Delhi Court January 2004 Judgments

Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT53TriDel

1. None for the appellants, has come present. No request from them for adjournment has been received. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeals after hearing the learned JDR.2. Both these appeals have been directed against the common impugned order in appeal. The issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit to the appellants for the disputed periods (May 1998 to December 1998) and April 1999 to July 1999, involving amount of Rs. 2,93,882/- and Rs. 2,45,828/-.3. The Modvat credit has been sought to be denied to the appellants which is Government of Haryana State Undertaking, on the grounds that the manufacturer of the inputs, received by them, did not completely discharge the duty liability and that the goods were also not received by them directly from the manufacturer. But in my view both these grounds are legally not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case, for disallowing the Modvat credit. The appellants have purchased the goods through duty paid invoices, which carrie...

Leader Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT55TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, vide which Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- against them for having taken credit in the PLA for clearance of the goods before the encashment of the cheque issued by them in favour of the Chief Accounts Officer.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the cheque was issued by the appellants at the instance of the department who wanted to collect more revenue before the expiry of the financial year and that the appellants had sufficient balance in their Modvat credit from where the duty could be discharged on the clearances. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the appellants be set aside. On the other hand, learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order 3. I have heard both the sides and gone through the records.Admittedly, on the date when the cheque was issued, the appellants had no balance in the PLA. They in order to clear the goods issued the cheque in ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Audil Khurshid Bhat

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT342TriDel

1. This appeal of the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar is against Order-in-Appeal No. 29/2003, dated 27-8-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jalandhar. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of, on its merits, an appeal preferred by the present respondent against an order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar.2. The only ground raised in the present appeal is jurisdictional. It is stated that the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as per Notification No.16/2002-Cus. (N.T.), dated 7-3-2002 as amended by Notification No.78/2002-Cus. (N.T.), dated 5-12-2002. This ground is seen stated in Para (1) and reiterated in Para (5) of "grounds of appeal". These paragraphs read as under :- (1) "That Order-in-Appeal No. 29/CUS/Jal/2003, dated 27-8-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jalandhar, are beyond jurisdiction and void ab initio in view of Notification No. 16/2002-Cus....

Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the above captioned three appeals, which have been filed by the appellants against the common impugned order in appeal, the issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit to the appellants on Welding Electrodes. The Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the credit on these goods and confirmed the order in original. In case of Jaypee Rewa Plant Vs. CCE. Raipur - 2003 (57) RLT 739 (CEGAT-LB) the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has also taken the view that the Welding electrode and Gasses used in repair and maintenance of plant and machinery are not eligible inputs for modvat credit. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing the Modvat credit is perfectly valid and does not suffer from any illegality and as such is upheld.2. However, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the issue involved, the penalty imposed on the appellants under Rule 1730 deserves to be set-aside a in the above said case, even the Larger Bench has also set aside the penalty i...

Nav Bharat Paper P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC294

1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty demand on the company appellant No. 1 with penalty and imposed penalties on the other appellants as detailed therein.2. The duty and penalty has been confirmed on the company on account of clandestine removal of the goods during the period March to December, 1996 without payment of duty while penalty on other appellants had been imposed under Rule 209A of the Rules. The allegations of clandestine removal of the goods against the company had been based on the 14 packing slips and 4 GRs allegedly recovered from their factory premises on 6-3-97 at the time of checking by the officers of Central Excise.3. The learned Counsel has contended that there is no tangible evidence to substantiate these allegations and to prove the actual removal of the goods by the company app...

Dy. Cit Vs. M/S. Escorts Tractors Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Delhi)905

These cross appeals arise out of order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - XI, New Delhi dated 27.8.1992 for assessment, year 1989-90.Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. attended on behalf of the assessee whereas Shri Salil Gupta, Sr. Departmental Representative attended on behalf of the department.At the time of hearing of this appeal, the learned Counsel for the assessee did not press this ground. Hence this ground is rejected as not Pressed.This ground is directed against sustenance of disallowance of Rs. 1,20,649 being the payment of bonus under section 43B of the Act. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has considered this issue in Para 10, 11 and 15 of his order. The assessment year had made following disallowances under section 43B 'of the Act : It was submitted before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that amount of Rs. 1,20,649 out of Rs. 2,81,132 relating to Bonus payable was paid by the assessee before the due date for filing of the return under section 139(1) of the Act and therefore n...

Mohan Lal Gupta Vs. D.A.V. College Managing Committee Through Its Gene ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ12; 2004(2)SLJ494(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J. 1. It is a writ petition filed for quashing of the order of transfer dated 14.9.2000, inter alias further praying for a writ of prohibition against respondent no.1 i.e. D.A.V College Managing Committee from transferring or disturbing the petitioner from his existing posting till the disposal of the writ petition. Ms. Gita Mittal counsel for the petitioner has contended that order of transfer is in violation of provision of Delhi Education Act and Rules framed there under. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is employed with D.A.V. Centenary Public School, Narela a recognised private school run by the respondent from 8th February 1989.2. Daya Nand Anglo-Vedic College Trust and Management Society i.e. respondent no.1 is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860 and is running several educational institutions all over India. The Society has a Managing Committee known as the Managing Committee of Daya Nand Anglo-Vedic College Trust and Man...

Rubfila International Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ121; 2004(92)ECC496; 2004(169)ELT259(Del)

Manmohan Sarin, J.Rule.With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for disposal today.1. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of Circular No. 17(RE-2003)/2002-2007 dated 10.10.2003 and Circular No. 22(RE-2003)/2002-2007 dated 11.12.2003 to the extent that they prescribe time limit up to 31st March, 2004, for utilisation of the existing advance license granted. Petitioner also seeks a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revalidate the licenses of the petitioner for the same period as the period for fresh licenses.2. Petitioner is aggrieved by what he terms as inordinately short time granted to effect the imports under the advance license scheme. Petitioner had been granted advance licenses dated 19th February, 1998 and 30th March, 1999, for import of raw materials. Petitioner intended to import natural rubber, a major raw material for the manufacture of rubber threads. As a result of the ban imposed vide Circular No. 8/98-99-SA...

Dr. R.K. Kohli (Decsd) Through His Lrs. Vs. R.K. Garg and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT379; 2004(74)DRJ646

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Appellant claims to have occupied the shop in question as a result of subletting of the same by the original allottee. Initially it was a platform which was allotted to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 L & DO. The appellant has been in the occupation of the shop in question since 1.6.77 and was also found to be in occupation on inspection by respondent No. 2 but respondent No. 2 served a notice for cancellation of the license to the original allottee on the ground that the possession has been transferred either by way of sale or by way of subletting without the consent of respondent No. 2.2. The appellant claimed protection under the Office Order dated 25th July, 96 relating to regularisation of shops/stalls/flats/platforms etc. in the names of partners and occupants. Same read as under:'In case, where shop has been allotted on tender basis the occupant in whose name the shop is to be regularised shall pay at least 50% of the tendered license fee over and above it...

Saurabh Prakash Vs. Samir Prakash

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi272

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. By this Order, I.A. No. 4913/ 98 being an application moved by the plaintiff under Order XII, Rule 6, Order XV, Rule 1 r/w Section 151, C.P.C., for passing of a preliminary decree of partition is being decided. Plaintiff-Saurabh Prakash, filed the present suit for partition against his elder brother, Samir Prakash-defendant. Plaintiff claims to be the joint owner along with the defendant of the properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. It is averred that the properties mentioned in Part I of the Schedule fell to the share of the plaintiff and the defendant pursuant to the Award made by Shri Ram Ratan Kapur in S. No. 626/1980. The said Award was made rule of the Court on 8th January, 1981. The properties mentioned in Part II of Schedule are stated to be a gift from the mother Smt. Laxmi Anand Prakash to the plaintiff and the defendant, who are in joint possession. Properties mentioned in part III of Schedule to the plaint are those which are claimed ...