Delhi Court December 2003 Judgments

Varsha Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC606

1. All these appeals are directed against the same impugned order.Therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The subject proceedings relate to dispute on the Customs valuation of 100 MT of Sodium Hydrosulphite and 200 MT of Citric Acid imported by M/s. Varsha Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Kandla. The declared value for assessment of the goods was US $ 600 per MT in respect of Sodium Hydrosulphite and US $ 785 per MT in respect of Citric Acid. Pursuant to investigation by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Show Cause Notice dated 20-10-1997 was issued alleging that the goods had been undervalued. Even though the appellants contested the allegation, the impugned order was passed by Commissioner of Customs, Kandla increasing the assessable value of sodium hydrosulphite to US $ 800 per MT and that of citric acid to US $ 935 per MT. The assessable value was increased on a finding that same goods were imported at higher value and that Shri Shantilal Jain, Directo...

Trimurtee Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT454TriDel

1. This appeal is by M/s. Trimurtee Fertilizers Ltd. challenging the adjudicating authority's order confirming against them a demand of Central Excise duly of Rs. 92,86,307/- and imposing on them a penalty of equal amount.2. Heard both the sides. A preliminary submission was made by the learned SDR. It was submitted that the appellant-company was being wound up by the Allahabad High Court as recommended by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction [BIFR]. This submission was not contested. The DR, therefore, urged that the appeal be dismissed under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. He relied on Misc. Order Nos. 335-337/2002/NB(D) of the Tribunal's Larger Bench in Appeal Nos.E/3343, 3344 & 3352/2000-Bom. The learned Consultant for the appellants, however, opposed this prayer and presented their case on merits. The DR also argued on merits.3. We have examined the records and considered the submissions. A copy of the BIFR's order dated 5-2-99, passed under Se...

C.C.E. Vs. Maral Overseas Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT498TriDel

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the Order-in-original No. 2/2001 dated 24.1.2002, by which the Commissioner has dropped the demand of duty being time-barred.2. We heard Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned S.D.R and Sh. B.L.Narasimhnan, learned Advocate. The learned S.D.R. submitted that the respondents, M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd., a 100% EOU, manufacture cotton yarn, cotton fabrics and garments thereof; that the respondents, besides clearing the goods for export, removed the goods for sale in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) ; that during the period from 1.3.97 to 30.1.98, they availed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 8/97-CE dated 1.3.97 on the ground that the cotton yarn, cotton fabrics and garments manufactured and sold by them in DTA were produced wholly from raw-materials manufactured in India; that during the visit to the unit, the Central Excise Officers found that in the process of manufacture, the respondents were also using wax wh...

Agarwal Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Delhi)375

1. The impugned petitions are preferred by the assessees in consequence to the recovery proceedings initiated by the Department in terms of the various notices which are placed on record in relation to the demands arising as a result of the assessment for the block period 1989 to 2001-02 in the entire group.2. Briefly stated, the background leading to the impugned petitions can be summarised as under. That the applicants herein belong to a group of assessees, precisely 35 in number, out of which appeals in the cases of 29 assessees have since been disposed of by the Tribunal. The remaining six corresponding to the impugned petitions are pending for disposal before the Tribunal. Meanwhile, the Tribunal granted stay of the recovery of the outstanding demand vide its order dt. 14th Aug., 2000.The said stay was to operate till the disposal of the entire set of appeals, as noticed above. The relevant papers evidencing the above are placed before us in the paper book filed on behalf of the ...

Duli Chand Luxmi NaraIn Vs. Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)89ITD426(Delhi)

1. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against the common order of learned CIT(A) dated 2-1-1998 for A.Y. 1981-82, 1983-84 and 198-88. Since common issues are involved for adjudication 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. Guglani, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee whereas Smt. Vandana Verma, Sr. D.R. represented the Department.3. We are treating ITA No. 1532/Del/98 as leading appeal and propose to adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal first.Since the grounds are identical in other two appeals, our findings on the grounds in this appeal shall also apply to remaining two appeals.4. Ground No. 1: The relevant facts concerning the issue of notice issued under Section 147/148 are as under: The assessee firm consisted of two partners, namely, Smt. Lali Devi and her son Shri Laxmi Narain.4.1. A search and seizure operation was conducted on the business pre...

Kulwant Singh Vs. Air Customs

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ200

J.D. Kapoor, J. Crl. M. 6925/2003 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl. M. (M) 5135/2003 and Crl. M. 6919/2003 In view of the undertaking given by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court on the date fixed and thereafter shall also regularly appear. The petition is allowed and the proceedings declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender shall stand quashed. On his appearance before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court as the counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner left for Singapore on being informed by his counsel that the case was over, whereas the proceedings were still pending.Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. dusty....

Retd. Major A.S. Dahiya E.C. No. 59676 Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)200; 108(2003)DLT740; 2004(72)DRJ377

Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule D.B.This writ petition can be disposed of in view of the stand taken by the respondent that CCS (Pension) Rules applies to the case of the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition is that respondent be directed to pay the full pension benefit of 33 years qualifying service w.e.f. 1.7.1994 and also pay the arrears of pension and gratuity after revising the pension. Mr. Hooda, Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that petitioner was superannuated on 31.3.1995 at the age of 55 years after completing 29 years 11 months and 4 days actual service.2. The learned Single Judge of this Court has dealt with the question in Ex, Comdt. O.P. Rana v. Union of India and Anr. on the basis of the decision of Supreme Court in Raghu Nandan Lal Chaudhary and Ors. v. Union of India, : (1988)IILLJ216SC and Sant Ram v. Union of India and Ors. in C.W.P. 4288/94 decided by the Division Bench of this Court.3. In view of the fact that respondent itself has taken...

Ms. Rachna Dogra Vs. Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Urban Affairs ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT286; 2004(72)DRJ617; (2004)137PLR18

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner was allotted type ''C'' quarter No. 13/463, Lodi Colony out of General Pool which had been placed at the disposal of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat by virtue of the letter dated 7.9.1994. Earlier, the petitioner had been allotted a Type ''B'' quarter on 17.2.1993. By the said letter dated 7.9.1994 the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, where the petitioner was employed, was required to place a Type ''C'' quarter in lieu of the aforesaid quarter No. 13/463, Lodi Colony out of its pool for the disposal of the General Pool. The petitioner was also required by the same letter dated 7.9.1994 to pay three times the normal license fee till she became entitled to Type ''C'' accommodation. The petitioner has deposited three times normal license fee for the aforesaid quarter pursuant to the letter dated 7.9.1994. 2. However, subsequently by a cancellation letter dated 22.8.1997 which is impugned herein, the petitioner's allotment was cancelled with effect from 7.9.1994...

Panvij Biotec Nigeria Ltd. Vs. National Container Line and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. The present appeal is directed against order of District Forum-II, Institutional Area, New Delhi dated 25.9.2003 in Complaint Case No. 942/2003 entitled M/s. Panvij Biotec Nigeria Ltd. v. National Container Line. 2. Appellant/complainant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the District Forum with the grievance that respondent No. 4 M/s. Panacea Biotec Limited, New Delhi had exported to Lagos a consignment of 76 boxes on 28.8.2001 through respondent No. 1. The said consignment was booked to be delivered to the complainant/consignee through respondent No. 2 who is a forwarding agent of respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 2 owed some amount to respondent No. 4 as such a debit note raised by respondent No. 2 in respect of the shipment charges for the consignment in question, was adjusted against the amount owed to respondent No. 4 by respondent No. 2 and a Bill of Ladin...

Purisons Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT417TriDel

1. The issue arising in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is whether the appellant was justified in paying central excise duty at tariff rate and clearing its product under MRP Scheme under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Show cause notice was issued demanding duty on the basis that the assessment has to be made under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The demand was affirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. Aggrieved by the above the assessee has filed this appeal.2. The assessee is manufacturing air-conditioners falling under Chapter Heading 8415.00 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant has affixed MRP on the individual package of its product under the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules. They entered into a negotiation with DCS & D regarding the rate at which its product can be supplied to different departments. The goods manufactured by the assessee are notified under ...