hot water only; that to make it soluble in cold water, they treat TKP by adding sodium hydroxide and acetic acide and water; that after drying, preservative viz, EDTA is added and packed; that the TKP so treated is sold as-TPT-12. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Central Board of Excise & Customs has clarified vide Circular No. 5/86 that tamarind seed power could be regarded as a product ...
Tag this Judgment!