Delhi Court August 2004 Judgments

Breweries Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC197

1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original with a modification by reducing the duty amount from Rs. 13,18,107 to Rs. 11,25,883.2. The duty has been confirmed on the company appellant No. 1 for having cleared the goods without payment of duty during the years 91-92 to 93-94 and the penalty has been also imposed on the company. Against the appellant No. 2, penalty has been imposed under Rule 209A of the Rules as detailed in the Order-in-Original.3. The learned counsel has assailed the impugned order on these grounds. Firstly, the relevant/relied upon documents were not supplied to the appellants, these were rather supplied only on 6.5.2002 by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such, there had been violation of principle of natural justice. Secondly, the goods not manufactured by the appellants had been wrongly treated to had been manufactured by them without any basis. Third...

Garima Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC45

1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s. Garima Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, the issue involved relates to disallowance of MODVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture copper wire and super enamel copper wire and avail of MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on inputs, mainly copper rod/copper wire; that they used to send the copper rod to their job worker, M/s.SMI Electrowire (P) Ltd. in the same vehicle in which copper rods were received from the supplier without unloading in their factory under the job work challans; that the Central Excise Officers visited the premises of M/s. R.K. Enterprises, a registered dealer of copper rods and seized certain incriminating documents including invoices, Kach-cha slips, numbering machines, rubber stamps of different parties and government agencies and G.R. books of different transporters; that Shri R.K. Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. R.K. Enterprises, in his state...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. British Airways

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT392; 2004(76)DRJ416; [2005]274ITR418(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Admit. 2. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, we are taking up these matters for final hearing and disposal. 3. The common question in these appeals is:- Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeals in liming only because the grounds were not mentioned in Memoranda of Appeal4. These appeals have been filed by the Revenue as the Tribunal dismissed their appeals in liming as the grounds were not mentioned in the memoranda of appeal in Form 36. On a similar question, the Tribunal (Chandigarh) earlier disposed of the matter and the applicable rules in detail, allowed the appeal, set aside the order made by the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for disposal on merits. In our view identical questions arise in the present appeals as well. The counsel for the respondents, after considering the decision in the case of CIT v V.K. Sood (supra), was not in position to point out as to why the present appeals a...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Rose Advertising and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR86(Delhi); 113(2004)DLT403; 2004(76)DRJ454

R.C. Chopra, J.1. OMP No.362/2003 is an objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' only) against an Award dated 6.10.1998. IA.No.9267/2003 is an application under Section 34(3) of the Act for co doing the delay in the filing of the objections under Section 34 of the Act and is No.9268/2003 is an application under Section 35 of the Act for staying the execution proceedings filed by the respondent vide Execution Petition No.58/1999 till the disposal of the objections under Section 34 of the Act. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1. I have gone through the records. 3. The facts relevant for the disposal of the aforesaid OMP and the IAs., briefly stated, are that in view of the arbitration agreement and disputes between the parties an Arbitrator was appointed, who made and published his Award dated 6.10.1998. The respondent No.1 filed an Execution Applic...

NaraIn Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT875

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Record which was to be produced has not been produced. Reason for non-production of the record is stated to be that the Counsel contacted the concerned officer who said that he is having some domestic problem and for that reason could not bring the record.2. If the officer was attending the office in spite of his domestic problem, it was expected that he would respond to the direction of this Court and would make the record available to the Counsel.3. I may note that the writ petition was filed in the year 1991 and 13 years have gone by.4. Counter affidavit has not been filed. Even the record has not been produced.5. Writ petition challenges the notice dated 26.3.1984 issued under Section 126 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act proposing enhancement of rateable value of the property being No. 1114 to 1118, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and the ex parte assessment order passed on 27.3.1991 confirming the rateable value. As per the notice, proposal is to enhance the existi...

National Co-op. Devp. Corpn. Vs. Assistant Director of It

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)199CTR(Del)60; [2004]141TAXMAN551(Delhi)

1. Initially one matter was filed though two different assessment years were involved. However, now two appeals are filed, one in respect of each assessment year.2. These appeals arise out of ITA Nos. 5539-5540 (Delhi)/1995 before the Tribunal for assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, the appellant approached the Committee on Disputes, which, permitted the appellant to pursue the appeals before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT) and accordingly appeals were heard by the ITAT. After the disposal of the appeals by the ITAT the appellant has not approached the Committee on disputes for clearance to prosecute these appeals before us. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. CCE 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 541 and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, CBDT 2004 (5) SCA 705 , we feel that permission is also required for contesting the appeals before this court. Though these a...

National Co-operative Development Corporation Vs. Additional Director ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Del)60

CM 9700 of 2004 in ITA 419 of 2004 Allowed subject to just exceptions. CM 10643 of 2004 in ITA 510 of 2004Allowed subject to just exceptions. ITA 419 & 510 of 2004 & CM 10641 of 2004 (under Section 5 of Limitation Act) 1. Initially one matter was filed though two different assessment years were involved. However, now two appeals are filed, one in respect of each assessment year.2. These appeals arise out of ITA Nos. 5539-5540/Del/1995 before the Tribunal for asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81. In view of the decision of the apex Court, the appellant approached the Committee on Disputes, which permitted the appellant to pursue the appeals before Tribunal and accordingly appeals were heard by the Tribunal. After the disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal the appellant has not approached the Committee on Disputes for clearance to prosecute these appeals before us. In view of the decision of the apex Court in case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise 1995 (4...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Puran Mal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant appears to be taking undue advantage of its own wrong or acts of omission and commission by preferring this appeal against order dated 18.10.2000 passed by District Forum-I, Delhi whereby it was directed to revise the electricity bill for the respondent by charging minimum guarantee charges in respect of enhanced/connected load and provide the electricity connection on receipt of the payment of revised bill and refund amount of Rs. 30,636/- with interest deposited by the respondent. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal is brief are, that on 18.1.1996 the respondent deposited amount of Rs. 9,936/- with the respondent and again on 19.1.1996 amount of Rs. 20,700/- for getting the electricity load enhanced from 0.25 KW to 16 KW under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme floated by the appellant. In spite of having accepted the requisite amount the appellant neither provided service line nor provided the meter of adequate capacity for the enhanced load. Re...

Anil Rubber Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(116)LC852Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal, which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the imposition of anti-dumping duty on the imported goods (Synthetic Butadine Rubber) of Thailand origin shipped from Thailand by a trader/exporter, M/s. JTC Corporation, Japan, in terms of Notification No. 107/99-Cus dated 24.8.1999 and 73/2000-Cus dated 22.5.2000. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has confirmed the order of the adjudicating authority by holding that the export of the goods must be treated to be from Japan and as such anti-dumping duty is leviable on the same under the above said notifications.2. The Id.Counsel has contended that import of the goods had taken place from Thailand from where the goods were shipped to the appellants and the origin of the goods is also Thailand, and as such the above referred two notifications could not be invoked for imposing antidumping duty on those goods on the simple ground that the exporter of the goods had its o...

Rinkoo Vs. Arvind Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)ACC158; 113(2004)DLT361; 2004(76)DRJ452

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9th May, 2003, of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal' in Suit No. 142/93, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.57,000/- together with with interest @9% p.a.2. The brief facts of the case as has been noted by the Tribunal are as under :' The petitioner, a minor filed this petition for grant of compensation through her father/natural guardian of Rs. 20 Lacs against the respondents on account of injuries sustained by her in road accident dt.23.9.92. The brief facts of the case as made out from the petition are that at the time of accident the petitioner was 4 and 1/2 years of age and a student. On 23-9-92 at about 12 noon the petitioner got down from her school bus at C.V.D.road behind Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt. N.Delhi and while she was in the process of crossing the road the respondent Arvind Kumar came driving a three-ton lorry bearing no. 90D-85140-Y (Army vehicle) in a rash and...