Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments

Ms. Monica Jawa Vs. Director of Education

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT139; 2004(73)DRJ349; 2004(3)SLJ257(Delhi)

Radeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner is an employee of respondent no.2. She was appointed as a primary teacher. Respondent no. 2 school is a recognized school under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and, thereforee, provisions of the said Act and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 apply to the school. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission which were adopted in the year 1997 by the Government of NCT of Delhi, wage revision was effected for the teachers teaching in government schools. In terms of Section 10 of the Act, the scales of pay of teachers employed under recognized private schools cannot be less than those of the employees of the corresponding scales in schools run by the appropriate authority i.e. Government of NCT of Delhi. With the adoption of said pay scales in the government schools, respondent no.2 school became obliged to revise the pay scale of the petitioner by giving to her the replacement scales as per...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Chand Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Del)76

1. In these matters, proxy counsel for the respondent is asking for time on the ground that the advocate is in personal difficulty. Normally, we would have granted time but we have heard arguments in other connected matters (ITA 265 of 2003 and 266 of 2003) wherein the same question of law arises. Those matters have already been admitted and the question has been framed. thereforee, we see no reason to adjourn these matters.Accordingly, the appeals are admitted.2. In the opinion of the Court following question is required to be determined:'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that amount retained under Section 132(5) of the IT Act, 1961, amounts to payment of taxes and should be taken into consideration while calculating interest payable under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961?'3. The paper books be filed by the appellants within three months. It would be open to the appellants to file computer printed copies of the paper book.4. These appeals be heard along with ITA...

K.S. Hazooria Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Del)74

1. For the asst. yr. 1990-91, the application for waiver of interest charged under Sections 234B and 234C of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), was made which was rejected on 15th May, 2001, against which a rectification application was filed under Section 154 of the Act, This has also been rejected on 29th July, 2003. Against the aforesaid order, the present writ petition is filed.2. It is required to be noted that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a writ petition bearing No. 4195 of 2000. The Division Bench after hearing the matter, disposed of the writ petition with the direction that the CIT shall reconsider the matter in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. : [2001]247ITR209(SC) and the CIT shall undertake the exercise within three months from today. As mentioned above, after the aforesaid order, the petitioner's application has been rejected by an order dt. 29th July, 2003, against which the...

Rama Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC139

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Rama Industries Ltd. is whether they are liable to pay an amount equal to 8% of the price of exempted product Calphor emerging during the process of manufacture of their final produce gelatin.2. Shri Joy Kumar, Learned Advocate, that the Appellants are primarily engaged in the manufacture of gelatin; that during the course of manufacture of gelatin at the very first stage, a mother liquor emerges as a waste product while washing bones with caustic soda, zinc flux and HCL; that by treating said mother liquor with lime, the by-product namely Calphor (di calcium phosphate) emerges which attracts nil rate of duty mentioned in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff itself (Heading No. 23.02); that the Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 94/DC/Offence/2002 dated 31.12.01 has confirmed the demand under Rule 57 CC/57 AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and imposed penalty on the ground that the inputs have been used in the man...

R.B.N.S. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT327TriDel

1. In this case, a demand of Rs. 89,310/- has been confirmed against the appellants in respect of shortage of molasses for the period December, 1999 to January, 2001. Penalties of Rs. 89,310/- and Rs. 25,000/- have also been imposed on the party under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q respectively.2. Heard both the sides. The Counsel for the appellants submits that the demand is in respect of a quantity of molasses lost due to natural causes, for which an application for remission of duty was submitted to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise. No order of the Commissioner on the remission application has been received so far. The Counsel refers to a letter dated 22-10-2001 issued by the Superintendent of the Central Excise Range, wherein it was communicated that the remission application had been rejected by the Commissioner.The Superintendent's letter, further, called upon the party to deposit the duty in respect of the lost quantity (1,786.20 Qtls.) of molasses.In reply to the ...

Mark Auto Industries Ltd., Maruti Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC36

1. These are six appeals filed by M/s. Krishna Maruti Ltd. and others, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No. 37 to 41 /2002 dated 18.12.2003 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise, confirming the demand of Cenvat Credit and imposing penalties.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. imported the components from abroad for their new model vehicles Wagon-R and Balcno; that the components for the vehicles imported by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUL in short) were assessed to Customs duty and Additional duty under Heading 87.03 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as complete vehicle applying Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules and Public Notice issued by Ministry of Commerce; that MUL took Cenvat Credit of the Additional Customs duty paid on the components after receipt into their factory; that the imported components were thereafter sent to the various vendors, who are Appellants in the present proceedings, for manufacture, a...

Pashupati Acrylics Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denied of modvat credit of the disputed amount to the respondents on the original invoice.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the modvat credit on the original invoice on the ground that the loss of the duplicate copy of the invoice stands proved. He has followed the ratio of law laid down in Bharat Roll Industry P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Calcutta II 1999 (114) ELT 51.He has also relied upon the ratio of law in CCE, New Delhi Vs. Avis Electronics (P) Ltd. 2000 (117) ELT 571 wherein it has ben observed that the loss of the duplicate copy of the invoice before submitting the same to the Department would entitled the assessee to claim the modvat credit on the original. No contrary judgment has been brought to my notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) in my view by following the ratio of law laid down in the above referred cases had rightly allowed credit on the original invoice t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Aarti Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT45TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit to the respondents on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of alloy and non-alloy steel wires.2. The Revenue has sought to deny the Modvat credit on the ground that non-alloy steel wires were cleared by the respondents under CT-2 certificates to the cycle tyre manufacturer who exported the tyres under the bond at nil rate of duty. But on this very ground the credit for the earlier period was also sought to be denied to the respondents by the Department, and the same was not accepted by the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. A/58/2001/NB, dated 12-1-2001. The validity of that order was challenged by the Department by moving a reference application before the Hon'ble High Court. But the said application was rejected. Thereafter the Department approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (CC 8533). But the same had been also rejected. The learned Counsel has placed o...

Cce Vs. Basti Sugar Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal of the Revenue, the only grievance of the appellant is that the adjudicating authority did not levy interest under Section 11-AB of the Act on the amount of duty confirmed against the assessee.This grievance cannot be sustained inasmuch as any demand of interest under Section 11-AB had not been raised in the show-cause notice issued to the assessee. The show-cause notice did contain a proposal to charge interest on duty under Section 11-AC. The DR submits that this was a mistake and that the correct provision should have been Section 11-AB.It is, however, conceded that no corrigendum was issued by the department to correct the mistake. I have heard the Counsel for the respondents also.2. As Section 11-AB was not invoked in the show-cause notice, the appellant's prayer for levy of interest on the duty confirmed against the assessee cannot be allowed. The appeal is rejected....

Nav Bharat Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT292TriDel

1. In this appeal the appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned order-in-original vide which penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q has been imposed while rejecting the prayer of the appellants for paying the duty under the compounded levy scheme.2. The learned Counsel has contended that even if the appellants are taken to be not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 16/01 and are not covered by the compounded levy scheme, for discharge of duty, still no penalty under Rule 173Q could be imposed as the appellants had already paid excess duty and even claimed refund of the same in the reply to the show cause notice. He has also contended that the plea taken up by the appellants in the show cause notice had not even been considered. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. On the other hand the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.3. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the...