Delhi Court January 2004 Judgments

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)177

1. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., a Government of India undertaking has filed this writ petition against the order of CIT-II, challenging the balance demand of Rs. 2,57,25,61,456, out of which Rs. 100 crores have been paid by MTNL pursuant to the order made by Division Bench on 21st March, 2003. Following the decision of the apex Court in ONGC v. Collector, Central Excise 1995 (Supl.) (4) SCC 541, a meeting of the committee on disputes was held and MTNL was permitted to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal.2. Now, we are told by the counsel for MTNL that the appeal has been preferred before Tribunal and a miscellaneous application for stay has also been filed on 30th Dec., 2003. A request is made on behalf of MTNL to grant some protection so that till the disposal of the application there may not be any hardship to the applicant.3. Under the circumstances, while disposing of this writ petition as withdrawn, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of the application within a period of three ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Iffco Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)480

1. These three appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the order made by the Tribunal for the asst. yrs. 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 raising identical contentions.2. The Tribunal disposed of these appeals following its earlier decisions in respect of asst. yrs. 1991-92 and 1992-93. In respect of these earlier years, two appeals were filed being ITA 447 of 2003 and ITA 444 of 2003 and a Division Bench of this Court hearing the appeals, disposed of the same by a detailed judgment against the Revenue. Similar question is raised here and; thereforee, these appeals are covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in ITA 447 of2003 and ITA 444 of 2003. We are not inclined to take a different view.According to the counsel for the Revenue, in the instant case, IT Ref. 193 of1995 is not required to be followed. This very contention was also considered bythe earlier Division Bench. In view of the decision of the Division Bench in theaforesaid two appeals, we are of the view that no substa...

Smt. G.D. Bharucha Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No. Adj./182/DD/JMJ/B/88 dated 13-12-1988 whereby the penalty of Rs. 24,000 was imposed on the appellant for contravening the provisions of section 9(1)(b) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appeal is accompanied with an application for dispensation of pre-deposit of the penalty amount on account of financial difficulties. 2. The case against the appellant has been that she received a sum of Rs. 80,000 in India through a person otherwise than an authorized dealer at the instance of her husband who was at the relevant time working in Saudi Arabia without the requisite permission from the authorities and this amounted to contravention of section 9(1)(b) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. In a statement dated 11-7-1988 the appellant honestly stated the facts and admitted the alleged receipt. However, she narrated the circumstances and the urgency in which it was done and submitted that there was no intention to commit...

S.K. Industries Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of MILK-N-NUT and claimed the classification under Chapter heading No. 2001-10 of the Central Excise Tariff. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent for re-classification of the product under heading 1704.90 of the Central Excise Tariff as Sugar confectionery.3. The Commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, Vs. Anita Sausages & Foods (P) Ltd., reported in 1999 (105) ELT 410 (Tribunal) and Central Board of Excise and Customs Circular Dated 19.7.1987 held that the product in question is classification under Chapter heading 2001.10 as preparation of vegetable, fruits and nuts.4. The contention of the Revenue is that product in question is traded and known in the market as Sugar confectionary and relied upon the decision of the Ho...

Cce Vs. R.S. Electricals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal the Revenue has disputed the correctness of the impugned order in appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 19.111/- to the respondents. None has come present on behalf of the respondents in spite of issuance of notice. No request for adjournment has also been received from them.Therefore, proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned SDR.2. Learned SDR has contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not recorded his findings regarding the actual reuse of rejected tungsten, by the respondents as inputs, for the manufacture of the final products Tungsten wire and articles thereof and as such the impugned order passed by him deserves to be set aside.3. I have gone through the record and in my view the contention raised by the learned SDR can not be accepted. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) earlier on similar facts and for the same rejected goods, being used as inputs for the...

Hygiene Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellants filed these appeals against the adjudication orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. As the common issue is involved in both the appeals, therefore, the both appeals are taken up together.3. Appellants are engaged in the activity of cutting of Rolls of Aluminium Foils and Rolls of Tissue Paper of making Aluminium Foils, Toilet Rolls Face Tissue and Tissue Napkin.4. The demand was confirmed on the ground that processes undertaken by the appellants on Rolls of Aluminium Foil and on Tissue papers amounts to manufacture.5. We find that the above issue is settled by the Tribunal in the case of S.R. Foils Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, reported in 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-75-CESTAT-DEL and S.R. Tissues Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, reported in 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-76-CESTAT-DEL. The Tribunal in the above decisions held that cutting of jumbo rolls of Aluminium Foils into smaller rolls and cutting of Jumbo rolls of Tissues in...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipments

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT321TriDel

1. In this appeal the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order vide which Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original regarding confiscation of the goods, imposition of redemption fine and of penalty of Rs.5,000/-.2. The learned SDR has contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the earlier remand order of the Tribunal as well as the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Weston Components Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.) - 2000 (88) ECR 544 (SC) wherein it has been observed that even in case of provisional release of the seized goods, redemption fine can be imposed in spite of non-availability of those goods at the time of adjudication. She has also contended that the violation of Rule 52A could not be termed as a technical violation for imposing penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, Representative of the respondents Shri D.L. ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. S.K. Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT401TriDel

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of MILK-N-NUT and claimed the classification under Chapter Heading No. 2001.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent for re-classification of the product under Heading 1704.90 of the Central Excise Tariff as Sugar Confectionery.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Anitha Sausages and Foods (P) Ltd., reported in 1999 (105) E.L.T. 410 (Tribunal) and Central Board of Excise and Customs Circular dated 19-7-1987 held that the product in question is classification under Chapter Heading 2001.10 as preparation of vegetable, fruits and nuts.4. The contention of the Revenue is that product in question is traded and known in the market as Sugar confectionary and relied upon the decision of the Ho...

Asstt. Commissioner of Vs. Shri Gian Chand Dhawan

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on a solitary ground that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.04 lakhs on account of estimated income from house property, which was let out by the assessee to a concern, in which he had substantial interest by deliberately fixing a low rent in collusive manner.2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record.3. Brief facts borne out from the record are that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessing officer noticed that assessee owned the property in East of Kailash, New Delhi, which was let out to M/s. York Exports Ltd. @ Rs. 1,000/- per months. This letting was only for one and a half months. No written agreement was executed between the parties and no income from this letting was disclosed by the assessee. When the assessing officer aske...

Shri Gopal Krishan Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ37; 2004(3)SLJ69(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Mr. Gopal Krishan, who is petitioner in CW No. 23/79 and Mr. Chander Prakash, who is the petitioner in CW No. 67/79 along with respondents 2 to 4 in the said two writ petitions namely Shri Hari Singh Sidana, Shri S.K.Sharma and Shri S.K.Luthra were all employed as Steno-Typist under the University of Delhi. Respondents 2 to 4 were senior to the two writ petitioners in the seniority list maintained for the post of Steno Typist. 2. The next higher post in the cadre was the post of Stenographer. There existed two vacant posts of Stenographer which required to be filled up in the year 1978. On 22.7.1978 Executive Council of the University approved a scheme for giving advance increments to the Steno-typist who acquired higher proficiency in shorthand.3. On 11.8.1978, the University issued a notice informing that a combined, Stenographer and proficiency test would be conducted to effect promotion to the two vacant posts of Stenographer as well as to give incentive und...