Delhi Court April 2004 Judgments

Abhishek Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Abhishek Auto Industries Ltd., the issue involved is whether they were eligible to take the MODVAT credit of the duty paid by the job worker.2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture safety seat belts and power windows; that they had taken the MODVAT credit in respect of inputs namely Sash guide and tongue plate; that they had removed the said inputs to job workers under the provisions of Rule 57 F (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the job worker had used the said inputs in the manufacture of intermediate product namely Nylon moulding Sash Guide and plastic Moulding Tongue Plate and cleared the same on payment of duty to the Appellants under the cover of invoices issued under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the Challan under which initially the inputs were removed to the job worker were also received along with the inputs; that the Commissioner under the impugned order had disallowed the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Polyplex Corpn. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT487TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of the Modvat credit to the respondents on G.I. Sheets and Silicon Spray, besides imposition of penalty on them equal to the amount of the Modvat credit wrongly availed by them.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Films. The adjudicating authority disallowed the Modvat credit on all the goods which are subject-matter of the show cause notice including the above said two goods through the order-in-original. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the Modvat credit on all the goods including the disputed one.3. The Revenue has contested the allowance of the Modvat credit on G.I.Sheets and Silicon Spray only, in the present appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the credit on the G.I. Sheets by observing that these had been used in the factory premises to protect the entry of dust which might set...

Auro Spinning Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(116)LC417Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Auro Spinning Mills, is whether Central Excise duty is payable at single yarn stage or on double/multifold yarn.2. Sh. Vishal Bansal, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture cotton yarn and man-made yarn; that the present matter pertains to the period from 15.4.1994 to 31.12.1994 when they had paid Central Excise duty at single yarn stage in terms of Trade Notice No.70-CE/94 dated 7.6.1994 wherein "Off the Spindle Stage by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh; that they were also using captively the single yarn for the purpose of doubling and multifolding, which was cleared by them without payment of duty under Notification No. 26/94-CE dated 1.3.1994; that the Department has confirmed the duty on the ground that the duty has been short-paid as a result of payment of duty at single yarn stage and not at the stage of doubled or multifolded yarn. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the duty is pa...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Arora Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT564TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged a part of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC on the firm, respondents.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is quite evident that the respondents made clandestine removal of the goods (Branded Chewing Tobacco) involving duty of Rs. 26,520/-. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand along with equal amount of penalty with further penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the other notice (who is not the respondent in the present appeal). The Commissioner (Appeals) while affirming the order of the adjudicating authority regarding the duty demand, has set aside the penalty under Section 11AC by observing that there was no mens rea on the part of the respondents, while removing the goods without payment of duty. But, in my view, this ground taken up by the Commissioner (Appeals) is wholly misconceived. He has miserably er...

Sharp Credit Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Delhi)1056

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 21st Dec., 2001 for asst. yr. 1997-98. The only grievance of the assessee is against disallowance of deduction of Rs. 3,24,727 claimed under Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act).2. The assessee is a 100 per cent exporter and had shown a profit of Rs. 3,24,747 in its P&L a/c. An equal amount of deduction was claimed under Section 80HHC of the Act by the assessee. The impugned amount was export realisation of export sales effected in earlier years. The AO was of the view that the receipts shown during the year in the guise of export realisation was only to claim benefit of the deduction under Section 80HHC. Accordingly, he denied the deduction to the assessee.CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by observing that such export realisation received by the assessee on account of exchange difference does not form part of the total turnover as defined in the Explanation below Section 80HHC.3. It was con...

Shri Prithvi Nath Chopra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ175

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1.Rule. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2.A welfare State like India is bound to provide the basic requirements of its citizens. Health care facility is an integral part of the same and the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) has been propounded for the benefit of the Central Government employees who should not be left without medical care after retirement.3.The petitioner was working as an Under Secretary in the Central Government when he took voluntary retirement on 5.2.1979 and is more than 80 years old. The petitioner and his wife Smt. Mohinder Chopra are covered by the CGHS scheme. 4.In July, 2001, on certain tests being conducted, Smt. Chopra was diagnosed as suffering from breast cancer and the Medical Officer in charge of the CGHS Dispensary, Faridabad referred her to the ordinary Surgeon in Dr. RML Hospital. It is stated that the junior attending Surgeon in the said hospital suggested 24.9...

Ravi Kumar Arora Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT126; 2004(3)SLJ486(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The ingenuity of bureaucratic system can set at naught implementation of the best-intended legislations. Judicial proceedings, which resulted in the legislation of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act' ) are sought to be negated by the ingenuous method of forming one committee after another to identify the posts for the benefit of the persons with disability. The mandate of the Act, which came into force on 07.02.1996, is, thus, violated with impunity on the ground that such posts have not been identified for now almost eight years! Persons like the petitioner are, thus, told that they must wait till these committees identify the posts or till deluge, whichever may be later.2. It is no answer to the persons with disability to be told that the Government is still not equipped and ready with the identified posts. They have waited enough and as G...

Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT100; 2004(74)DRJ165; 2004(3)SLJ478(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur , J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 18th June, 2001 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 27/91. The impugned Award was notified under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) on 22nd June, 2001. 2. Some time in 1982 an industrial dispute was raised by a section of employees of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is indulging in unfair labour practices in respect of engagement of temporary, badli and part time employees in its establishments in the country. For the sake of convenience such temporary, badli and part time employees are hereinafter referred to as temporary employees. 3. As a result of the dispute, the Central Government made a reference on 20th May, 1985 to the National Industrial Tribunal presided over by Justice R.D. Tulpule. The question referred for adjudication was as follows:-' What should be the wages and other conditions of services of badli, temporary and part time worker of the Life Insur...

Deepak Arora Vs. Jyoti Arora

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT98; I(2004)DMC707; 2004(77)DRJ561

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Revision is directed against the Order dated 3.6.2000 by which the Additional District Judge had decided the application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for interim maintenance. This Order is intrinsically interlocutory in nature; it does not finally dispose of the proceedings; and can be modified or varied if the circumstances so warrant. The erstwhile provision Whereby a Revision against such orders could be entertained, by adopting the prima facie view that the order, if allowed to stand, would cause a failure of justice or irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made, is no longer a part of the Civil Procedure Code. The exposition of the law is now available in the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors., : [2003]3SCR762 . Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., : AIR2003SC3044 . The Revision is, thereforee, liable to be dismissed on this ...

Shubhra Chit Fund (P) Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT110; 2004(74)DRJ383

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Revision is filed against the dismissal of the Appeals by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in the context of Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Against this Order dated 1.3.1999, a Special Leave Petition was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which came to be dismissed on 13.8.1999. The present Revision was filed on 13.9.1999 that is after one month of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. Unfortunately, no application seeking condensation of delay/enlargement of time accompanied the Revision Petition. On the objection of the Registry, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dated 12.11.1999 was filed on that very day.2. It is trite to state that the application for condensation of delay must accompany the Revision itself. I must, thereforee, assume that the Revision was filed not on 13.9.1999 but on 12th November, 1999. The Revisionist has invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act but I shall read into the application th...