Delhi Court May 2003 Judgments

Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT1014TriDel

1. The appeals were dismissed as per Final Order No.A/27-31/2003-NB(SM), dated 6-1-2003 for want of clearance from the 'Committee on Dispute'. The present application is for restoration of the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the applicants submits that the appellant-company is no longer a Public Sector Undertaking as, pursuant to disinvestment of Government shares, the Government of India holds only less than 50% share in the company. Ld. Counsel submits that COD clearance is no longer needed for pursuing these appeals. These submissions of the Counsel are not contested.2. As the appellant-company is no longer a Public Sector Undertaking, clearance from the COD is not required for pursuing these appeals. The order of dismissal of the appeals is re-called and the appeals are restored to their respective original numbers. The stay applications in the appeals will be heard on 27-6-2003....

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Oceanic Cooling Towers (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT631TriDel

1. The appeal is at the instance of the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee. They are directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 7-3-2002. Respondent herein challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 3-2-99 passed by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted some of the prayers of the assessee, aggrieved by which the Revenue has come up in appeal. In the Cross Objection the contentions raised by the assessee were not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The Adjudicating Authority had held that the appellants were carrying on the activity of manufacturing cooling towers under the garb of trading/assembling activities since 1993 without declaring/obtaining proper registration and thus clandestinely manufactured and cleared excisable goods by suppression of facts. In the Order-in-Original it was held that the assessee had contravened the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules made thereunder with an ...

Unimode Calazatura Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT909TriDel

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Unimode Calzatura Limited for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 37,30,666/- and equal amount of penalty.2. Shri V.K. Gupta, learned Advocate, submitted that the Applicants manufacture leather shoes bearing brand name "Caribou of LONDON"; that the duty has been demanded and penalty has been imposed by denying them the benefit of small scale exemption on the ground that the brand name belongs to some foreign based person; that this brand name does not belong to any other person and they had applied to Trade Marks Authority for registering brand name in their own name; that the brand name was also published in the Trade Marks Journal dated 8-1-2003 and it has been intimated by the Trade Marks Registry, under letter dated 20-5-2003, that no notice of opposition has been filed against the application and required certificate of trade mark would be issued in due course of time.3. Countering the arguments, Shri U. Raja Ram, ...

Ms. Amita Batra Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Delhi)92

1. Through this appeal, assessee has assailed the order of the CIT(A) on various grounds, which are as under : (i) The proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the IT Act are without jurisdiction, void, not on evidences and are non est in law. (ii) It is contended that there are no materials for the AO to have "reason to believe" and therefore, to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 147. (iii) That the assessment is wrong, bad in law and is against the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) The CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding addition of Rs. 41,89,184 in respect of commission claimed as deduction. (v) It is contended that the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 25,574 in respect of "short and excess recovery" is wrong, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction. His observations and conclusions are perverse and not based on evidences and in utter disregard to materials. (vi) Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the disallowance of car exp...

Dr. V.K. Saini Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)321; 104(2003)DLT1001; 2003(68)DRJ806

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for direction against the respondent to treat the occupancy certificate issued to the petitioner as the regular occupancy certificate though it is labeled as temporary occupancy certificate. This certificate has been issued respect of property No. M-14, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi - 1. 2. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that plans were sanctioned after approval from the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) and in consultation with the Land & Development Office since perpetual Lesser of the land was the L&DO.; Such sanction was granted in February 1981 and the structure was completed in August 1988 and approval was obtained from Chief Fire Officer. 3. At the stage of issuance of the occupancy certificate, certain issues arose on account of the fact whether the petitioner was again required to obtain clearance from DUAC and L&DO.; The petitioner addressed a letter dated 30.9.1988. This ...

New Makrana Marble Traders and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)561; 105(2003)DLT412; 2003(69)DRJ177

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. That the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions were carrying on the business of sale of various qualities of marble from their respective premises in Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. A flyover was proposed to be constructed in the area in question as a result of which the petitioners land had to be acquired. In order to rehabilitate and relocate the petitioners, a decision was taken to allot alternative plots to the petitioners at Mangolpuri Industrial Area and letters were sent in May, 1994 to the petitioners informing them about the said proposed allotment.2. That subject matter of the letters was as under :-'Sub : Allotment of Industrial Plot to Marble Dealers in Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase - II.Sir,On the basis of survey list furnished by Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., it has been provisionally decided to allot you an industrial plot measuring 60 sq. mtrs. in Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase - II. The premium of the plot...

Binay Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)509; 2003(69)DRJ151

ORDERKhan, J. 1. Appellant was working as Director (Personnel) in Power Grid Corporation of India and was suspended on 1.10.1999. He challenged this in CWP 6301/1999 which was dismissed by order dated 21.1.2000. His suspension was later revoked pursuant to some negotiations and on his agreeing to be transferred to NHPC. He was put on compulsory waiting for this which he challenged in CW No. 4654/2000 but which was dismissed on 9.4.2001 as infructuous after he expressed his willingness to be so transferred. He was again put on compulsory waiting which he again challenged in CWP 3536/2001 and which was dismissed by order dated 11.5.2001. He took appeal against this in LPA 295/2001 which was disposed of by a consent order of sorts dated 1.6.2001. In this he expressed his willingness to be transferred to NHPC and so did R-1 agree to recall his fresh suspension order. Pursuant to this order his suspension was revoked and his case for transfer to NHPC processed culminating in order dated 7.8...

K.L. Suneja and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Del)86; 109(2004)DLT573; 2004(72)DRJ690; [2004]266ITR204(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J. :1. By this writ petition the petitioners pray for quashing of an order dt. 20th/21st Nov., 1990, passed by the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), and a direction to the said authority to grant 'No objection certificate' under Section 269UL(3) of the Act.2. Briefly stated, the background facts giving rise to the petition are as follows :On 20th Sept., 1990, the petitioners entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3 for purchase of a property, bearing No. H-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, for a total consideration of Rs. 66 lakhs. As required under Section 269UC of the Act, on 28th Sept., 1990, the petitioners and the said respondent filed a statement in Form 37-I, prescribed under the IT Rules, with the appropriate authority for issuance of 'No objection certificate', in order to enable respondent No. 3 to execute the sale deed in favor of the petitioners. The appropriate authority after obtaining some further informatio...

C.C.E. Vs. Pang Rubber Products and Samartha

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue raised in these appeals of the Revenue is the correct classification of "Precured Rubber Tyre Patches". Under the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune held the correct classification to be under sub-heading 4016.99. In the present appeals, the Revenue has contended that this classification in erroneous and the correct classification would be under sub-heading 4008.21.2. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both sides. The contention of the Revenue is that the very issue remains decided by another Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Unipatch Rubber v. C.C.E. - 2001 (130) ELT 348. Learned DR pointed out that after taking into consideration the earlier decision of the CEGAT in the case of Madras Rubber Factory, Board's Circular and Note 9 to Chapter 40, the Tribunal held that correct classification would be under sub-heading 4008.21 and not under residuary sub-heading 4016.99.Learned DR has urged that the ...

Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC125

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 29-11-2000 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Asstt. Commissioner dated 7-7-1999 rejecting the refund claim of the appellants.2. The facts leading to the filing of the refund claim by the appellants may briefly be stated as under - M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. (in short 'M/s. HSL') manufactured drilling ship. They were called upon to pay duty of Rs. 7,41/47,939/- under provisional assessment which was later on finalized against them by the adjudicating authority by holding that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 227/87-C.E., dated 24-9-1987 was not available to them. They, however, preferred an appeal against that order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 11-9-1989 reversed the same by holding that the benefit of said notification was available to them. Before passing of that order, they were also required to pay the dif...