Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 12 of about 214 results (0.040 seconds)B.N. Kumar Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(2005)ACC648; 118(2005)DLT36
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. This is an appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.2. Briefly stated facts of this case are that the appellant sustained crush injuries on his leg leading to its amputation above knee in a road accident on 5th November, 1987 with a DTC bus No. DEP 8950 near bus stop on Bhagat Singh Marg, where he was waiting for a bus to go to his home at Satyawali Nagar. The DTC bus came from Madras Hotel side in a high speed and while negotiating left turn on Bhagat Singh Marg, the bus went out of control and struck against left side patri, climbed on it, struck against the petitioner and dragged him to he railing, banging against it and came to stop after uprooting it. Due to injuries sustained by the appellant his leg above knee was amputated. The appellant had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for the injuries and consequences arising out of injuries, disa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Globe Sales Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)187
ORDER1. M/s Globe Sales Corporation, the assessed, filed their return of income for the asst. yr. 1992-93 on 27th Aug., 1992, declaring a total income of Rs. 91,120. After notice to the assessed, the AO vide the order of the assessment dt. 31st March, 1994, assessed the total income of Rs. 1,68,097 and also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Vide order dt. 28th Sept., 1994, the penalty amounting to Rs. 55,006 was levied and the order was accordingly conveyed to the assessed. The appeal filed by the assessed before the CIT(A) was disposed of on 8th Jan., 1997.3. In the appeal, it was held that the surrender of income made by the assessed was neither bona fide nor voluntary. This finding of the first appellate authority was disturbed on merits by the Tribunal, which vide its order dt. 20th Nov., 2002, ordered deletion of the penalty. This order of the Tribunal has been challenged by the Department in the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Globe Sales Corpn.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2005]145TAXMAN530(Delhi)
1. M/s. Globe Sales Corporation, the assessed filed their return of income for the, assessment year 1992-93 on 27-8-1992 declaring a total income of Rs. 91,120. After notice to the assessed, the assessing officer vide the order of the assessment dated 31-3-1994 assessed the total income of Rs. 1,68,097 and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act).2. Vide order dated 28-9-1994, the penalty amounting to Rs. 55,006 was levied and the order was, accordingly, conveyed to the assessed. The appeal filed by the assessed before the CIT (Appeals) was disposed of on 8-1-1997.3. In the appeal, it was held that the surrender of income made by the assessed was neither bona fide nor voluntary. This finding of the first Appellate Authority was disturbed on merits by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which vide its order dated 20-11-2002 ordered deletion of the penalty. This order of the Tribunal has been challenged by...
Tag this Judgment!Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. (P) Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC425
1. Common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, they are being taken up together. The appellant filed these appeals against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of Acrylic Strips and filed Bill of Entry declaring the value of the goods. The value of the goods is not accepted by the Revenue Authorities, therefore, the value was enhanced. The enhanced value was accepted by the appellant and they paid the duty voluntarily.Thereafter the appellant filed appeals challenging the enhancement of value of the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals on the ground that the appellant accepted the enhanced price and paid the duty without any protest and cleared the goods. Even after clearance of the goods, they did not register any protest with the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals.3. The contention of the appellant is that the value was enhanced with...
Tag this Judgment!Bass Electronics Industries and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC299
1. These appeals have been directed by the appellants against the common impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty demand with equal amount of penalty against the firm appellant No.1 and imposed penalty on its partner appellant No. 2. The duty alongwith penalty has been confirmed against the firm appellant No. 1 by denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No 16/97-CE dated 1.4.97 for having indulged in the manufacture of branded goods during the period in dispute i.e. March 1996 to December 1997. Against appellant No. 2, penalty under Rule 209-A has been confirmed as he assisted the firm of which he was a partner during that period, in the clandestine removal of branded goods without payment of duty, 3. From the record, we find that the firm is engaged in the manufacture of domestic electronic appliances i.e. electrical toaster, emergency light, mixture grinder, juicer, etc. as de...
Tag this Judgment!Grewal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT378TriDel
1. In this appeal, which has been filed against the impugned order-in-original, the issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit to the appellants on GP sheets.2. The credit on the GP sheets for the disputed period April, 1995 to June, 1999 has been sought to be denied to the appellants by the Revenue on the ground that these could neither be used as inputs nor were actually used for the manufacture of OE parts. They in fact used HR/CR sheets as inputs/raw material for the manufacture of the parts after procuring from the open market and the GP sheets, which were purchased by them from registered dealers, were clandestinely sold by them in the market to the main users.4. Admittedly, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of OE parts (Refrigerators, Engines, Tractor parts). The GP sheets were purchased by them from the registered dealers under the duty paid invoices for use in the manufacture of OE parts. The allegations levelled by the Revenue against the appellants are that th...
Tag this Judgment!Rathi Industries Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC367
1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged to the validity of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-Original of the Adjudicating Authority who confirmed duty demand of Rs. 2,11,167 in respect of the finished excisable goods found short in the factory and cenvat credit demand of Rs. 12,74,628 in respect of the inputs found short and also imposed penalty on the appellants as detailed therein.2. The learned counsel has contended that no proper physical verification of the finished goods was conducted by the officers who visited the factory premises of the appellants on 22.2.2001 and that shortage was arrived at by working out on average basis. In fact there was no shortage of the excisable goods. Similarly regarding shortage of inputs, learned counsel has argued that quantity of inputs which was in two furnaces for manufacture of the final products was not taken into account and even the inputs which had gone into the manufac...
Tag this Judgment!Unitron Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT200TriDel
1. This issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Unitron Ltd., is whether Signal Generator manufacture by them is classifiable under Heading No. 90.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Heading 85.43 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order and whether the extended period of limitation in invokable for demanding the duty.2. Shri Y. Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that they had cleared Signal Generators classifying the same under Heading 90.30; that on an objection raised by the audit they classified the impugned produce under heading 90.31 and started paying duty under protest; that a show cause notice dated 15.4.91 was issued for demanding Central Excise duty for the period 8.10.90 to 21.1.92; that another show cause notice dated 23.1.92 was issued proposing classification of the impugned product under Heading 84.43 instead of 90.31 which was followed by another show cause notice dated 31.3.92 demanding duty ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Kukreti Steels Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC787
2. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the validity of the impugned order, only relating to the imposition of penalty amount and adjustment of abatement.3. The learned SDR has very vehemently contended that the penalty should have been imposed equal to the amount of duty which was paid late by the respondents in view of the law laid down in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, 2004 (93) ECC 633. He has also contended that no adjustment of the abatement claim can be given to the respondents towards the outstanding dues.4. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri Alok Arora has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.6. We find from the record that at the relevant time the respondents were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme being engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingot and they were liable to discharge duty in terms of Section 3A of the Act. For the disputed period from September 1997 to March 1998, they defaulted in making payment within the stip...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. S.P. Tools Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC359
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned Order-in-Original vide which the learned Commissioner as Adjudicating Authority has allowed the benefit of SSI exemption notification No. 175/86/-CE dated 1.3.86 and other relates exemption notification, to the respondents.2. The Revenue has sought to deny the benefit of SSI exemption notifications to the respondents on the ground that they were using monogram of another person on their goods viz., rolling mill rolls, in the manufacture of which they were engaged during the period in question. The learned Commissioner has not accepted this ground of the Revenue on the ground that the goods were even not capable of affixation of any brand name/monogram.3. The learned SDR has contended that putting up the monogram on the packing slips which were kept in the packed boxes by the respondents while clearing the goods in terms of para 7 of the above referred SSI exemption notification No 175/86. He has sought support ...
Tag this Judgment!