Delhi Court October 2004 Judgments

Cit Vs. Smt. Radha Bai

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN595(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.:At the instance of the revenue, this court vide order dated 23-8-1991, directed the Tribunal to state the case and to refer the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no adventure in the nature of trade and thereby deleting business income of Rs. 11,87,387 from the income of the assessed?'2. The revenue had earlier moved the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the said application was rejected. Hence, the revenue approached this court and in view of the order made by this court, the present reference is placed before the court.3. The assessed is an individual and was deriving income at the relevant time from moneylending business. The accounting year ended in question on 31-3-1983. The assessed vide sale deed dated 25-7-1958 for Rs. 21,021 had acquired a plot of land admeasuring 2,130.459 sq. mtrs. or 2,548 sq. yds...

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Ajit Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. These appeals have arisen from the order dated 29.5.1998 passed by District Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi in Complaint Case Nos. 746/1997 and 747/1994 entitled Shri Ajit Singh v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Shri Satish Kumar v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, respectively whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant Shri Ajit Singh (Case No. 746/97 along with interest @ 18% w.e.f. 24.12.1993) and Rs. 30,000/- (Case No. 747/97) to Shri Satish Kumar along with interest @ 18% w.e.f. 3.10.1994 respectively as the aforesaid amounts were unauthorizedly withdrawn from their Saving Bank Accounts. 2. The Counsel for the appellant has confined his arguments to the point that where the allegations against the Bank are of fraud and conspiracy which require investigation by the police, the dispute does not fall within the ambit of consumer dispute. 3.We are not inclined to accept this contention as the remedy available to the con...

Christelle Violene Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT322TriDel

1. In this appeal, the appellants have contested the demand of Custom duty of Rs. 1,79,999/- raised against her through impugned order.2. The ld. counsel has contended that the car brought by the appellant to India under the Garnet Scheme without payment of any Custom duty on 8-10-2001, in terms of Notification No. 296/76-Cus,. dated 2-8-1976, is of 1983 model and its assessable value had wrongly determined as Rs. 99,023/- by the authorities below. According to him, its assessable value, could not be more than Rs. 16,000/- as even opined by an Engineer, Surveyor and Loss Assessors, in his certificate dated 10-3-2004.3. On the other hand, the Id. SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellant brought old and used car of 1983 model "PEUGEOT" to India on 8-10-2002 without payment of duty under Notification No. 296/76 dated 2-8-76. She could retain the car in India under...

Jct Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The dispute in this appeal is about the eligibility of storage tank of modvat credit as capital goods. The storage tank in question stores acid in which process of annealing is carried out. The appellant's contention is that the tank is an accessory and is eligible for modvat credit in terms of Explanation 1 (d) to Rule 57Q. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Belgaum v. Industrial Oxygen Co. Ltd., 2004 (64) RLT 485 in support of the claim. As against this, the Revenue has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., jaipur v. Guljag Industry Ltd., 2003 (157) ELT 302. However, learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Tribunal's decision in the case of Industrial Oxygen Co. Ltd. is to be followed inasmuch as that decision distinguished the decision in the case of Guljag Industry ltd. and was rendered in the light of the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Indore ...

Cce Vs. Kothari Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(118)LC223Tri(Delhi)

1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 171-CE/Appl/Knp/2004 dated 7.3.2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund of Additional Duty of Excise to M/s.Kothari Products Ltd. 2. Mrs. K.A. Mishra, learned S.D.R., submitted that the respondents manufacture pan masala containing tobacco which was classified by them under Heading 2404.41 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and paid Addition Duty of Excise thereon; that the Deputy Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 64/01 dated 31.10.2001, changed the classification of pan masala containing tobacco from Heading 2404.41 to Heading 21.06 of the Central Excise Tariff up to 28.2.2001; that as a consequence of change in the classification list, the respondents filed the refund claim of Additional Duty of Excise paid by them during the period from 10.10.2000 to 31.10.2000. The Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 147/02 dated 28.2.2002, rejected the refund ...

Nagpal Electric and Radio Company Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT346TriDel

1. All the same, I have heard both sides at length and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself after dispensing with the requirement for pre-deposit.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of electrical appliances. One input for manufacture is copper tubes. These tubes are converted into heating coils etc. through process of bending. Some coils become waste during such manufacturing process. Those items are disposed of by the appellant as scrap. Under the impugned order, the Revenue has held that the clearance of such copper scrap comes within the scope of sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and has to pay an amount equal to the credit of duty taken.3. The contention of the appellant is that Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 comes into play only when inputs are cleared as such and not to cases of clearance of scrap generated during conversion of inputs into finished product. It is also being pointed out that the appellant was required to discharge duty only on copper scrap. The appell...

Marc Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC273

1. These two appeals - one filed by M/s. Marc Pharmaceuticals and the other filed by Revenue - have arisen out of the one common Order-in-Original No. 35-36/C.E./2003, dated 27-5-2003 by which the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty against, and imposed penalty upon the assessee, after allowing the deduction of duty from the price of the goods charged by the related person.2. Sh. B. L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Marc Pharmaceuticals, manufactures for P or P medicaments (including veterinary medicaments under the House-Mark "MARC"; that they are a partnership firm consisting of the following partners - S/Shri Prem Kishore, Nitin Kishore, Vibhash Anand and Mrs. Suraj Devi; that they had sold their entire production to M/s. Marc Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. of which Shri Prem Kishore is one of the directors; that two show cause notices were issued to them for demanding differential duty on the grounds that they are not eligible for small scale exemption since t...

Associate Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC1100Tri(Delhi)

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Associate Cement Companies Ltd., the issue relates to the eligibility of CENVAT Credit paid on explosives used in mines.2. Shri S.K. Bansal, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that the appellants manufacture cement and clinker and avail of CENVAT Credit on inputs and capital goods under the CENVAT Credit Rules; that the Department has disallowed the CENVAT Credit taken by them in respect of Explosives used in the mines during the period 1.7.2001 to 30.4.2002.He fairly mentioned that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CCB, Jaipur v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. , he is not pressing the Appeal against disallowance of the CENVAT Credit. He, further, submitted that no penalty is imposable on them as they bona fide believed that the explosives have been used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product cements; that further, penalty is imposable only when there is suppression or any intention to evade the payment of duty; ...

Forbos Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT458TriDel

1. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Forbos Industries manufacture hot-rolled products of non-alloy steel which were chargeable to Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act w.e.f. 1-9-97; that the Appellants had changed the parameters of their rolling mills after duly intimating the Department; that after changing the gear box, they had again informed the Department under letter dated 10-10-97 that they have undertaken the change and re-started the rolling mill w.e.f. 10-10-97 and requested for verification and redetermination of capacity; that the Department had verified the changes undertaken by them; that as they did not receive any order determining their annual capacity production, they wrote a letter on 11-11-1997 to the Department; that they were informed by the Superintendent (Tech.), under letter dated 13-2-98, that the annual capacity of their mill is fixed provisionally w.e.f. 13-12-97; that, thereafter, they wrote another letter to...

Madhu Bajaj Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC65

1. These two appeals have been filed against similar orders dated 18.11.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing an application each filed in O.A. 599/2000 and O.A. 600/2000 respectively for sending the loan-documents to the National Forensic Laboratory for comparison and report by the handwriting expert or by an independent handwriting expert. Since the points arising for consideration in both the appeals are the same, I am disposing of both the appeals by this common order.2. The respondent Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') filed O.A. 599/2000 before the DRT for the recovery of Rs. 50,64,667/- with interest and costs from the appellant, the proprietor of M/s. House of Travel. The respondent Bank has filed O.A. 600/2000 against the appellant for the Recovery of Rs. 38,54,590/- with interest and costs. The appellant has filed reply to each of the O.A...