Delhi Court November 2004 Judgments

Shri Ashok Kuwar Aggarwal Vs. Director (Grievances Cell) Cbdt and ors

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN693(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.The petitioner has approached this court by filing a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying that the respondents be directed to pay interest on Rs. 6,49,250 from 25.10,1985 to 9-4-1990 which is the date of refund of the amount at the rate of 15% per annum, and further interest on the above amount of Rs. 6,49,210 at the rate of 15% from 9-4-1990 till the date of payment.2. The assessed was searched at Bombay Airport and on his person a sum of Rs. 9,80,000 was found, and seized by the Income-tax authorities on 4-4-1984. In view of this seizure and the provisions contained in section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act), an order was made under section 132(5) of the Act on 4-7-1984. The order could have been challenged by the petitioner under sub-section (11) of section 132 of the Act. However, the order was accepted and no challenge was made thereto. It appears that on 25-10-1985 the assessing o...

Bank of Baroda Vs. L.D. Saraogi and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is a banker with whom the respondent has an account. For wrongfully dishonouring of the cheque issued by the respondent towards payment of a bill of the cellular telephone provided by respondent No. 2 company M/s. Sterling Cellular Ltd., the appellant has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and loss of goodwill and reputation besides a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards of litigation vide order dated 20.10.2001 passed by the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved it has preferred this appeal. While accepting the contention of the respondent No. 1 that he had been making payments towards telephone bills regularly and the bouncing of the cheque has caused immense mental agony and loss of goodwill and reputation the District Forum has penalised the appellant whereas the respondent No. 2 viz., telephone company has been absolved from its liability of having disconnected the telephone without giving prior notice in view of the payme...

B.D. Mehndiratta Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Out of the claim of Rs. 1,23,622/- preferred by the claimant against the Mediclaim policy issued by the respondent the appellant has already been paid Rs. 53,000/-. However, his claim of Rs. 63,300/- towards the cost of a device known as C-PAP ventilator support advised by the doctors was declined by the District Forum vide impugned order dated 10.12.2001 on the ground that such a claim is barred by condition No. 3.2 of the insurance policy. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Clause 3.2 pertains to post-hospitalisation expenses and is as under: 3.2. Post-Hospitalisation Relevant medical expenses incurred during period upto 60 days after hospitalisation on disease/illness/injury sustained will be considered as part of claim as mentioned under item 1.00 above. 3. The claim of the appellant in this regard repudiated by the respondent on the basis of the report of a panel doctor of the respondent to the effect that claim in respect of C...

D.P. Bansal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC582

1. The appellants are a registered dealer for issuing invoices for duty-paid goods purchased by them under the invoices issued either by the manufacturer or by other dealers. The Central Excise officers on 10/11-5-1996 verified the stock of various goods in their registered premises and found the excess stock of 112.14 MT of M.S. Rounds and M.S. Angle and Joist, which was seized for violation of Rule 57GG of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The officers also found shortages in the stock of some other goods. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for recovery of central excise duty of Rs. 1,48/435.86 on 114.562 MT of M.S. Channels, M.S. Bars, M.S. Flats and M.S. Plates found short and for confiscation of the excess stock besides imposition of penalty. The Dy. Commissioner adjudicated the show cause notice holding the excess stock liable for confiscation and ordering a fine of Rs. 5 Lakhs in lieu of confiscation and appropriated Rs. 10,000/- from the security furnished for provisiona...

A.C.C. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC622

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case benefit of Modvat credit was denied to the appellant in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final product. The contention of the appellant is that HOPE bags were made eligible for Modvat credit w.e.f.16.3.95 and appellant filed their declaration on 23.3.95 under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules and thereafter on 4.1.96, they filed an application under Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules for taking credit in respect of inputs lying in stock and used in the final product. The contention is that the credit was disallowed on the ground that the goods were not available for verification. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Guilt Pack Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector, 1994 (45) ECC 59 (MP) : 1994 (69) ELT 222.2. The contention of the Revenue is that as they have filed the declaration late, therefore, purpo...

J.B. Fashions Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT99TriDel

1. The appellant filed these appeals against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case benefit of Modvat credit in respect of Partially Oriented Yarn is denied to the appellant on the ground that it is used in the manufacture of Texturised Yarn and the appellants were treated as an independent texturiser. The contention of the appellant is that they were getting Partially Oriented Yarn and sending the same to various job workers for the manufacture of texturised yarn and on receipt of the texturised yarn, the same is used in the manufacture of Zipper Rolls which were cleared on payment of duty. The contention is that Revenue is treated the appellant as an independent texturiser and denying the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the Partially Oriented Yarn. The submission of the appellant is that texturised yarn is not cleared as such but the same is used in the Zipper Rolls, therefore, there is no bar for taking credit in respect of Partially Orient...

Nikhil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT321TriDel

1. M/s. Nikhil Industries Pvt. Ltd. have come in appeal against Order-in-Original No. 15/2003 dated 21-2-2003 by which the Commissioner has confirmed demand of Customs duty as well as Central Excise duty on the goods imported/procured indigenously without payment of duty and has also imposed penalty.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants were granted letter of permission for setting a 100% Exported-Oriented Undertaking for the manufacture and export of TPR granules on 8-2-1996; that the project was commissioned on 27-1-1998 when the commercial production started; that they had imported raw material weighing, 96.6 M.T. without payment of Customs duty; that in addition they had acquired capital goods valued at Rs. 44,70,700/- from indigenous source without payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No.1/95-C.E.; that due to poor international market they could not compete; that out of the raw material imported by them, 54.80 M.T. raw material had been...

Mool Chand Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC362

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby penalty is imposed, equal to the amount of duty, as the appellant paid duty with interest subsequent to the date of payment. The contention of the appellant is that duty alongwith interest has been paid, therefore, they are only asking for reduction of penalty. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals, 1998 (99) ELT 33 and in the case of Ambuja Synthetics Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2002 (50) RLT 133 and in the case of Beauty Dyers v. Union of India, 2004 (163) ELT 28. The contention is that Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Beauty Dyers (supra) as well as in the case of Ambuja Synthetics Mills Ltd. & Anr. (supra) following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v.BHEL held that the ...

Cce Vs. Fertichem (inida)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT571TriDel

1. The respondents are manufacturer of unwrought zinc. falling under Chapter 79 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Central Excise officers visited the factory of the respondents on 26.4.2000 and conducted physical verification of stock of finished goods and raw materials. During checking of the records, they came across with 4 outward gate passed in loose from in the office of the respondents for unwrought zinc ash and zinc ash which were not accounted for in the production and clearance records of respondents.Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the respondents demanding duty on the goods specified in the four outward gate passes and proposing penalty. On adjudication, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,42,712/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the said Act. On appeal by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of original authority.2. Now ...

Anil Kumar Gupta and anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC253

1. The respondent-Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-bank") filed O. A. No. 363 of 2000 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT"), against the appellants (defendants Nos. 2 and 1, respectively, in the O. A., and hereinafter referred to as "the appellants-defendants") and Mr. Satya Prakash Goel. The learned presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal passed the final order dated October 21, 2002, for the recovery of Rs. 10,51,706 with interest and costs from defendants Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. The appellants-defendants filed a miscellaneous application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal to set aside the order setting them ex parte on June 25, 2001, and the ex parte final order dated October 21, 2002. They also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for excusing the delay, if any, in filing the above said application. The learned presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, by the i...