Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

National Steels Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC349

1. The appellants have preferred an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 10.2.2003 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confirmation of the duty against the appellant.2. Relevant facts for consideration in the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of M.S. products falling under Chapter No. 72 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and was also availing Modvat credit facility. The appellant during the month of June and August 1995, availed Modvat credit on the M.S. scrap. The appellant availed the Modvat credit on the duty paying documents issued by M/s Mahabir Prasad & Co., Ghaziabad. The said M/s Mahabir Prasad & Co. was subjected to scrutiny by the officers and the officers found that the said M/s Mahabir Prasad & Co. issued invoices for 'M.S. scrap', a description shown on the original and duplicate copy of the invoices, while the triplicate copy of the same invoice was showing description of the "Empty Containers". The said M/s Mah...

Raj Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants, M/s. Raj Enterprises Fastners Pvt. Ltd. are manufacturers of bolts. During the year 1996, the appellants exported G.I. Bolt-nuts, filing AR-4 application when they filed their refund claim for Rs. 1,42,862/-under Rule 57-F(4) in Form-A. The Asstt.Commissioner rejected this claim on 6-9-96 on the ground that the appellants company themselves did not make any export and that the exports were made under claim for duty draw back by M/s. Mohan Exports (India) Ltd., who are the merchant exporters. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of misinterpretation of Rules who observed that, from the Shipping Bill submitted by them as proof of export, it was noticed that the goods in question were exported by one M/s. Mohan Exports (India) Ltd., New Delhi, and under the claim of duty drawback. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Gavs Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Tribunal that from the Sh...

Stanley Indus. (India) Ltd. and Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC369

2. Appellants filed these appeals against the common adjudicating order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that appellants filed 10 Shipping Bills regarding export of the goods declaring the same as goods of Indian origin not used after manufacturing under Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme. The goods related to 8 Shipping Bills were re-examined. On re-examined it was found that the consignment is of old and used machinery parts and it was also found that the higher value of the goods were declared to get higher amount within DEPB Scheme. After issuance of show cause notice the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and also disallowed the DEPB credit in respect of all the consignments on the ground that these consignments were of old and used machinery parts and there was misdeclaration in respect of value also. Adjudicating authority also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 6,28,000/- on M/s. Stanley Industries Ltd. and penalty o...

Sharda Forgings and Stamping P. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Sharda Forging & Stamping Pvt. Ltd., appellants, are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 claiming Modvat credit/CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods. They claimed credit on certain inputs in respect of which they received a show cause notice proposing denial of credit on the basis that their invoices were not pink in colour and also that the serial numbers were not pre-printed as prescribed under the Rules.Their supplier, M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'RINL'), clarified that due to printing mistake, pink copy was marked as 'office copy' and the yellow copy was marked as 'copy for transporter' duplicate). The appellants claimed it as technical lapse.2. The lower authorities have not accepted the plea if the appellants and held that the use of the colour code in the invoice is mandatory for invoices issued under Rule 57-GG by dealer, relying mainly upon the case of Somani Iron S...

Aditya Cements Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order-in-Appeal dt. 13.5.03 wherein the Modvat credit availed on lubricating oil and greases used at mining area is denied.2. Relevant facts of the case for consideration are that the appellant has availed credit of Modvat on inputs. The said inputs were utilized by them in the mining area adjacent to their factory. A SCN was issued to the appellant for demand of the credit utilized in the inputs used in the mining area as the mining area is not considered as factory. On adjudication the demand was confirmed and penalty was imposed. The appellate authority also concerned with the view of the adjudicating authority and upheld the order-in-original hence this appeal.3. The Ld. Advocate submits that the show cause notice issued in this case is for extended period and is not tenable as this SCN is issued after on an identical issue, in respect of the same items another SCN was issued and adjudicated. He submits that the ground plan of...

Ranvir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ289

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present Writ Petition is directed against the Order dated 4th August, 2003 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A. No. 478/2003. By the impugned Order, the learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner herein for grant of interest on alleged delayed payment of gratuity, commuted amount of pension and retirement pension.2. Learned Tribunal rejected the prayers made before it by the petitioner herein on the ground that the respondents were not to be blamed for the so called delay in payment of retiral benefits as the petitioner was himself responsible for the delay in compliance with various formalities.3. We heard the petitioner who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner submitted that he is entitled to interest on the retiral benefits w.e.f. his retirement on 31st January, 2001 or atleast with effect from 28th June, 2002, when the departmental proceedings initiated agai...

Soma Devi JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)BC210; 2006(86)DRJ285

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1.This writ petition is a sheer abuse of the process of this Court.2. It appears that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 25 lacs from the respondent/Union Bank of India as far back as on 23.9.1989. In connection with the loan, recovery proceedings were instituted by the bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi which are still pending being OA No. 494/1996. This is the third writ petition in connection with the same matter. The first being Writ Petition (C) No. 9846/2003 was decided on 28.9.2004 and the second being Writ Petition (C) No. 1182/2005 which was decided on 22.3.2005.3.The Writ Petition (C) No. 9846/2003 was filed in this Court claiming the benefit under the RBI guidelines dated 29.2.2003. This petition was disposed of by order dated 28.9.2004 directing the respondent bank to decide the petitioner's application, which was decided by the bank by its letter dated 14.10.2004 declaring the petitioner's account as non-performing asset from 1996 and...

J. Pratap Reddy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT526; 2006(86)DRJ251

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. By this judgment we propose to dispose off LPA Nos. 2244, 2506 and 2507 of 2005 which arise out of the impugned judgment of a learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 8784/2005 dated 21.9.2005.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.3. The facts are set out in detail in the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same, except where necessary.4. The respondent filed a Writ Petition in this Court challenging the validity of the order of the Central Government retrospectively extending the term of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad under the first proviso to Section 14(4) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') after the expiry of the period for which the board was constituted. The petitioner also challenged the appointment of a civilian member of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board under Section 14(2)(c) of the Act as it was allegedly done without consultation of the ...

Dr. V.K. Agrawal Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT468

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2005. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.3. The facts lie in a short compass. The appellant joined the service of Moti Lal Nehru College as a Lecturer in Physics in 1969. The aforesaid college is a constituent college recognised as such by the Executive Council of Delhi University in accordance with the provisions of the Act No. VIII of 1922 as amended.4. The appellant retired on 15.7.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation of 62 years. However, the appellant submitted an application on 18.11.2003 to his college for reemployment along with his bio-data under Ordinance XII and the revised Executive Council Guidelines.5. Ordinance XII Rule 3-A(2) of the University Ordinance provides:'The Governing Body of a College...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dalmia Resorts International

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]290ITR508(Delhi)

ORDER1. Since a common question arises for consideration in all these appeals, the same shall stand disposed of by this common order.2. The assessed-company is engaged in the business of promoting holiday resorts. For the asst. yrs. 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, it filed returns in which it declared loans allegedly borrowed from M/s Pasupati Nath Commercial (P) Ltd., a company incorporated in Sikkim. The AO called upon the assessed to prove the genuineness of these loans and eventually came to the conclusion that the assessed had failed to prove either the identity of the lender or its capacity to lend the amounts allegedly borrowed by the assessed. The amounts shown to have been borrowed by the assessed, on that finding, were added back to the income of the assessed under Section 68 of the IT Act and brought to tax Aggrieved by the said orders, the assessed appealed to the CIT(A) before whom the certificate of incorporation of the lender company, M/s Pasupati Nath Commercial ...