Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments

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....

inchcape India Private Limited Vs. Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The only issue arising in this appeal relates to levy of penalty of Rs. 1,87,57,142/- u/s 271(1)(c).2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee Mr. Dinodia has challenged the validity of the penalty proceedings by contending that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO as contemplated u/s 271(1)(c).It has been contended by him that even there is no whisper in the entire assessment order which may reveal that the AO was satisfied to the effect that the assessee had concealed any particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, in the absence of such satisfaction, the entire penalty proceedings was void ab initio in view of the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., (2003-TAXINDIAONLINE-69-HC-DEL-IT) 246 ITR 568. On other hand, the learned DR has relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Jeevan Lal Sah, (2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-189-SC-IT) 205 ITR 244 and in the case of B.A.Balasubramania...

Lalsons Enterprises Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)89ITD25(Delhi)

1. The following question have been referred to the Special Bench by the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal Under Sec. 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 : (i) "Whether the negative profit (loss) from the business or export computed in accordance with clause (a), (b) or (c) or sub section (3) of section 80-HHC of the Income-tax Act should be ignored or it should be adjusted/set off against export profits computed under any of the aforesaid clauses for the purpose of computing deductions under section 80 HHC(1) of the Income-tax Act ?" (ii) "Whether the proviso to section 80-HHC(3) can be applied in a case where the export profit computed as per clause (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (3) or aggregate hereof is a negative profit (loss) and if so whether the said negative profit (loss) has to be adjusted/set off against the amount of deduction allowable under the proviso to section 80-HHC(3) or the loss computed under all or any of the clauses (a), (b) or (c) of section 80-HHC(3) has to be...

Jitender Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. J.K. Horticultural Produce Marketing ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT193; 2004(73)DRJ465

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 1st February, 2002 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller whereby petitioner's eviction petition on the ground of bonfire requirement of the tenanted premises as contemplated by Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 2. The case of the petitioners is that their mother Ms.Janak Nandini Jain who was the absolute owner of the suit premises died leaving behind the Will dated 24.8.1974 bequeathing the suit premises which are situated on the ground floor in their favor while the first floor premises was in favor of their sister. Admittedly, the petitioners also own premises in Greater Kailash Part-I, which comprises of one drawing-cum-dining room, three bed rooms. The family of the petitioners consists of petitioner no 1, his wife, married son and unmarried daughter whereas the family of the other brother who has since expired consists of his wife, two married daughter and one married son. Admi...

Bachraj Bengani @ B.R. JaIn Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004CriLJ2204; 110(2004)DLT233; 2004(73)DRJ399

D.K. Jain, J.Rule D.B.1. In this appeal filed under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (for short 'POTA') the short question for consideration is whether an appeal under the said Section is maintainable against an order framing charge in a trial conducted according to the procedure prescribed under the POTA 2. In view of the fact that the issue involved for determination is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to narrate the facts in detail or to go into the evidence, on consideration whereof the learned Designated Court, New Delhi has found it to be a fit case for framing of charge against the petitioner. To appreciate the background in which the aforesaid controversy has arisen, a brief reference to the facts would suffice. These are as under: Information was received from central intelligence agencies some time in June 2002 that a Pak based terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Toiba had planned to conduct terrorist activities in India . As per the information, one milit...

Abdul Khaliq Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004CriLJ1991; 110(2004)DLT205; 2004(73)DRJ392; 2004(93)ECC308

D.K. Jain, J.RULE D.B.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner challenges his detention on 18 March 2003, pursuant to the order passed on 22 November 2002 by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'the detaining authority'), in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the COFEPOSA Act').2. The order of detention is based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future.3. According to the grounds of detention, which are in the narrative form, on 23 August 2002, one Masood Pracha, along with three passengers, namely, Abdul Khaliq-petitioner herein, Afzal Mohd. Khan and Mohd. Haroon Khan arrived at the IGI Airport, New Delhi to catch a flight boun...

industrial Medical Engineers and ors. Vs. Anil Nijhawan and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT581; 2004(75)DRJ393

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In the present case the Plaintiff has filed a Suit for the recovery of money under Order xxxvII of the CPC. On 16.10.2000 the learned Trial Court had arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioners, namely, M/s. Industrial Medical Engineers, Shri S.P. Bhargava and Shri Vikas Bhargava had been duly served. It was observed that Defendants No.1 and 2 had been served by means of Registered Post Acknowledgment Due on 22.9.2000, while the notices issued to Defendant No.3 had been returned back with the Report of the Postal Authorities that it had been ''Refused''. Defendants No.4 and 5 have been deleted from the array of the parties. However, since Defendants No.1 to 3 had not 'entered appearance', a Decree was passed against these persons. At the time of earning, learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff had conceded that since Shri Vikas Bhargava was/is not a partner in the firm, the Decree against this person would not be proper. He, thereforee, has prayed that Shri...

Jagriti Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT442TriDel

In these 5 appeals filed by M/s. Jagriti Industries & others arising out of common Order-in-Original No. 1/90, dated 12-2-90 the issue involved is whether the goods manufactured by M/s. Jagriti Industries are machine parts as found by the Collector in the impugned Order or castings.2. Shri R. Sudhinder, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant firm manufactures Cast Iron Castings, Cast Iron Pipes and Ferrous and Non-ferrous machine parts, etc.; that for the manufacture of Cast Iron Castings they procure duty paid pig iron/iron scrap which is melted in a furnace and the molten metal is poured in a sand mould and is allowed to cool for about 12 hrs. and then removed from the mould after it has acquired the shape of the pattern; that such machine castings are sold by weight; that machine parts are those parts which are manufactured out of castings which are subjected to the process of machining and drilling to make them suitable for use solely and exclusively in a particular ma...

Kanchan Processors (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT542TriDel

1. M/s. Kanchan Processors (p) Ltd. have filed the present appeal against imposition of penalty of Rs. 12.5 lakhs under Rule 96ZQ(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the processing man-made fabrics which were liable to Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise act during the relevant time ; that as per the provision of law the duty was to be paid on 31.8.2000 i.e. last date of the month; that the Appellants had issued a cheque dated 29.8.2000 for Rs. 12,50,000/- for payment of duty for the period 16.8.2000 to 31.8.2000; that unfortunately the amount in words was written as "Rupees Twelve thousand and fifty thousand" instead of Twelve Lakhs fifty thousands though the amount in figures was correctly written; that consequently cheque was returned by the bank; that knowing their mistake the Appellants deposited the duty in cash through TR-6 challan on 1.9.2000; that they also paid interest...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Satia Paper Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC475

1. In these appeals, filed by revenue, the common issue involved is whether "bleach liquor" manufactured by the Respondents is chargeable to Central Excise duty.2. We heard Shri Virag Gupta, learned D.R. and Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate. The learned D.R. submitted that the Respondents manufacture Paper and Paper Board and avail of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of their final products; that an intermediate product, namely, Bleach Liquor, falling under sub-heading No. 2828.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act emerges during the manufacture of paper which is used in the continuous process of manufacture of paper; that the Commissioner (Appeals) in different Orders-in-Appeal has held that the bleach liquor is not marketable as it has a very short shelf life and it is not possible to take it out from the continuous process and market it; that the Department has not produced any evidence that the impugned product is marketable and t...