Delhi Court August 2003 Judgments

Kumar Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT159TriDel

1. When the petitions for stay came up for hearing it was submitted by ld. DR that there is delay in filing the appeal and that there is no application filed by the appellant to condone the de lay. The Order-in-Appeal is dated 30-8-2001 and according to Revenue it was served on the appellant on 1-9-2001. Ld. Dr sought to support the above submission on the basis of a report received from the postal authorities to the effect that the registered cover was served on the appellant on 1-9-2001.2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that order 30-8-2001 was never served on the appellant as claimed by the Revenue. The appellant's unit is situated at Plot No. A29 whereas in the document, where the acknowledgement is shown, the address is given as Plot No.29. Ld. Counsel further points out that on making enquiries it is found that the signature on record of the postal authorities is not that of the proprietor/owner or any of his employee. Apart from the above, ld.Counsel would submit that ...

National Winder Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC80

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. National Winder, the issue involved is whether the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to the refund of the Central Excise Duty claimed by them.2. We heard Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Shri V. Valte, learned Senior Departmental Representative, for the Revenue. The learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant had purchased electronic oscillating fans from M/s. Vikas Engineering after paying duty under protest on account of valuation dispute with the Department; that the matter happened to be referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, which had held in the decision reported in 2000 (38) RLT 424 that the refund claim should be filed within six months from the date of purchase even where duty had been pai4 by the manufacturer under protest; that following the Larger Bench decision the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/540/2000 NB dated 22.6.2000 rejected their Appeal on the ground that the purchaser of the good...

Jindal Electro Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1191TriDel

1. Jindal Electro Castings Pvt. Ltd. have filed this appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-original dated 26-9-2001 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise disallowing the abatement of duty as the condition specified in Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 has not been fulfilled.2. Shri Krishna Kant, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture MS ingots of non-alloy steel which are subjected to Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that they have claimed abatement of duty for different periods on account of closure of the furnace during 1-3-1998 to 31-3-2000; that all the letters indicate the date of closure, date of re-start, the closing and opening stock position; that in view of there being no electricity connection given by the State Electricity Board, after the disconnection with effect from 4-2-99, the question of giving meter reading on or after that date does not arise; that but prior to that date, electricity meter rea...

Mohd Izhar and anr. Vs. Delhi Waqf Board and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)168; 106(2003)DLT514; 2003(70)DRJ639

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The present writ petition pertains to the management of a waqf property known as the 'Bari Masjid (Old Idgah)', Sarai Khalil, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006'. On 08.04.1983, a Management Committee had been appointed under the erstwhile Waqf Act, 1954 by the Waqf Board. That Committee continued in office till 25.01.2002. The petitioners were office bearers in that Management Committee. By an order dated 25.01.2002, the Chairman of the Waqf Board, i.e., respondent No. 2, dissolved the earlier Managing Committee and appointed a new Managing Committee.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Chairman of the Waqf Board had no powers to dissolve the earlier Managing Committee or to appoint a new Managing Committee in its place. The learned counsel Mr Barqi, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, pointed out the provisions of Section 67 of the Waqf Act, 1995 which would be the applicable Act. Section 67 of the said Act provides that whenever the supervision or ma...

Mng. Director, Cwc and ors. Vs. Mor Singh Gosain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)230; 106(2003)DLT632; 2004(72)DRJ114; 2004(2)SLJ272(Delhi)

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Admit. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court file is not required for disposal of this appeal and I have, thereforee, proceeded to decide this matter without the Trial Court record. 3. The plaintiff-respondent was working as a Chowkidar with the appellant- Corporation on permanent basis. Since the respondent was not promoted he filed Suit against the appellant for certain reliefs including the relief of mandatory injunction directing the appellant to promote him to a higher post and grant him seniority. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 3rd May, 1999 dismissed the Suit on the ground that since the plaintiff had an equally efficacious remedy available to him under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Suit was not maintainable. Aggrieved by judgment and decree of the Trial Court the respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge by the impugned Order allowed the appeal after...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Indian Youth Centres Trust and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi140; 2003(3)ARBLR335(Delhi); 2003(70)DRJ516

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The Union of India and the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi have filed this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the award made by the Respondent No. 2 on 16.10.1979.2. The undisputed facts are that the respondent No. 1 (Indian Youth Centres Trust) is the owner of the building known as 'Vishwa Yuvak Kendra' situated at Circular Road, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. The building was requisitioned by the Delhi Administration under Section 23 of the defense and Internal Security of India Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') vide order dated 29.08.1975. Possession of the said building was taken over by the Delhi Administration on 30.08.1975. The said property remained in the possession of the Delhi Administration till 26.03.1977 when, by an order of the same date and passed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 29 of the Act, the Administrator rescinded it...

Ambica Builders (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT485

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition aggrieved by the refusal of the grant of vacancy remission to the petitioner in respect of the flats owned by the petitioner in property at A-18 Ram House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.2. The area in question was at the relevant stage of time governed by the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Section 72 of the Act deals with the issue of vacancy remission which is as under:'72. Remission of tax on unoccupied immovable property.--(1) When any property assessed to a tax under [Sub-clause (a) of Clause (i) of Section 61], which is payable by the year or by Installments, has remained unoccupied and unproductive of rent throughout the year or the period in respect of which any Installment is payable, the committee shall remit the amount of the tax or of the Installment, as the case may be:Provided that no such remission shall be granted unless, notice in writing of the circumstances ...

Cit Vs. Sara Services and Engg. P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN577(Delhi)

At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of subsidy received under the Central outright Grant of Subsidy Scheme, 1971, in not contribution towards cost of any asset and, thereforee, not be to be deducted for determining the cost of the asset as defined in section 43(1) of the Act for allowing depreciation on-the assets belonging to the assessed?'Since the issue raised by the revenue, namely, whether the subsidy granted by the government as an incentive for setting up of industry in backward areas is to be deducted while computing the actual cost of the asset for the purpose of depreciation, is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. Suffice it to note that the referenc...

S.P. JaIn Vs. Uday Tours and Travels (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 18.7.2002, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 306/2002 entitled Shri S.P. Jain v. M/s. Uday Tours and Travels (P) Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the poster paper of the appellant entitled Prevention of damage to continuous centrifugar screen was accepted for presentation at the Congress in Colombia by International Society of Sugar Cane Technologies (XXII Congress, Cartagena, ColombiaSeptember, 1995). It was stated that the Sugar Technologists Association of India had appointed the respondent as official travel agents for making arrangements for ...

Frick India Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC303

1. These are the applications filed by the appellants in appeal nos.E/1151/2000-NB(A) and E/1192/2000-NB(A) seeking a direction to the respondents to refund an amount of Rs one crore paid by the applicants as pre-deposit pursuant to the direction given by this Tribunal in Stay Order No. 194-195/2000 dated 10.08.2000. The final order was passed in the appeals on 18.09.2001 remanding part of the claim in appeals i.e.to the extent of Rs 2,42,64,500/-. Applicants, therefore, submit that since the appeals have been disposed of, they are entitled to refund of an amount of Rs one crore deposited as pre-deposit under Sec. 35F of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri N.K. Bajpai, Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the applicants are not entitled for the refund of pre-deposit in view of the fact that the revenue has filed appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the final order dated 18.09.2001 passed by the Tribunal. Ld. Counsel brought to our notice the...