Delhi Court October 2004 Judgments

Makewell Polymers (P) Ltd. and Vs. Bank of India and anr.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC36

1. First respondent - Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed T.A. 137/2002 (initially O.A. 256/2001) against appellants (who are defendants 1 and 3 in the TA, and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendants') and Girdhari Lal Arora, the 2nd defendant in the T.A., for the recovery of Rs. 1,12,00,237.59 with interest and costs. On 1.10.2002 reply to the T.A. on behalf of the defendants was filed, but the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') did not take the reply filed by the defendants on record, and directed the respondent Bank to file the affidavit (by way of evidence) in two weeks. The matter was ordered to be listed on 28.10.2002.2. In the meanwhile, on 18.10.2002, an application (IA 176/2002) on behalf of the defendants was filed to condone the delay in filing the written statement, and to take the same on record. This application came up for hearing on 21.10.2002 before ...

Rohini Capital Services Ltd. Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)92ITD317(Delhi)

1. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal by the assessee: "1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the decision of the AO in treating the business loss of Rs. 2,53,417/- as deemed speculation loss and has also erred in not allowing set off of the business loss with the income under the head 'income from other sources' which is arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and bad in law. 2. The Id CIT(A) has erred in concluding that proviso to Section 43(5) is not applicable whereas the Explanation to Section 73 has been applicable while considering the loss incurred as speculation loss which is contrary to the law, judicial pronouncements and arbitrary. 3. The Id CIT(A) has erred in stating that the proviso (c ) to Section 43(5) is not applicable to the present case by not making harmonious construction between the proviso (c ) to Section 43(5) and Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. " "The assessee is a member of National Stock Exchange of...

Suresh Rastogi and Another Vs. Royal Jordan Airlines and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved of the order passed by the District Forum whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking refund of the price of the ticket of O.P. No. 1 purchased through its agent O.P. No. 2 M/s. Bajaj Travels as well as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment. 2.Primary facts are not in dispute. The appellants purchased two tickets of respondent No. 1 M/s. Royal Jordan Airlines for their journey from Delhi to New York. The tickets were issued by its agent M/s. Bajaj Travels on 8.5.1997 with O.K. status for outward journey from Delhi to New York and return ticket was also confirmed for 5.12.1997. In token of confirmation of the tickets sticker of O.K. status was pasted on the ticket. These tickets were valid for six months. After availing the ticket for the journey from Delhi to New York the appellant wished to come back India a little earlier than the confirmed flight on 5.12.1997. However, on contacting respondent No. 1 at New York he was ...

J.K. Cement Works Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC560Tri(Delhi)

1. Hon'ble Single Member vide Misc. Order No. M/44/04-NB dated 10.2.2004 has requested the Hon'ble President to constitute a Larger Bench to resolve the issue as to whether the CENVAT Credit of the duty paid in respect of explosives used outside the factory of production is available to the Appellants M/s. JK Cement Works. The Hon'ble President has directed the matter to be posted before the Division Bench.Accordingly, we heard Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri Virag Gupta, Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.2. Learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants manufacture cement and avail of CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on inputs. He fairly conceded that issue has now been decided finally by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE Jaipur v. JK Udaipur Udyog Ltd. wherein it has been held that the expression 'used for manufacture of final products or for any other purpose within the factory of production' in the definition of the 'inputs' is impo...

K.L. Tambi and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT226TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer-exporter of coloured gem-stone from Jaipur. The appeal states that more than 90% of its cut and polished gemstones are exported. The present appeal is directed against adjudication Order No. 9/2003-Customs, dated 29-10-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur whereunder the Commissioner confiscated a consignment of cut and polished tanzanite stones which was received by the appellant from Hong Kong.2. The consignment in question was sent to the appellant by M/s.Emerald House Co. (HK) under Invoice No. 1100, dated 30-9-2003. That invoice stated "return of consignment goods". The goods were also described as tanzanite mixed lots. The appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 002370, dated 6-10-2003 for clearance of the consignment, The Bill of Entry claimed "duty free under Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962".The Bill of Entry also gave the details "as per previous export as under :- 3. The Customs authorities objected to the appellants' claim for d...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Pansari Gems International

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT253TriDel

1. Heard both sides and perused records. The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 51 (SN) CUS/JPR-1/2003, dated 1-7-03 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur-I. The issue before the Commissioner was whether a consignment of imported Gems was eligible for duty free clearance as re-imported goods under Section 20 of the Customs Act read with Notification No. 94/96-Customs dated 16-12-1996. The Commissioner passed the following order : "3. I have gone through the case records and submissions made by the appellant. It is a case of reimport of one packet of cut and polished Aquamarine stones earlier exported vide export invoice dated 27-9-2002 under Shipping Bill dated 27-9-2002. The appellant have claimed re-import of the same under Section 20 of the Customs Act read with notification No. 94/96-Cus, dated 16-12-1996 of allowing duty free re-import which has not been allowed by the impugned order as the identity of the goods could not be allege...

Aero World Travels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR27

1. The appellants have pleaded that they have opted to pay service tax under Notification No. 20/97 providing for payment of service tax at the rate of 0,5% of the basic fare. Appellants pleaded that they have purchased tickets from Airlines and sold the same to the customers without getting any commission from the Airlines. It is, therefore, pleaded that the service tax which they have already paid on receipt of the service charges from the customers may be accepted as tax liability and since no basic fare is mentioned in the tickets, the orders of the lower authorities may not be correct and hence stay should be given to them. They have already deposited Rs. 2,50,000/- and recovery of the balance amount may be stayed.2. Shri P.M. Rao, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the case on the basis of the provisions of Rule 6(7) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Therefore, the demand is correct.3. I find that the issue is arguable. Since t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Laxmi Engineering

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT342TriDel

1. The issue involved in these 2 appeals filed by Revenue is whether the transport charges are to be included in the assessable value of the goods cleared by M/s. Laxmi Engineering.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents, nor was there any request for adjournment of the hearing.Further, Shri S.M. Tata, learned SDR, mentioned that the issue involved in the present appeals stands decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts J.C.B. Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-II, 2002 (146) E.L.T. 31 (SC). We, therefore, heard learned SDR and perused the records.3. The Respondents manufacture electrical transformers. As per the contract with Electricity Board the Respondents were despatching the goods on freight paid basis to the Electricity Board. The Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 48/2002, dated 7-1-2003 demanded the duty on the element of freight. However, on appeal filed by the Respondents the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Adjudication O...

Arvind Steel and Agro Inds. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC44

1. Heard both sides and perused records. Even though the case is posted today only for consideration of stay applications, since the issue remains settled by the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and the orders of this Tribunal, it is appropriate that appeals themselves be taken up for consideration. Accordingly, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit, I taken up for considering the appeals.2. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellants who are re-rollers of "Iron & Steel" were eligible for deemed credit in terms of Notification No. 58/97 in respect of inputs purchased by them from manufacturers of Iron and Steel who discharged duty liability under Section 3A (Compounded Levy) of the Central Excise Act. The manufacturers who obtained inputs from such suppliers were eligible for deemed credit under the Notification No. 58/97. The only requirements under the notification were that the purchase must be directly from a manufact...

Pink City Gem Technologies Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT358TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of Jem Jelly. It also exports. It obtains an EPCG License dated 20-10-2002 for the import of one Research Sputler Vaccum Tool with Spear Parts. In terms of that license and "Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (Chapter 5 of the EXIM Policy) the appellant was entitled to clearance of the machine at a reduced rate of customs duty of 5%. However, the Machine was confiscated and the EPCG lower rate denied to the appellant on the ground that the machine was more than 10 years old and import of such machinery was not allowed under the Hand-Book of Procedure.2. The contention of the appellant is that the restriction of age of machinery applied to import under Open General License and not to EPCG imports. During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that in the EPCG Chapter of the EXIM Policy there was no restriction about the age of the machine till 1st March 2003, when condition relating to age of second-hand mac...