Delhi Court December 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jindal Strips Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT532TriDel

1.The Revenue filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing the benefit of Modvat credit on inputs as well as on capital goods. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for taking the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of capital goods on the ground that they had not complied with the provisions of Rule 57R(3) of the Central Excise Rules. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings.3. The contention of the appellants is that the appellants had not complied with the condition of Rule 57R(3) as they had not produced any evidence to show cause that the Excise duty on the capital goods was paid by the respondents as the goods were received under lease agreement.4. The contention of the respondents is that they had produced the certificate from the manufacturer of the capital goods showing the excise duty...

Mohan MeakIn Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. REFERENCE Under Section 255(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 Since there is a difference of opinion between the Members, the following questions are referred to the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal Under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "1. Whether on facts and in law the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal committed an apparent mistake by including the following in the directions given by the Tribunal in para 22 of Us order dated 31.1.01 while disposing the issue Under Section 43B: "........ and after due verification of the accounting method followed by the assessee with regard to the aforesaid items." 2. Whether on facts and in law. the Tribunal committed an apparent mistake in upholding the addition of Rs. 79,99,706 - in para 26 of the impugned order by ignoring the Special Bench decision in the case of Food Specialities, 49 ITD 21, though inadvertently, which was cited and relied upon by the assessee's counsel? 3. Whether on facts and in law, the Tribunal committed an appa...

Manoj Overseas and anr. Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT172; 2004(72)DRJ394; 2004(91)ECC572; 2004(166)ELT166(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioner was allotted export quotas during the year 1997 under the then Garment Export Entitlement Policy. Under this policy the petitioner was required to meet its export obligation and in case it failed to meet 75% of the same, the petitioner was liable to be visited with forfeiture.2. The petitioner, in fact, was unable to meet the export obligation and, thereforee, because of the short shipment the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC), Zamrudpur, New Delhi by a speaking order dated 26.5.1998 forfeited an amount of Rs. 10,26,990/-. Against this order dated 26.5.1998 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Textile Commissioner on 8.6.1998. In the appeal the petitioner indicated that it had performed 69.34% of its export obligation and that the shortfall was because the petitioner's buyer cancelled the order due to delay in execution, due to non-receipt of fabric in time and other unavoidable reasons. The exact ground furnished by the petitione...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Jhalani Udyog and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ507

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 12th January, 1982 in Case No. 312/1980, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents herein of violation under Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act read with Section 29(2) thereof. 2. The facts of the case are that admittedly the respondents herein is using basement of Building No. B-31, GT Road, Karnal Road Industrial Area, Delhi, for purposes of manufacturing unit which according to Delhi Development Authority is contrary to the master plan as also the zonal plan. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the Delhi Development Authority that as per the master plan the building used for industrial and manufacturing purposes ''(A). flatted factories (in central area), the maximum number of floors allowed is - two, the basement not exceeding ground floor coverage, is allowed for storage and servicing only.'' He submits that using it to the contrary for manufacturing purposes is...

Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Pindi Road Link ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. The complainant No. 1 M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. is a Government undertaking having its head office at Baroda and its factory/branch office at Nagothane. The complainant No. 1 deals with chemicals and as such had obtained an insurance policy No. 21/493 from complainant No. 2, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. for coverage of the risk of transportation of its goods by road Ex. Nagothane to/with destination at M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. at HRG, 418 G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi. The complainant No. 1 entrusted 360 bags of PPHPf Gr. SS30NS valuing Rs. 6,03,000/- for transportation and door delivery at complainant No. 1s Branch/Factory Office at 418, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi. The lorry of the O.P. carrying aforesaid consignment met with an accident resulting considerable loss to the consignment for which the complainant No. 1 lodged its claim with complainant No. 2, the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company as per ...

Carbon India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT363TriDel

1. These three appeals arise out of a common Order-in-Original No.14/Commissioner/MP/2000, dated 4-2-2000 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise confirming demand of Central Excise duty and imposing penalties on all the three appellants.2. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Carbon India, a partnership firm, are engaged in the manufacture and trading of stationery, viz., Type Carbon Paper, Pencil Carbon Paper, Typewriter Ribbon, Sealing Wax, Ink Pad and Paper Pins; that the Revenue has alleged that they had suppressed production of excisable goods and removed the same clandestinely without payment of duty and that they created a dummy unit in the name of M/s. Rohit Enterprises, Appellant No. 2 with a view to avail undue exemption under Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986; that the impugned order has been passed only on the basis of entry of sale in their Balance Sheet relating them as sales of the goods manufactured in their factory; that Shri Deepak...

Modern Suitings Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC229

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 are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of textile items including yarn and fabric of various kinds. The appellants were granted 2 import licences under the EPCG scheme by the Director General of Foreign Trade. In pursuance to these licences, the appellants made of 27 weaving machines. The appellants filed an in-bond Bill of Entry and the imported goods were warehoused. The appellants also made request for extention of warehousing period and the customs department extended the period of warehousing. In the mean time, the appellants made an application to the Ministry of Industry on 26.5.98 for setting up a 100% EOU at its existing plant. The Ministry of Industry granted approval to set up 100% EOU vide letter dated 7.8.98. As the appellants got permission to start a 100% EOU, they made a request to the DGFT for canc...

Poonam Spark P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC621

1. In these two appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal No.175/C.E. /DLH/2002, dated 28-2-2002, the issue involved is whether excise duty is leviable on Water Purification and Filteration System mounted by M/s. Poonam Spark Pvt. Ltd. on a base frame.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant Company are engaged in the job work of mounting the Water Purification and Filteration System on a base frame; that M/s. Perfect Drug Limited import or purchase water purification and filteration system and supply them to the appellants for mounting on a base frame on job charges; that the system so mounted is used in various post mix vending machines installed at different locations; that the water before it is mixed with soft drink concentrate, is passed through the impugned system and goes in the post mix vending machine where it gets mixed with the soft drink concentrate and thereafter flows out of the vending machine as soft drink; that the various items ...

Twenty First Century Steels Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)94ITD258(Delhi)

1. The Hon'ble President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has constituted this Special Bench to consider and decide the following question in the above captioned appeal: "whether an assessee is entitled to grant of deduction Under Section 32 AB of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of raw-material and labour charges incurred for fabrication of plant and machinery and/or for addition in the existing plant & machinery and whether the assessee is entitled to grant of deduction Under Section 32AB in respect of purchase of components and spare-parts of plant & machinery, purchased out of the income of the year under consideration?" 3. The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel ingots and steel castings. As revealed out on perusal of the assessment order and the order of Ld. First appellate authority, the assessee had taken an induction furnace on lease from M/s Industrial Progressive (India) Ltd. This furnace was supplied and installed by M/s Electrotherm M...

ircon International Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)479; 108(2003)DLT656; 2004(72)DRJ215

Mukul Mudgal J. 1. This is an application under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the petitioner/management of M/s Ircon International Limited against its employee, respondent No. 5, Shri V.K. Talwar, on the basis of what are averred to be false averments made in this Court in the application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act i.e. CM 8057/2000 supported by an affidavit. The sum and substance of the petitioner's case is that in order to buttress his claim under Section 17B of the Act, the respondent No. 5 had averred that he was out of employment since 1983 and to counter a plea raised by the petitioner in CM 11121/2000, the respondent also averred that he had secured a passport only in 1998 and had been present in India without any interruption ever since 1983 till September 2000. The petitioner's case was that the said claim was false was evident inter alias from the fact that the respondent No. 5 had been in possession of a passport much prior to 1998...