Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

Bharti Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT178TriDel

1. It appears from the records and the submissions mode by both the sides that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jalandhar had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the party when he passed the impugned order dated 30-7-2003. Apparently, when the appeal was filed on 5th of December, 2000, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jalandhar had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Notification No. 29/97-Cus. (N.T.), dated 7-7-1997 of the Control Government. The said notification was superseded by Notification No. 16/02-Cus. (N.T.), dated 7-3-2002 without affecting the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jalandhar. Notification No. 16/02 was amended by Notification No. 78/02-Cus. (N.T.), dated 5-12-2002, whereby the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jalandhar lost jurisdiction to deal with the appeals arising within the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Amritsar, The impugned order was passed on 30-7-2003, when the Commissioner of Cus...

Guru Nanak Cold Drinks Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT267TriDel

1. Having examined the records and heard both the sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself should be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, I allow the present application and proceed to deal with the appeal.2. It appears that the original authority had demanded from the appellants an amount of Rs. 9,584/- as service tax with interest thereon @ 24% p.a. and also that the authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 200/- per day for the period of default and further penalties of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- for procedural defaults. In the appeal filed by the party against the order of the said authority, they were directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to pre-deposit "the outstanding dues hence forth within 15 days of the receipt of this order failing which their appeal will be dismissed without any further reference to them". Pursuant to this direction, the party deposited the entire amount of service tax (Rs. 9,584/-) as also an amount of Rs. 1,500/- on 21-1-2003 and 8-2-2003 ...

N.N.S. Rana Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ372CAT

1. The applicant has impugned the order issued by the respondents dated 13.1.2000 by which the penalty of reduction by one stage in the same scale for a period of six months without cumulative effect was imposed on him. He has also impugned the order issued by the respondents dated 19.12.2001 by which a show cause notice was issued for enhancement of the penalty and the order dated 26.12.2002 by which he has been removed from service w.e.f. 31.12.2002.2. The O.A. was originally filed by the applicant on 21.1.2001 and later amended O.A. was filed on 11.2.2003.3. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) was issued a Memo of Chargesheet for major penalty dated 16.12.1996. The statement of articles of charge framed against the applicant reads as follows: (i) He misbehaved and indulged in loose, lewd and suggestive talks with his Secretary, Smt. Kuljit Kaur, on several occasions on one pretext or the other with a view to sex...

Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of Cenvat credit in respect of kraft paper and nickel catalyst on the ground that these are used in the manufacture of intermediate goods which are further used in the manufacture of final products which are cleared on payment of duty.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the intermediate products are exempted from payment of duty, therefore, the credit in respect of inputs used in the intermediate products is not admissible. The contention of the Revenue is also that the decision of the Larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ballarpur Industries Vs. CCE, 2000 (116) ELT 312 (T) which is relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not accepted by the Revenue and appeal has been filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court.4. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the intermediate products, in which the inputs are used are further used i...

P and B Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC333

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. P & B Lab. Ltd. is whether the product Aneudox-12 is classifiable as patent or proprietary medicament classifiable under Heading 3003.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Heading 29.36 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order and whether the extended period of limitation is invocable for the purpose of demanding the Central Excise duty.2. Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture various medicaments; that one of the medicaments manufactured by them is Aneudox-12 which is a fixed dose combination of Vitamin B-1, Vitamin B-6 and Vitamin B-12 and sold in injection as well as tablet from; that in their classification declaration filed by them with the Central Excise authorities, they had declared the impugned product classifiable under sub-Heading 3003.10 of the Tariff; that the declaration had been accepted by th...

P and B Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT218TriDel

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. P & B Lab Ltd. is whether the product Aneudox -12 is classifiable as patent or proprietary medicament classifiable under Heading 3003.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Heading 29.36 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order and whether the extended period of limitation is invocable for the purpose of demanding the Central Excise duty.2. Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture various medicaments; that one of the medicaments manufactured by them is Aneudox-12 which is a fixed dose combination of Vitamin B-1, Vitamin B-6 and Vitamin B-12 and sold in injection as well as tablet form; that in their classification declaration filed by them with the Central Excise authorities, they had declared the impugned product classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10 of the Tariff; that the declaration had been accepted by th...

Dev Kumar JaIn Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)82TTJ(Delhi)703

1. The assessee has filed the present miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) against the order dt. 14 Nov., 2002, in ITA No.1650/Del/2002 pertaining to 1998-99 assessment year.2. Before adverting to the specific grievance of the assessee, it would be appropriate to briefly refer to the facts of the case which are discussed in paras 3 to 6 of the impugned order which read as under : "3. The/relevant facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return declaring a total income of Rs. 2,30,930. The assessee declared capital gain on sale of property and income from other sources. The capital gain was shown on account of sale of plot No. 99, measuring 173.33 sq. yards, Dera Gaziklour Distt. Refugee House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., Delhi known as Taruh Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi for a sum of Rs. 4,02,000 to Shri Chanan Dass S/o Rewal Dass, r/o AG-26, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110 052. After indexing, the cost declared was Rs. 187,570 The AO considered the sale price of the p...

S.P. Maken Vs. Sargodha Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)451; 107(2003)DLT608; 2003(71)DRJ642

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the prayer that he is a member of Sargodha Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (in short `respondent society') and has paid all dues so he be handed over the vacant possession of flat allotted to him in draw of lots bearing No.214, category B-2, Plot No.13, Papankalan, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 045.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the writ petition are inter alias as follows:3. One Anil Sehgal was a member of the respondent society with membership No.119. As on 14.4.1995, there was a credit of Rs.91,400/- deposited by him with the respondent society for the allotment of a flat in the B-2 category. The Managing Committee of the respondent society in its meeting held on 26.12.1993 decided that resignation of any member shall not be accepted till the time he arranges to bring a new member in his place. Meaning thereby that the newly inducted member would be given credit of all payments ma...

Bil Industries Limited Vs. the Appellate Authority for Industrial and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)475; I(2004)BC327; [2005]123CompCas357(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT144; [2004]50SCL742(Delhi)

Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner, M/s. BIL Industries has prayed that the order dated 25.1.2002 passed in Appeal No. 240 of 2001 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'AAIFR') be set aside and observations made in the said order be expunged. The petitioner company filed an appeal under Section 25(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'SICA') against the order dated 31.7.2001 whereby the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'BIFR') had dismissed the reference made under Section 15(1) of SICA. 2. The reference made by the petitioner company was based on the annual accounts for the financial year 1999-2000 (Financial year 2000 ending 31.3.2000), when its losses had mounted to Rs. 8862.35 lakhs which had exceeded its net worth (in terms of Section 3(ga) of the SICA) amounting to Rs. 2060 lakhs. It is also incorporated in the petition that due to fac...

M.S. Shoes East Ltd. Vs. M.R.T.P. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]128CompCas945(Delhi); 107(2003)DLT595; [2004]52SCL628(Delhi)

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. All the aforementioned civil writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner, M.S. Shoes East Limited, has filed 208 cases in the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (for short `Commission') in relation to deficiency of service by the underwriters/brokers who offered their underwriting and/or procurement services for the public issue of the complainant in February 1995.3. The public issue of the petitioner's company was floated on 14th February, 1995 and was closed on 18th February, 1995. However, as the subscription was below 90% within 30 days of the closing of public issue, the public issue devolved on the underwriters. The underwriters failed to make payment of the underwriting amounts within 30 days as a result of which within 60 days of the closure, petitioner M.S. Shoes could not collect 90% of the public issue amount. Under Section 69 of the Companies Act, 1956, if within 60 days at least 90% of the public is...