Delhi Court October 2004 Judgments

Maestro Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT77TriDel

1. The appeal is directed against demand of duty and imposition of penalty on the ground that petrol engines entered in the RG-I of the appellant were not available on verification.3. The facts of the case are that on 22-12-1998 the appellant's premises were visited by Central Excise Officers and verification of stock, was carried out. As against the 24 petrol engines entered in the RG-I stock the appellant was able to produce only 18 Nos. Thus, six engines were missing. The appellant paid duty in respect of the same.With regard to the remaining the appellant produced 18 engines. On examination, it was found that they did not have certain parts like piston and crankshaft. On account of the absence of these parts, the authorities reached a finding that these 18 engines cannot be accepted as the engines entered in the RG-I. Based on this finding duty demand has been confirmed and penalty imposed.4. The contention of the appellant is that the show cause notice itself admits that the appe...

Sahira Garments Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT302TriDel

1. These appeals are directed against confiscation of 135 packages of goods which had been entered for export under shipping bill No. 1285957 dated 5-2-2003 and imposition of penalty on the Prop, of the exporting firm, Shri Mohd. Illyas.2. Brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid shipping bill was filed for export of 2900 pieces of ladies dresses and 9875 pieces of shirts. The FOB value of the consignment was declared at around Rs. 21 lakhs and drawback claim of about Rs. 5 lakhs was made. The consignment consisted of 135 packages. When the consignment was examined, it was found that packages at SI. No. 1 to 39 contained the declared goods while the remaining packages from SI. No. 40 to 135 were stuffed with old and used clothes/worn out clothing of different patterns, designs, fabric components etc. The Customs authorities issued notice for confiscation of the goods under Section 113(d) & (i) and penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, Section 118 and 119 o...

Bharat Steel Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Even though the matter is posted today only for the purpose of considering the stay application, upon hearing both sides it is felt that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, after waiver of pre-deposit the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appellant is a rolling mill and during the period in dispute it was required to pay duty at compounded rate under Section 3A of the Central demand has been confirmed for period subsequent to the said intimation. This demand is the subject matter of this appeal.3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is well settled that once a unit has closed down no duty demand can be raised on him even under compounded levy scheme. The learned Counsel however, agreed that duty would be payable for the month of September 98 and the amount being Rs. 8423.26. Their amount, he admits is payable by the appellant.5. It is not in dispute that the appellant's unit was closed down from September 98 and did not resume produ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Goetze India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT186TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by Revenue, the issue relates to the eligibility of deduction on account of discount in determining the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.2. We heard Smt. Krishna A. Mishra, learned S.D.R. and Sh. Gopal Prasad, Representative of M/s. Goetze India Ltd. The Respondents manufacture piston rings and gudgeon pins; that they give trade discount @ 27.5 per cent to their Chief Stockists and 25 per cent trade discount to their sub-stockists of Chief Stockists and remaining 2.5 per cent trade discount was being allowed to Chief Stockist. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the trade discount of 2.5 per cent and the Range Superintendent directed the Respondents to deposit the duty on account of disallowance of the said trade discount. On appeal, filed by the Respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order, has held that the issue is covered in their favour by the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1251 /98-A, dated 21-8-1...

Smt. Lalita Dalmia Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)92ITD547(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dt. 1st Feb., 2000 for asst. yr. 1995-96.2. The Revenue has taken as many as six grounds in this appeal to challenge the findings of learned CIT(A) for adopting and determining the value of share of the assessee at Rs. 13,75,820. Since the grounds are elaborate and argumentative in nature, we do not consider it proper to reproduce the same in the body of this order.3. Shri M.L. Dujari, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee whereas Shri Salil Gupta, senior Departmental Representative, represented the Revenue.4. The facts concerning this matter are that the assessee held l/8th share in property No. W-7, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. While filing the WT return for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had declared the value of her share at Rs. 11,70,009. The AO took the value of her share at Rs. 23,29,300 on the basis of estimation of the value made by the District Valuation Officer.5. In...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B.R. Industries Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)92ITD44(Delhi)

1. ITA 1940/Del/2001 is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dt.27th Aug., 2001 of CIT(A) XVII, New Delhi, relating to asst. yr.1996-97 while C.O. 136/Del/2004 is a cross-objection by the assessee against the very same order of the CIT(A).2. The facts of the case are as follows : The assessee is a company which was incorporated on 4th April, 1995. One of the directors of the assessee-company, viz., Mr. Rajesh Agarwal, was running the business of manufacture of aluminium AAC, ACSR conductors, aluminium wires, etc., at Jaipur as sole proprietor under the name and style of M/s B.R. Metal Industries. He also carried on the business of trading in ferrous and non-ferrous metals and electrical goods. The assessee-company under an agreement dt. 30th April, 1995, took over the business carried by Mr.Rajesh Agarwal as proprietor.3. There was a company by name, M/s Mitasu Dies (P) Ltd. (M/s MDP), Parwanoo, HP, which was carrying on the business of manufacture of transformers coils like ele...

Shri Bhagwant Singh and anr. Vs. Mangat Ram and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)ACC897; 114(2004)DLT776

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM 8164/2004 (early hearing):Application is allowed and disposed of. The matter is taken up for hearing today.FAO 143/19982. FAO 143/1998 is directed against the judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Suit No.4/1988 whereby the learned tribunal vide its order dated 5.12.1997 has awarded a sum of Rs.78,000/- together with the interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation.3. The facts of the case are :'2. The petitioners claimed to be the parents of Rajesh Kumar, a 22 years old youth who is stated to have died on 11.11.87 on account of an accident that is stated to have taken place at Rambagh, G.T.Karnal Road, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S.Alipur at 4.15 p.m. It is alleged the deceased Salesman of Biscuits etc. with an income of Rs.1,000/- p.m. was moving on his cycle at slow speed on correct side of the road when the truck came in high speed in rash/negligent manner from opposite direction and...

Management of Asiatic Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. Thr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT358; 2005(79)DRJ143; [2005(104)FLR364]; (2005)ILLJ647Del; 2006(1)SLJ417(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Notice in this case was confined only to the issue of back wages to be paid to the Respondent.2.What should be the quantum of back wages to be awarded to a worker (I deliberately use a gender-neutral word) assuming reinstatement is directed, has been the subject matter of debate and discussion in literally hundreds of cases. One of the reasons for this, I think, is that discretion in this regard is exercised depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case without formulating an identifiable norm. thereforee, each case, and there are thousands of them, has to be individually considered, pacing an avoidable and enormous burden on the courts.3. Aharon Barak in his more than educative Judicial Discretion defines discretion most appropriately when he says it.''[I]s the power given to a person with authority to choose between two or more alternatives, when each of the alternatives is lawful.''But, he also points out that one of the areas of discretion lies in the...

Devika Mehra Vs. Ameeta Mehra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT811; 2004(77)DRJ651

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as `the Act') challenges by way of these objections the Award dated 31st December, 2003, passed by the Sole Arbitrator. The arbitrator in question is the maternal grandfather of the petitioner and the respondent who are sisters and had lost their parents and another sister in an unfortunate accident.2. The award is challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds:-A. That the writing dated 21st June, 2003 does not constitute an arbitration agreement.(i) that the said writing only contemplates avoidance of any future dispute and does not refer to any existing dispute nor it refers to arbitration.(ii) that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in : [1998]1SCR601 and : (2004)1SCC372 @ 17 an agreement for avoidance of a dispute is not an arbitration agreement.B. That the main objection of the petitioner is that even if the writing dated 21st June, 2003 c...

Lalita Dalmia Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Del)690

ORDERP.N. Parashar, J.M This appeal has been filed by the assessed against the order of learned CIT (A) dated 1-2-2000 for assessment year 1996-96.2. The revenue has taken as many as six grounds in this appeal to challenge the findings of learned CIT (A) for adopting and determining the value of share of the assessed at Rs. 13,75,820. Since the grounds are elaborate and argumentative in nature, we do not consider it proper to reproduce the same in the body of this order.3. Shri M.L. Dujari, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessed whereas Shri Salil Gupta, senior Departmental Representative, represented the revenue.4. The facts concerning this matter are that the assessed held 1/8th share in property No. W-7, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. While filing the WT return for the assessment year under consideration, the assessed had declared the value of her share at Rs. 11,70,009. The assessing officer took the value of her share at Rs. 23,29,300 on the basis of estimation of the value made ...