Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments

Asghar Ali Khan, Advocate Vs. Delhi Wakf Board and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT512; 2004(75)DRJ381; 2004(3)SLJ383(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. petitioner was an employee of the Delhi Wakf Board. He was functioning as the Chief Legal Officer. His service conditions were regulated by the Delhi Wakf Board Regulations, 1963. Age of superannuation being 60 years, having attained the age of 60 years on 20.10.1995 petitioner stood superannuated.On 28.10.1995 a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner. Petitionerrepresented against the charge-sheet issued to him, inter alias pointing out that therewas no provision in the regulations to hold a disciplinary proceeding against himas he had superannuated. Petitioner stated that under the regulations there was noprovision of levying penalty on an employee who had superannuated from service.Petitioner pointed out that the penalties which could be inflicted were the onesspecified under Regulation 63, Penalties specified under Regulation 63 showed thatsame could be inflicted on a serving employee.3. The Wakf Board did not accede to the request of the petitioner ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bahami Prints Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]273ITR431(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. These two references are at the instance of the Revenue. The question raised being common in both the cases, the references arc being disposed of by this common judgment and/or order. In I. T. R. No. 379 of 1984, the question framed is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 40(c) and not Section 40A(5) are applicable to the director employees and on that ground deleting the disallowance of perquisites provided by the assessed-company to its directors in excess of the limits permitted in Section 40A(5) ?' 2. Income-tax Reference No. 363 of 1984 also raises the same question. We are not required to deal with these matters in detail since the issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Engineering and Commercial Corporation P. Ltd. : [1993]201ITR723(SC) , wherein the Supreme Court, while dismissing the Department's appeal, held...

Cit Vs. Bahami Prints (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN348(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, CJ. These two references are at the instance of the revenue. The question raised being common in both the cases, the references are being disposed of by this common judgment and/or order. In IT Reference No. 379 of 1984, the question framed is as under:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the provisions of section 40(c) and not section 40A(5) are applicable to the director employees and on that ground deleting the disallowance of perquisites provided by the assessed company to its directors in excess of the limits permitted in section 40A)?'2. IT Reference No. 363 of 1984 also raises the same question. We are not required to deal with these matters in detail since the issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Engg. & Commercial Corpn. (P) Ltd. : [1993]201ITR723(SC) , wherein the Supreme Court, while dismissing the department's appeal, held as under:-'The employees...

U.K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC144

1. These six appeals are directed against a common Order-in-Appeal No.400-405/CE/DLH/02 dated 11.7.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi. Hence, these are heard together.3. The appeals relate to rejection of refund claims of the appellant.From the records we note that the 6 claims detailed herein under, were filed under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Central Excise Rules).------------------------------------------------------------------------Sr. No Amount of refund Period of refund claim, Remarks claimed (Rs.) & Date of Quarter Ending (Q.E) filing------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) (2) (3) (4)1. 8,09,392.56 Dt. 11.5.90 Dec. 1989 Rejected vide A.Q. No.2. 40,37,536.16 dt. 26.7.90 March 1990 Rejected vide A.O. No.3. 10,63,599.73 dt. 24.4.91 December 1990 Rejected vide A.O No.4. 20,12,954.04 dt. 30.8.91 March 1991 Rejected vide A.O. No.5. 8,78,867.53 dt. 15.10.1991 June 1991 Rejected vide A.O. No.6.14,...

Manu Tiling Company P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT183TriDel

1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original passed by the Joint Commissioner confirming the customs duty along with the redemption fine and penalty, as detailed therein.2. The learned counsel has contended that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the direction given by the Tribunal in its earlier remand order dated 19.4.2002. According to the learned counsel, in the said remand order, the Tribunal had directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter on merits in accordance with the principles of law and natural justice and having regard to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Vishal Footwear Ltd. vs CCE, New Delhi, 1999 (114) ELT 60. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has not followed this direction and decided the matter against the appellants by observing that the Board's Circular dated 6.8.1997 is binding on him, though in para 3 of the impugned ...

Pankaj Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT228TriDel

1. Pankaj Steel Corporation, proprietary concern of one Smt. Usha B.Agarwal, is the appellant in this appeal. It is trading in waste and scrap of iron and steel. In November, 1999, the appellant purchased in public auction about 860 MTs of waste and scrap valued at about Rs. 60 lakhs from the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC, for short).After the sale of the waste and scrap to the appellant, ONGC by letter dated 24-11-99 amended the release order incorporating therein clauses relating to payment of excise duty on the scrap. ONGC insisted that the appellant should fulfil all the conditions before taking delivery of the material. The appellant took the stand that no excise duty was leviable on the waste and scrap, whereupon ONGC directed the appellant to execute a bond to indemnify them against any demand of excise duty that might be raised by the department. A bank guarantee for Rs. 8 lakhs was accordingly furnished by the appellant in favour of ONGC and the same was amende...

ivrcl Infrastructures and Vs. Cc (Sea)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC297

1. The appellants filed Bill of Entry (for home consumption) No. 369413 dated 28.12.2001 through CHA for clearance of imported goods from Germany declared as HOT MIX PLANT BATCH TYPE WITH ELECTRONIC CONTROLS AND BAG TYRE FILTER ARRANGEMENT 160 TONS PER HOUR CAPACITY valued at DM 550,000/-. Clearance was sought under Customs Tariff Heading 8474.80 at 'nil' rate under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. Dated 1.3.2001. The notification vide Serial No. 217 thereof granted full exemption from basis customs duty and additional customs duty, to goods of Chapter 84 specified in List-II, required for construction of roads. The first among the 21 items specified in List-II under the Notification was "Hot Mix plant batch type with electronic controls and bag type filter arrangements, more than 120 Tons per hour capacity." The exemption, allowed to the goods specified in the list, was subject to Condition No. 38 stipulated in the Notification. This condition reads : (ii) a person who has been awarded ...

Rama Shyama Papers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC86

1. These three appeals, arising out of a common order-in-original No.4/Commissioner/LKO/2002 by M/s. Rama Shyama Papers Ltd. and two others against the confirmation of demand of duty in respect of uncoated craft paper and imposition of penalty.2.1 Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Rama Shyama Papers Ltd., Appellant No. 1 manufacture uncoated craft paper; that the Central Excise officers searched their factory premises on 22-6-2001 and seized 39.681 MT of goods alleged to have been found in excess of the book balance; that the Officers also resumed certain records from the factory premises besides recording the statement of Shri Puneet Agarwal, Managing Director, statements of the driver and cleaner of Truck No. HR-29 D/1541 being loaded therein, statements of Shri Manoj Sharma, Authorised Signatory and casual workers; that the Officers also conducted search in the factory premises of M/s. Chitra Traders, Delhi on 24-6-2001 and resumed cash book and ledger besides ...

Sidwal Refrigeration Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellants filed these appeals against the Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (appeals).3. The issue involved in these appeal is whether the appellants were justified in paying central excise duty at tariff rate and clearing its products under MRP claimed under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act when the good were supplied to various Government departments against DGS & D approved rate contract. The Revenue is demanding duty on the basis of the assessment made under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.4. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Purisons Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-II, reported in 2003-TAXINDIAONLINE-223-CESTAT-DEL. In this case, the Tribunal held as under : "5. We find merit in the contention raised by the appellant. If the nature of the transaction between the appellant and DGS & D is properly understood, then there cannot be any doubt regarding applicability of Section 4A on the facts of this case....

Cce Vs. Arora Iron and Steel Rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC695

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the applicability of the provisions of Rule 173-Q to the goods found in excess in the factory premises of the respondents.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of steel re-rolled product, the excisable goods. On 12.2.2001, 33.745 MT of Steel Ingots was found lying excess in the factory premises than what was recorded in their statutory record. The adjudicating authority through the Order-in-Original ordered the confiscation of these excess goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 35,000 besides penalty of this much amount under Rule 173-Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed that order by observing that these excess goods were not manufactured by the respondents, but were received by them from M/s Arora Alloys Ltd. who should have been served with a show cause notice an...