Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments

M.C.D. Vs. Pitambar Publishing Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi316; 110(2004)DLT216; 2004(73)DRJ486

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Vide impugned order dated 10.3.1998 passed by learned Additional District Judge, the Assessment Order dated 28.2.1985 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for deciding it afresh for taking into consideration the plea of the respondent for concession in the rebate on account of lack of civic facilities in the area or the locality in question. The objection to this observation of the learned ADJ is that the Assessing Authority is not required to take into consideration the revision or lack of provision of the civic amenities even if the petitioner-MCD is obligated to provide while fixing the rate able value for the purpose of house-tax.2. The Division Bench of this Court has taken a view in Panchshila Co-operative House Building Society Ltd and another Vs . Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another- : 24(1983)DLT285 that the levy of property tax by the Corporation under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is not dependent upon the ...

Sanjeev Kumar Rajora (Shri) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT952

D.K. Jain, J.1. Land measuring 1 bigha 2 bids was comprised in Khasra Nos. 367 and 369 in village Mehrauli, New Delhi, is the subject-matter of the present writ petition.2. The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Land and Building Department, issued notification dated 1.5.2003 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act') expressing its intention to acquire 3 bighas 6 bids was of the land in Khasra Nos. 366, 367 and 369, village Mehrauli, New Delhi, which includes the aforesaid land as well. By means of this notification objections to the proposed acquisition were invited. It appears that no objections were filed by any person. Thereafter declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23.7.2003 to the effect that Lt. Governor was satisfied that the land is required to be taken by the Government at public expense for the public purpose, namely, 'for C.R.P.F. Camp under Planned Development of Delhi' and thus, the said land was acqui...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dabur India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT310TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether letter dated 28-2-2003 addressed to the respondents, M/s. Dabur India Ltd., is appealable order.2. Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned S.D.R., submitted that M/s. Dabur India Ltd., manufacture Tamarind extract, which was classified by them under Chapter 20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that it was considered by the Department that the Tamarind extract is classifiable under sub-heading 1301.10 of the Tariff. The Joint Commissioner, under letter dated 28-2-2003, requested the respondents to calculate the duty for the period from 1999-2000 till date and deposit the same immediately; that the respondents debited the duty for the period from 1-4-99 to 18-3-2003 on 18-3-2003 and 21-3-2003; that, on the other hand, they filed an appeal against the said letter with the Commissioner (Appeals), who has treated the said letter as appealable order and has held that it is classifiable under Heading 20 as contended ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. on Dot Couriers and Cargo Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR90

1. When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants, in spite of notice. Heard the learned JDR.2. The Revenue filed these appeals against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The contention of the Revenue is that the Commissioner has no power to reduce the penalty prescribed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. I find that Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 provides notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76, Section 77, Section 78 or Section 79, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.In view of these, the Commissioner (Appeals) finds that there was only delay in respect of two months, therefore, he reduced the penalty.4. Further, the Tribunal in the case of Escorts JCB limited v. CCE, New Delhi - held that in cas...

Alstom Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT338TriDel

1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee challenge is against a portion of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21-8-2003 which has gone against the case put forward by the assessee.The assessees are engaged in the manufacture of transformers and switchgears. Since the size of the transformers is very large they are dismantled prior to clearance from the factory for convenience of transport. At the site customers undertake the assembly, erection and commissioning under the supervision of the appellants who charge the customers supervision charges. Additionally, the appellants also undertake repair of old equipment (manufactured by them and by others) installed and functioning at the customer's premises. The amounts charged for this are referred to as service charges.2. Different show cause notices were issued to the appellant for the period from March 1998 to March 2001 alleging that supervision charges and service charges collected by the appellants are to be...

Shri Babu Ram Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Delhi)332

These cross appeals, one by the revenue and the other by the assessee .for the assessment year 1991-92, are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). As the grounds involved in both the appeals are common, these were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order.In the first ground of appeal the assessee has challenged initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. It was contended that notice issue by the assessing officer was bad in law and illegal as in the said notice dated 5-2-1993 it was not stated whether the notice was being issued to individual or to the HUF. It was contended that status of the assessee has to be mentioned by the assessing officer in the notice otherwise it would be bad in law. It was further contended that issue of a valid notice is condition precedent to assumption of jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. If notice is bad in law, a very assumption of jurisdiction is erron...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vichtra Construction (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Del)423; [2004]269ITR371(Delhi)

1. Admit.2. At the request of the parties, we are taking up this matter for final disposal.3. The following question is required to be answered by the court;'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling the entire order on an application under Section 254(2) and in passing the impugned order ?'4. No detailed facts are required to be examined in this case as a short question is required to be decided as indicated earlier. It transpires that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal heard the appeal which was filed at the instance of the assessed and decided it by order dated November 13, 2000. It appears that the assessed submitted an application under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for rectification of a mistake and the Tribunal made an order dated September 12, 2001, allowing the application. The Tribunal held :'We agree that the mistake rectifiable under Section 254(2) has occurred while passing the...

JaIn Carbide and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Though the appeal filed by M/s. Jain Carbide & Chemicals Ltd. is posted for hearing the stay application, we take up the appeal itself after staying the recovery of the duty and penalty confirmed against them as the issue involved has already been settled by the Tribunal.2. We heard Sh. K.K. Anand, learned Advocate and Sh. P.M. Rao, learned DR. The learned Advocate submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is whether slag obtained by them during the process of manufacture of ferro alloys is liable to excise duty; that for the earlier period, the Tribunal has decided the matter in their favour in their own case as reported in 2004 (60) RLT 630. The learned Advocate also pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) also, in the impugned order, has referred to the earlier order for the earlier period.3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The issue involved in the present appeal has been settled by the Tribunal in Jain Carbide & Chemicals Ltd. Ca...

V.K. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC351

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the order-in-original ordering confiscation of the unaccounted goods and imposing penalty under Rule 173Q as detailed therein. The appellants have submitted written submissions.2. I have gone through the same and heard the learned DR. The perusal of the record shows that the Central Excise officers visited the factory of the appellants and made seizure of the raw material and the finished goods (oil seals). Thereafter show cause notice was served on them for denying the benefit of the SSI exemption on the grounds that their clearances had exceeded the prescribed limit and that they used the brand name "RIDER SEAL" of another person. But I do not find any tangible evidence to substantiate both these grounds. There is no evidence on the record to suggest that the clearances of the appellants even by adding the unaccounted goods exceeded the prescrib...

Gupta Spinning Mills and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC316

1. The above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the redemption fine and penalties as detailed therein on the appellants, for non-accountal of the goods.2. The learned counsel has contended that there had been, in fact, no non-accountal of the goods manufactured by the appellants as the goods were manufactured from the duty paid and accounted for inputs. It is a case of only non-posting of entries regarding the goods manufactured a date earlier to the visit of the Central Excise Officers. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 25 of the Rules, 2002 for ordering the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties could not be invoked.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and contended that Rule 25 has been rightly applied to the case of the appellants for having failed to account for the goods.4. I have heard both sides and gone thr...