Delhi Court June 2004 Judgments

Atma Tube Limited Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: IV(2004)BC29

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 6.1.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT in O.A. 919/2000.The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by this order, while granting three weeks' time to the defendants to settle the matter under the One Time Settlement scheme, observed that no further time will be granted for arguments, unless the defendants established their bona fides by depositing 25% of the amount of One Time Settlement proposal as per the Reserve Bank of India's Guidelines. He gave liberty to the defendants to quantify the amounts as per the Reserve Bank of India's Guidelines and deposit the same with respondent-Bank. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT also observed that all Miscellaneous Applications including the application for discovery and production of documents will be heard and decided at the time of final judgment and that if at the time of the final arguments these documents are required for the just and correct adjudicati...

Eureka Sales Corpn. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT dated 23-2-1994 passed under Section 263 setting aside the assessment completed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) on 23-3-1993 and directing him to decide the issue relating to deduction under Section 80HHC afresh.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. The learned Counsel for the assessee has raised elaborate contentions challenging the impugned order of learned CIT passed under Section 263. In brief, the arguments raised by him are three fold. Firstly, he has contended that the issue relating to the deduction under Section 80HHC having been already decided by learned CIT (A) by his appellate orders passed on 30-9-1992 and 15-11-1994 for the year under consideration, the order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) had merged with the said appellate orders and the same, therefore, was not available for revision by the learned...

Hindustan Udyog Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC686

1. The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing the benefit of Modvat Scheme in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of final product. The appellant started availing the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/99-CE with effect from 1.4.99. The appellant opted out of the Modvat Scheme with effect from 31.3.99. At the time of opting out of the Modvat Scheme the appellant had reversed the credit in respect of the input lying in stock as well as inputs in the finished products, which was also lying in stock. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding duty of Rs. 44,614 in respect of the inputs lying in stock and the inputs in the final product as on 1.4.99.3. The demand was confirmed. The appellants are not challenging the impugned order on merit. The appellants are challenging ...

Dsm Anti-infectives India (Pvt.) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application by M/s. DSM Anti-Infectives India (Pvt.) Ltd. for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order No.697-698/2003-NB(C) dated 19.11.2003.2. Shri V. Swaminathan, learned Consultant, submitted that the issue decided by the Final Order in question was whether the re-processing operations undertaken by the Applicants on the duty paid bulk drugs, received under Rule 173-H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 amounts to deemed manufacture in terms of Note 11 to Chapter 20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the Tribunal has upheld both the Orders-in-Original dated 15.11.2002 and 4.3.2003 on merits by holding that the re-processing operations undertaken by them amounts to deemed manufacture in terms of the third ingredient in Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the Tariff; that the Tribunal has also held in Para 9 of the Final Order in question that the extended period of limitation for demanding duty it invocable as they had not disclosed the actual process...

Cce Vs. Bazpur Co-op. Sugar Factory Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC645

1. In this appeal, the issue relates to the availability of the Modvat Credit to the respondents of the disputed amount of Rs. 1,43,735. The modvat credit of this amount was availed by the respondents on an invoice issued by the job worker to whom the goods were sent earlier by them for conversion/repair purposes. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit as the same could not be availed by the respondents under Rules 57-Q and 57-S. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed that Order-in-Original of the adjudicating authority by referring to the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Kerala State Electronics Corporation v. CCE, Kochin, 2. The learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the Order-in-original and argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly reversed that order as the credit could not be availed by the respondents under Rules 57-Q and 57-S.3. On the other hand, the learned consultant has contended that the credit was available to the respondents under Rul...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Priya Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT475TriDel

1. The Revenue filed these two applications for staying the operation of the Final Orders passed by the Tribunal on the ground that they have filed Reference Applications in the Hon'ble High Court.2. We find that in the Final Order the classification of certain goods were decided in favour of the Assessee. The Revenue filed reference application in the Hon'ble High Court. The Revenue has relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bansi Dhar and Sons, 1986 (24) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.). We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced the law in view of the provision of Income Tax where the reference lies to the Tribunal and after considering the question of law the Tribunal referred to the question of law to the Hon'ble High Court. The provision of Central Excise Act has been changed w.e.f.July, 1999 to the effect that no reference application is maintainable before the Tribunal and the Reference Application directly lies to the Hon'ble High Court. In these circum...

Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(77)DRJ5

R.C. Jain, J.1. The conduct of the respondents in particular that of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short `MCD') to which we would often advert in this judgment, has caused us some anguish. A piece of land measuring 2.47 acres (the actual area on the spot being 2.69 acres bearing No.PS-4, located in pocket B(F), Mayur Vihar Phase-II is the bone of contention between the parties in these appeals.2. Sometimes in the year 1988, the MCD sought allotment of a piece of land from the Delhi Development Authority (in short `DDA') in Mayur Vihar Phase-II for construction of a primary school. In June 1989, DDA decided to allot one acre of land out of plot No.PS-4, pocket B(F), Mayur Vihar Phase-II. Vide a communication dated 9th September, 1989 called upon the MCD to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the lease premium for grant of perpetual lease in respect of the said piece of land. This letter was duly received in the MCD but it appears that the concerned authorities and officers in the MC...

Smt. Rajni Vs. Ito

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)26

ORDERM.V. Nayar, A.M.:The assessed is in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi, in appeal No. 202/98-99, dated 31-7-2000.The grounds of appeal are as given below :'1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred on facts as well as in law in sustaining the penalty under section 271A by not appreciating :(a) The legal position that rule 6F does not prescribe any books for persons engaged in business.(b) That the appellant has kept copy on basis of which balance sheet is drawn from year to year and income is shown by increase in assets over those in the last year. This method of computation of income has been duly accepted from year to year and even for this year.(c) That the appellant has not committed the default as stated by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).(d) Judgments relied upon by the appellant in written arguments dated 14-4-1999, inspire of the copies of the judgments having been duly supplied.2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct in ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Siddarth Tubes Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT588TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- as imposed on the respondents by the adjudicating authority for having taken excess credit wrongly on the basis of the invoices issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The learned JDR has stated that the imposition of penalty was mandatory as the respondents took excess credit illegally. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. But this contention of the JDR is not be liable to be accepted keeping in view the circumstances of the case.From the record, it is evident that excess credit was taken by the respondents on furnace oil purchased by them from IOC Ltd. Whatever duty was shown in the invoices issued by the IOC, the respondents accordingly took the credit. But later on it was found that excess duty was shown by the IOC. When this mistake was brought to the notice of the respondents, they rever...

Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT578TriDel

2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 72,79,587/- and penalty of equal amount. In this case the benefit of Notification No. 3/2001-CE was denied in respect of Black and White television sets on the ground that the applicants had taken credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of final product. The contention of the applicant is that they were manufacturing Black and White television sets as well as coloured T.V.sets and paying duty at the time of clearance of coloured television sets. The applicants were reversing the credit taken in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of Black and White television sets at the end of month at the time of payment of duty. The applicant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Surya Roshni Ltd. v.CCE reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T, 270. Keeping in view the facts that applicants were reversing the credit at the end of the month, the applicants had a strong case in their favou...