Delhi Court November 2004 Judgments

Jitendra Singh Chhabra Vs. Rajeev Taneja

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)CTLJ46(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC for vacation of the interim order dated 3rd September, 2004 restraining respondent his relatives from carrying on the business of providing placement services similar to that of the partnership firm M/s Creations E. Services. The relevant clause which now governs the relationship between the parties is to be found in the Addendum to the original contract which read as under:-'1. Further to clause 22 in the deed of partnership dated August 21, 2003, it is understood and agreed between the parties that the party of the second part shall not engage in a similar business, directly or indirectly through any of his relatives including but not restricted to Ms. Payal Taneja, during the continuation of the partnership or within 3 months of his leaving the partnership firm. However, it is understood and agreed that the part of the first part is currently carrying on placement as a proprietor of Candor services and as a partner in o...

Hindustan TIn Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Del)207; [2005]275ITR43(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order dated August 23, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in I. T. A. No. 6331/ Delhi of 1996 for the assessment year 1993-94.2. The questions framed by the court are as under :'1. Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to reverse the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and hold that the assessed had suppressed its production of tin containers ?2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs. 1,74,58,165 representing alleged unaccounted sales ?'3. The answer to question No. 2 would be dependent on the answer to question No. 1.4. The order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which is produced at annexure 4 in Appeal No. 8 of 1996-97 decided on September 30, 1996, is in detail. We have also perus...

Delhi Jal Board Vs. Rajinder Kumar and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This appeal arises from the order dated 8.4.2004 passed by the District Forum vide which as many as 8 complaints filed by the respondents were allowed by which the bills raised by the appellant in respect of the water consumed by the respondents were held to be illegal and, therefore, ordered to be withdrawn on the ground that no water supply was provided by the appellant during the relevant period. 2. Admittedly the colony where the premises of the respondents are situated was initially unauthorised colony but later on it was authorised and according to the appellant it was partly because of the unauthorised nature of the locality and partly because of the topography that there was deviation in the flow of water. 3. Admittedly all the respondent are the registered consumers for domestic water connection. According to them there was not a single drop of water in the taps during the relevant period i.e., from June, 1994 onwards but still the appellant raised t...

Reliance Estate Agency Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR166

1. After hearing Shri Sadhu Ram, ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri S. Bhatnagar, ld. JDR for the Revenue, I find that the appellants have deposited the entire amount of service tax along with interest.The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the pre-deposit condition of penalty amount of Rs. 3,04,020/- imposed under Section 76 and Rs. 7,000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants are registered with the Central Excise authorities for payment of service tax from 16-10-98. However, during the period 19-2-2003, the service tax, though collected by them from their customers was not deposited with the Central Excise authorities in time. The delay in deposit of the tax is ranging from 3 months to 6 months. The explanation tendered by the ld. Consultant is that the appellants had to maintain a lavish office and was to incur a lot of expenses for maintaining their status for which purposes, the amount collected by them was utilized.2. Shri S. B...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shital International

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC548

1. In this appeal, the challenge has been made by the Revenue to the order-in-original dated 30-7-2003 vide which the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar has dropped the duty demand against the respondents.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Knitted Fabric of Man-made Textile Material, Long Pile fabric falling under Chapter 60 (subheading 6001.12 of CETA, 1985); Knitted Hosiery Cloth of Cotton falling under sub-heading 6002.92 and Hosiery goods (Articles of Apparels knitted or crocheted all sorts) falling under sub-heading 6101 of Chapter 60 of CETA. They filed declaration under Rule 173B of the Rules wherein they gave the details of these products. They also disclosed in their declaration that they would be using acrylic fibre, cotton/polyester thread, dyes and chemicals to manufacture piled knitted fabric and detailed the various processes to be undertaken for the production of the goods.3. Proceedings were initiated against the respondents through a show caus...

Super Plateck Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT561TriDel

1. M/s. Super Plateck Pvt. Ltd. has filed this Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 48/2004 dated 28-1-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has disallowed the benefit of Notification No. 9/2000-C.E.dated 1-3-2000 on the ground that they had failed to exercise their options in writing to avail the benefit of this Notification as prescribed under Para 2(i) of the Notification.2. Shri J. Bansal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants who manufacture HDPE pipes had filed declaration under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 wherein they had specifically claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 9/2000-C.E.; that it has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Simeon Engineers v. CCE [2002 (144) E.L.T. 446] that filing of declaration under Rule 173B would suffice the condition of filing declaration for availing benefit of S.S.I.exemption.3. Countering the arguments Shri H.C. Verma, learned Departmental Representative submitted that during the period from April to...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gupta Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT403TriDel

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by Revenue is whether it is open to a manufacturer of excisable goods to avail the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 or not.2. Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the respondents M/s. Gupta Engineers manufacture aluminium enamel winding wire which is eligible for exemption up to first clearance of Rs. 30 lakhs under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.; that as they had availed Modvat credit, a show cause notice was issued to them for disallowing the availment of Modvat credit; that the Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 37/2003, dated 19-8-2003 vacated the show cause notice holding that the respondents had option to avail or not to avail the benefit of exemption Notification and they had made their intention known to the Department by filing a classification list with effect from 1-3-1993 wherein they had opted to pay the duty at the tariff rate; that on Appeal the Commissioner...

Oriental Science Apparatus Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT97TriDel

1. In this appeal, which has been preferred against the impugned order in appeal, the issue relates to the classification of goods known as Moisture Testing Machines. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of these machines and has sought classification under Chapter heading 8437.00 of the CETA chargeable to nil rate of duty whereas the Revenue has propounded classification under heading 9031.00.2. The adjudicating authority accepted the classification as put forth by the appellants vide order in original dated 14.5.02 but the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed that order through the impugned order by accepting Revenue's classification under heading 9031 of the CETA.3. The learned Counsel has contended that the goods inter-alia, Moisture Testing Machines manufactured by the appellants are solely meant for testing moisture contents of food grains like wheat, rice, paddy, maize, etc. and are used mainly in the milling industry and as such, merit classification under chapter head...

Cce Vs. Royal Processors (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC240

1. This is Revenue's appeal against the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had set aside the penalty amount of Rs. 31,000 imposed upon the respondents.2. I have heard Ld. JDR, Shri Randhir Singh for the Revenue/appellants and the respondents are absent.3. The respondents are engaged in the processing of fabrics and sent one cheque dated 30.9.97 for an amount of Rs. 30,100 to the Chief Accounts Officer, Chandigarh in terms of the provisions of Trade Notice No. 6-CE/84 (4-MISC) dated 22.4.84. After sending the cheque, they made clearances against the same. However, the said cheque was not accepted by the Chief Accounts Officer on the ground that the terms of the Trade Notice does not permit the respondents to avail the facility and the same was returned back to the respondents through their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. In the meanwhile, the respondents had cleared the goods. However, on receipt of the cheque, they deposited the duty amount for the goods cleared ...

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Silicon Graphics Systems India

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)92TTJ(Delhi)297

1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A) on various grounds which are as under : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,56,44,707 being customs duty included in closing stock valuation and disallowed under Section 43B of the IT Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing Rs. 5,08,416 being expenditure on articles for which the assessee has not discharged its onus of providing primary facts and evidence. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee-company was eligible for deduction under Section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961, and not following the order of CIT(A)-VII, New Delhi, in appeal No. 176/1997-98, dt. 3rd March, 1994, for asst. yr. 1994-95 on the same issue. 4. The order of the AO may be restored and the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside with respect to the abovementione...