Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments

Arihant Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT193TriDel

1. In these two appeals captioned above, which, have been directed against the two different Order-in-appeal, the facts involved are common and as such are being disposed of by this composite order.2 The issue involved in these appeals relates to the rate at which the appellants are entitled to the deemed credit on the goods cleared on job work basis as well as the stock of goods lying with them as on 2.6.1998 and the goods manufactured and cleared by them after 12.6.1998.4. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of man made fabrics.They have got 4 mills. One is at Village Mattewara where they manufacture man made fabrics and other three millls are at Ludhiana and Sikandrabad where they are engaged in the manufacture of yarn and weaving of fabrics. The man made fabrics is manufactured by them at Mattewara out of the unprocessed fabrics which they procure partly from the market and partly from the above said mills.5. The stand taken up by the Revenue is that as per terms of noti...

La Grande Projects Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT65TriDel

1. This is an application by M/s. La Grande Projects Ltd. for restoration of their appeal which was dismissed for default in terms of Rule 20 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules vide Final Order No. A/141 /98-NB, dated 4-3-1998.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate for the applicants, submitted that the applicants had filed the appeal against the Order-in-Original No.3/Cus/97, dated 25-4-1997; that the Final Order dated 4-3-1998 was sent by the Tribunal to their factory address instead of the address mentioned by them in their C.A.-3 Application; that as a result of which the applicants never received the Final Order sent by the Tribunal; that since the considerable time has elapsed and they did not receive any notice fixing hearing of the appeal, the representative of the applicants visited the Tribunal's office and on advice went through the earlier decisions passed by the Tribunal in the Bar Library of the CEGAT; that only then they came to know about the Final Order dismissing their appeal ...

Balka Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)102TTJ(Delhi)115

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-V, New Delhi, dt. 6th Sept., 2004, whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 17,69,045 imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c).2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The assessee is an investment company engaged in the business of sale and purchase of shares and securities for earning dividend income as well as profit. During the year under consideration, another company, namely, M/s Bhagwan Dass Agro Industries (P) Ltd., was merged with the assessee-company pursuant to an order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 14th March, 2000. The said merger was made effective from 1st April, 2000. Since the assessee-company had already filed the petition for merger w.e.f. 1st April, 2000, it claimed the carry forward of business loss and long-term capital loss of the merging company, i.e., M/s Bhagwan Dass Agro Industries (P) Ltd., in its return of income for the year under...

Mr. M.L. Mahajan Vs. D.D.A. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR561(Delhi); 120(2005)DLT619

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Present order disposes of IA.No. 13440/92, being objections field by DDA under Section 30 of Arbitration Act,1940 to the award dated 22.5.1992 published by Shri M.S.Telang, sole arbitrator to decide the disputes and differences between the petitioner and DDA.2. In brief, relevant facts are that on 2.8.1982, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and DDA for construction of flats in Janata Category. Work was to commence w.e.f. 12.8.1982 and was to be completed by 11.8.1983. Work remained incomplete when completion period lapsed. Superintending Engineer levied compensation on the petitioner under Clause 2 of the agreement alleging failure on the part of petitioner to complete the work. Disputes fell in the lap of arbitrator for the reason contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause. 3. Before the arbitrator, petitioner raised 8 claims besides claim towards cost of arbitration. DDA raised 3 counter claiMs. 4. Against the claims raised...

Guru Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR556(Delhi); 119(2005)DLT638; 2005(82)DRJ119

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Having lost the battle before the arbitrator, M/s. Guru Overseas Private Limited, the claimant, has filed objections to the award by and under is No. 1/1998. Objections have been captioned as under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, but a perusal thereof would reveal that the objections have been filed under Section 30 of the said Act.2. On 24th January, 2005, learned counsel for the objector prayed for an adjournment. Taking note of the fact that the matter pertains to the year 1996, I had declined to grant any further time. However, objector was granted two weeks' time to file written submissions with advance copy to the respondent who was permitted to file response thereto within two weeks thereafter. Written submissions were directed to be handed over to the court master. It was recorded that no oral hearing would be granted. Matter was reserved for judgment.3. Till date counsel for the objector has not filed any written submissions.4. Somewhere in Oct...

National Highways Authority India Vs. You One-maharia (Jv) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2005)BC112; 121(2005)DLT436; 2005(82)DRJ238

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On offer made by the first respondent being accepted, petitioner awarded the work of four leaning from Km. 464 to Km. 474 of Nagpur-Hyderabad Section and Km. 9.4 to Km. 22.3 of Hyderabad-Bangalore Section to the respondent. 2. First respondent is a joint venture of the second and the third respondent.3. A written agreement dated 31.5.2001 was entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent. Documents referred to in para 4 of the agreement were deemed to form part of the agreement. Conditions of the contract as per NIT formed part of the agreement.4. As per conditions of the contract, petitioner was to pay in advance, certain stipulated amounts to the first respondent to enable it to mobilize the site. This advance was referred to in the contract as mobilization advance. Mobilization advance was to be utilized by the first respondent for purchasing and bringing to the site, equipment, plant, tools and tackles.5. To secure repayment of the amount rece...

Shri Mahip Singh Thakur Vs. Mrs. Hema Thakur,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT173; 2005(82)DRJ311

Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal challenges, inter alia, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on an application for clarification pursuant to an order passed by the Registry, inter alia, calling upon the appellant to get the property valued for payment of stamp duty under article 45 of the Stamp Act. 2. After the communication of the said order of the Registry, the appellant filed an application before the learned Single Judge for striking down the order of the Registry as no stamp duty was to be paid by the appellant. To appreciate the contention of the parties, it is relevant to reproduce the contents of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff being CS(OS) No. 2027/1996, which are as under :In view of the settlement, as recorded, the suit is decreed in terms of Memorandum of Family Settlement, Ex.C-3. Ex.C-3 shall form part of the decree. It is clarified that the mere factum of the suit being decreed in terms of E...

Samsung Electronics (i) Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT220TriDel

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs.3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of three used machines and declared the value at Rs. 61,72,660/-. The Customs authorities on the basis of the import made by M/s. Sony India rejected the value declared by the importer and enhanced the same to Rs. 1,06,71,336/-. On account of misdeclaration the machines were ordered to be confiscated and allowed to redeem fine of Rs. 10 lakh and penalty of Rs. 3 lakh was imposed on the appellant.4. The contention of the appellant is that there is no basis to reject the transaction value of the imported machines. The machines were purchased by M/s. Pemitech, Korea and the same machines, in the same condition, were exported to India. The machines were not manufactured by M/s. Samsung Korea. The declared value was rejected on the ground that the machines were reconditioned and this fact was not mentioned in the appraisal report ...

Cce Vs. Gilt Pack Ltd. and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC337

1. These 27 appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner under which he dropped action initiated against the various respondents.2. The facts in brief are that on the basis of intelligence that M/s.Gilt Pack Ltd. are utilising certain existing companies/units as dummy units for evading central excise duty on the goods manufactured by them, the preventive officers paid a surprise visit on 16.5.96 to the factory and office premises of M/s. Gilt Pack Ltd. Shri Rajinish Sharma, authorised signatory of M/s. Gilt Pack Ltd. was present at that time. It was noticed by the officers that two units, M/s. Gift Pack Ltd., Unit No. 1 and M/s. Gift Pack Ltd., Unit No. 2 are situated adjacent to each other and within the same premises and they were registered for manufacture of HDPE/LDPE/PP Sacks and bags, out of the tapes and fabrics of HDPE/LDPE and PP granules. On conducting physical stock verification of the finished goods in Unit No. 1, the officers found excess stock...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Satyapal Khosla Charitable

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the demand of customs duty is hit by time limit specified under Section 28 of the Customs Act.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents, M/s. Satyapal Khosla Charitable Memorial Trust inspite of notice having been received by them as per the postal acknowledgement.We, therefore, heard Shri U Raja Ram, learned Departmental Representative and perused the records.3. In this case the respondents had imported audio meter in September, 1991 and claimed exemption from payment of duty under Notification No.64/88-Cus. The Additional Commissioner under order-in-Original No.49/2002 dated 31.5.02 confiscated the imported goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of Rs.25,000/- and confirmed the Customs duty and also imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the ground that the respondents had not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Notification No.64/88 regarding providing free treatmen...