Delhi Court November 2004 Judgments

Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT272TriDel

1. One Shri R.S. Pandey, claiming himself to be the Excise Officer of the appellants' company, has come present. But the authority letter carried by him is not a valid one. He has stated that he has been authorised by the Executive Vice-President (Finance) and produced the authority letter. But the said letter does not carry any stamp of the company or any reference of a resolution under which the authority was given to the Executive Vice-President (Finance) to further delegate the power to him. Therefore, the authority given to Shri R.S. Pandey cannot be said to be a valid one in the eyes of law. Today the appeal is posted for admission.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the Modvat credit of Rs. 6,324/- has been denied to the appellants as they wrongly availed the same on 'Pacmaan' as capital goods. The 'Pacmaan' has been used by the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of sugar for tightening the joints of the pipes....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. N.M. Nagpal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT204TriDel

1. In this appeal, the controversy centres round the question, as to whether the respondents are legally entitled to claim the interest on the refund of the pre-deposit amount.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the interest by following an earlier order dated 22-1-2002 passed by another Commissioner (Appeals) in another case and which, according to him, was also affirmed by the Tribunal vide Final Order, dated 7-11-2002.3. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents made pre-deposit of Rs. 4 lakhs in compliance with the Tribunal's stay order dated 14-3-2000. This deposit was made by them in the appeal wherein they challenged the order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the duty and penalty on them. The Tribunal thereafter vide final order dated 20-9-2000 accepted the appeal of the respondents and set aside the order under appeal. The respondents thereafter filed refund claim seeking refund of the pre-de...

Indian Potash Ltd. Vs. Potash Research Inst. of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi226; 115(2004)DLT367

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2004 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Suit No. 310/2003 whereby the learned Judge has declined to appoint a Receiver, on an application moved by the appellant under Section 40 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned Judge are as under :''That the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and mandatory and permanent injunction. In the suit the plaintiff has prayed for declaration to the effect that purported appointment of defendant No. 2 as life time chairman of the company is illegal contrary to the provisions of memorandum and articles of the society and thus, the same is void and inoperative. The plaintiff has also prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to place before the general body meeting, the general accounts and financial results of the institute for the last three years. A decree of permane...

Shanti Fragrances Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT410; [2006]144STC529(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The petitioner, by filing this petition, has challenged the insertion of Entry No. 46 'Pan Masala and Gutka' by notification dated 31.3.2000 in the First Schedule of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The incidence and levy of sales tax is provided in Chapter II of the Act. The rate of tax is provided in Section 4 of the Act and in view of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, the tax can be levied in respect of the goods specified in the First Schedule, at the rate of twelve paise in a rupee. Tax free goods are specified in Section 7 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act reads as under:'(1) No tax shall be payable under this Acton the sale of goods specified in the Third Schedule subject to the conditions and exceptions, if any, set out therein.'Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act reads as under:'(2) The Lieutenant Governor may, by notification in the Official Gazette, add to, or omit from, or otherwise amend, the Third S...

indsao Contracts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manu Creations Pvt. Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR85(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application under Section 11(3) read with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. The process server report dated 23rd October, 2004 shows that there is refusal to receive the service by the respondent. Accordingly, the service is deemed to be complete. There is no appearance for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred in this application that clause 20 of the agreement between the parties provided for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration, which reads as follows:'20. Arbitration.A. In the event of any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever, arising out of the contract or the execution of the works, the same shall be referred to the award of two arbitrators, one a to be appointed by the owners and the other by the contractor. The arbitrators shall appoint an umpire in the event of a deadlock. The decision of the arbitrators or in the event of their not reaching an agreeme...

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Karuna Sharma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The respondents husband was holding life insurance policy when he met with an accident on 5.3.1994 and died on 11.3.1994. As per Clause 10 of the policy he claimed double accident benefit. The appellant repudiated the claim of double accident benefit on the ground that when he met with an accident, he was under the influence of liquor. However, this plea did not find favour with the District Forum before which, the respondent had filed complaint seeking double accident benefit. The complaint was allowed by impugned order dated 8.12.2000. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. Relevant extracts of Clause 10 are as under: (b) Death of the life assured: to pay an additional sum equal to the sum assured under this policy if the life assured shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward, violent and visible means and such injury shall within 90 days of its occurrence solely, directl...

Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT297TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby a refund claim of Rs. 2,87,374/- is credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the appellant failed to discharge the onus that burden of duty has not been passed on to the customers.2. The contention of the appellant is that in this case the Revenue raised the objection that notional interest in respect of the advance received from the customers is to be added to the assessable value of the goods cleared by the appellant. On this objection the appellant on 8-1-1997 debited the amount in question. Thereafter a SCN was issued for the year 1993-1994 to 31-3-1996 for demanding duty. The adjudicating authority confirming the demand and on appeal filed by the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal. In pursuance to order-in-appeal, the appellant filed the refund claim. The contention of the appellant is that as the amount in question is debited on 8-1-1997 i.e. subsequent ...

Ansun System Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT511TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against adjudication Order No.KOL/CUS/PORT/25/2004, dated 29-3-2004, of the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs (Port) confiscated the goods covered by 14 Bills of Entry filed by the appellants. The appellants had declared the goods as "Silicon Electrical Steel Strip Scrap". The Commissioner has held, based on experts' opinion, that the goods in question were actually defective Silicon electrical steel and not scrap of silicon electrical steel strips. Accordingly, the goods have been confiscated for mis-declaration. The value of the goods have also been enhanced for the purpose of assessment to customs duty.2. The contention raised by the appellants is that the finding of the Commissioner is not sustainable at all inasmuch as the experts' opinion did not relate to the consignment imported by the appellants. It is being pointed out that the samples were drawn from imports of other importers and the ex...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Softalk Lakhotia Infocom (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR24

1. Common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, they are taken up together.2. The revenue filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The only objection of the revenue in these appeals is that the penalty was reduced in contrary to the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. In these cases the only contention of the revenue is that Commissioner (Appeals) without any reason reduced the penalty imposed on the respondent as respondent paid Service tax late along with interest.4. The Revenue is relying upon the provisions of Section 75 of the Act whereas Section 80 of the Act provides that no penalty is imposable in case the assessee explains the reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed....

Samtex Fashions Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)92ITD535(Delhi)

1. These cross-appeals are directed against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 19th Aug., 2003, asst. yr. 2000-2001. We find it convenient to dispose of both these appeals by this combined order. The assessee is aggrieved against the denial of deduction under Section 10A of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), in respect of income from sale of export quota.In the alternative, it is claimed by the assessee that deduction under Section 80HHC should have been allowed on the income arising from the sale of export quota. The Department in its appeal has raised the ground against allowance of deduction under Section 10A on interest earned from margin money.2. The assessee-company manufactures readymade garments and is 100 per cent export oriented unit located in Noida Export Processing Zone (NEPZ), Noida. The assessee had claimed deduction under Section 10A of the Act on its entire income including miscellaneous income comprising of following items :(i) Interest on margin money deposited with bank...