Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments

Kanta Devi Mittal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT682; 2005(83)DRJ160

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The present appeal is preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') against the decision rendered by the Reference Court in LAC No.296/93 decided on 16.11.2004.2. In the instant case, Union of India (hereafter for short referred as UOI) issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 23.9.68 and thereafter following the procedure as indicated in the Act, Land Acquisition Collector made an award bearing No.26/74-75 on 28.3.1975 granting compensation at the rate of Rs.4,820 and Rs.3,000/- per bigha for category A and B respectively. The reference Court awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per bigha as claimed by the claimants in response to a notice under Section 9 of the Act.3. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the provision contained in Section 25 of the Act as applicable on the date when the reference court made an order was required to be taken into consideration and ...

Jai Singh Vs. Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT588

ORDERBadar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that from the accused recovery of 16 kgs of poppy husk is alleged to have been made. He further submits that as per the prosecutions story a further recovery of 16 kgs has been made from the co-accused. The commercial quantity specified for poppy husk is 50 kgs. Even if the recovery of both the persons is taken together, then also it would be below the commercial quantity and, thereforee, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Section 37 of NDPS Act would not be applicable. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the present petitioner.2. The learned Counsel for the same, while opposing the grant of bail, admitted that the petitioner did not have any antecedent criminal history. He says so on instructions from Mohinder Singh, ASI, PS Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.3. Although the learned Counsel for the State submits that the quantity recovered is still a huge quantity, in view of t...

Ranutrol Instrumentation Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT36TriDel

2. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 7,36,345/- ad penalty of the equal amount. In this case applicants are engaged in the manufacture of Electrical Equipment and were availing the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of final product and are paying duty from their credit assessee. With effect from 01.04.97, applicants opted out of the MODVAT Scheme and started availing the benefit of Notification No.16/97/-CE dated 1.4.97 and started clearing goods at Nil rate of duty.3. Revenue raised demand in respect of the credit of duty in is lying in stock. The contention of the Revenue is that as applicants started clearing goods at Nil rate of duty w.e.f. 1.4.97 therefore, the credit in respect of the inputs lying in stock is to be reversed.4. The contention of the applicants is that on 1.4.97, there was no balance in their credit amount. The credit already availed is fully utilized for payment of duty. Applicants r...

Pure Drinks Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT456TriDel

1. Since the points involved in these matters are common, they are disposed of together at the instance of both sides.2. The appellant M/s. Pure Drinks Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of aerated water falling under Chapter Heading No. 22.01/22.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant owns units, at Cannaught Place, Motinagar and Okhla under a common management. The excisable goods were first transferred to these units or to the duty paid godown of the appellant and later sold from there in the course of wholesale trade. The invoices raised from these places for sale revealed collection of certain rental charges and transport charges for the delivery to the buyers, which were not included in the assessable value. Undisputedly, different units to which stocks were transferred belonged to the same entity.3. The main issue raised in the show cause notice is in connection with the additional charges in the name of transport charges which included rental charges for the b...

Siddho Mal Paper Conversion Co. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The common issue involved in these four appeals filed by M/s. Siddho Mal Paper Conversion Co. relates to sanction of refund of duty in respect of duty paid goods received back by them under the provisions of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules.2. Heard Shri P.P. Mittal, learned Advocate, and Shri Bipin Verma, learned D.R. The submissions made by both the learned Advocate and learned D.R. and my findings are as under: 3.1. Learned Advocate mentioned that the Appellants had cleared Lux 100 Gms. wrapper under two invoices No. 495 and 525 for 2093 kgs. & 2150 kgs. respectively to M/s. Vashisti Detergents Ltd.; that out of the said quantity 3265 kgs. of the wrapper was rejected by the customers on account of loose winding and returned the same on 17.7.99 for which they filed D-3 intimation indicating therein that the returned goods would be subjected to the process of rewinding; that the goods were verified by the Inspector; that the goods were despatched to M/s.Hindustan Lever Lt...

A.K. Spintex Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT746TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. A.K. Spintex Ltd the issue involved is whether bar of Unjust Enrichment applies to the refund of duty sought by them.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants process man-made fabrics; that they receive grey unprocessed fabric from suppliers; that in term of Notification o. 7/2001-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2001 the get deemed CENVAT Credit in respect of declared inputs used in the manufacture of processed fabrics; that prior to 11.6.2001 the rate of deemed credit was 45% of the duty paid on processed fabric; that w.e.f 11.6.2001 Notification No. 7/2001 was amended by Notification No. 25/2001-CE and the rate of deemed credit was increased to 50%; that as the amendment effect from 1.6.2001 was not known to the Appellants up to 13.6.2001 they continued to make the clearance of the processed fabric on payment of duty @ 55% instead of 50% as they gave only deemed credit benefit @ 45% to their customers; that the customers were aware of the c...

Vishwakarma Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT62TriDel

1. Heard both sides. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs. 11,40,037/-. In this case, Cenvat credit is denied on the ground that credit was taken in respect of the differential duty paid by the supplier of inputs and subsequently, the demand for differential duty paid by the supplier of inputs was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The contention of the appellant is that they had taken credit on the strength of invoice issued by the supplier of inputs who has paid differential duty. Their submission is that now the demand has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) against the supplier of inputs and the amount is with the Revenue and supplier of inputs will not get any refund as the duty has already been collected. Therefore, as differential duty has already been paid, the applicants are entitled for the credit. In these circumstances, prima facie, we find that applicants have a strong case in their favour Pre-deposit of the who...

Shalimar Paper Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC313

1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed these appeals against the Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Notification No. 5/99-CE was denied on the ground that the appellants were availing the benefit of Notifications No. 9/98-CE as amended.2. The contention of the appellants is that as per condition No. 15 of Notification No. 5/99-CE, the exemption shall not be applicable to a manufacturer who avails of the exemption under the Notifications No.8/98-CE dt. 2.6.98 and 9/98-CE dated 2.6.98.3. The contention of the appellant is that the benefit of Notification No. 5/99-CE is not available to the manufacturer who was availing the benefit of both the Notifications. No. 8/98-CE and 9/98-CE. The contention is that the appellant was availing the benefit of Notification No. 9/98, therefore, the benefit of Notification No.5/99-CE cannot be denied to the appellant.4. The contention of the Revenue is that if a manufacturer is availing the benefit of either ...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Mrs. Rekha Mathur [Alongwith Ita

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Delhi)900

1. These are appeals by the Revenue against the common order dt. 1st May, 1998; of CIT(A)--Assessee, New Delhi, relating to asst. yr.1994-95.2. The first ground of appeal in these appeals which is a common ground in all the three appeals reads as follows: "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not following the valuation report in respect of property No. N-117, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi." 3. The facts and circumstances under which the aforesaid ground of appeal arise are as follows. One Mr. R.K. Mathur was the owner of l/3rd share of the property, bearing No. N-119, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as 'the property'. On his death on 6th May, 1991, his wife, Mrs. Rekha Mathur, (the assessee in ITA 3984/Del/1998) and. his two daughters Ms. Deepti Patni and Ms. Aditi Sharma (assessees in ITA 3986/Del/1998 and ITA 3985/Del/1998, respectively) became entitled to a l/3rd share each in the l/3rd share of Mr. R.K. M...

Saw Pipes Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)1036

1. In this appeal the assesses challenges the action of the learned CIT(A)-III, Delhi, in setting aside the order of the AO/Addl. CIT, Range 7, for the asst. yr. 2000-01.2. The facts of the case are that the assessment of the case was framed by the Addl. CIT, Range 7, vide his order dt. 31st March, 2003, computing the assessable income at Rs. Nil with unabsorbed depreciation Rs. 12,38,53,171 to be carried forward as against the claim of Rs. 16,85,15,018. This order was subjected to appeal on various issues before the learned CIT(A)-10, Delhi, who took decision vide his order dt. 7th Aug., 2003. On 31st Jan., 2004, appellant received a show-cause notice dt. 30th Jan., 2004, from learned CIT, Delhi-Ill. In the said notice the learned CIT expressed as to why the assessment made by the AO be not held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for the following reasons : (i) Exemption under Section 10(33) was claimed by you in respect of the dividend income amounting to Rs. 46...