Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Haryana Oil and Soya Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 20-10-2004 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the penalty, demand and allowed partly the appeal of the Respondent. The Revenue is in appeal against that part of the order-in-appeal by which the duty demand of Rs. 1,16,090/-(approx.) and the penalty imposed were set aside.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration one that the Respondent Imported Crude Palm Oil (edible grade) and degummed soyabean oil under concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No.16/2000-Cus. dated 1- 3-2000 as amended for the manufacture of Vanaspati & Refind Oil. On scrutiny of the records by authorities it was found that 44.966 MT of the Crude Palm Oil imported and assessed provisionally was not used for the intended purpose. A Show Cause notice was issued to respondent for recovery of the duly on the said quantity and also for imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority, confinned the demand of Rs. 2,01,228/- and...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Desai Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the confiscation of goods that is S.S.Scrap is in dust form were set aside.3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of stain steel cut wire shots. During the process of manufacture some S.S. Scrap in dust form comes into existence and as per the Revenue the scrap is not accounted in their statutory record. Therefore, are liable for confiscation and respondents are liable for imposition of penalty.4. The contention of the appellant is that it is not the S.S. scrap but it is in dust form and the value is negligible. The respondents pointed out that as per the report of Superintendent Range Officer as noticed by the adjudicating authority, the scrap in powder form have negligible value, and has no market.5. I find that in this case the Revenue is treating the goods in question as S.S. Scrap, whereas during the manufacturing process some scrap in dust form was generated and as pe...

The Associated Cement Companies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both the sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the benefit of modvat credit in respect of following items is disallowed: 2. The contention of the appellant is that High temperature colour close circuit TV is used with kiln as an accessory. This close circuit TV is used for monitoring burning condition in kiln which produces clinker and clinker condition. It is classifiable under chapter Heading 8474.10 of the tariff and as per the definition of capital goods under 57Q at the relevant lime, the, components, spares, parts and accessories are covered in the specified goods. The contention or the appellant is that High temperature colour close circuit TV is used as accessory of kiln. Therefore, they are entitled for the benefit of credit.3. In respect of mechanical interlock, the contention is that, revenue is not disputing that it is a part of pollution control equipment which is essential for running of the cement plant and thus mechanical i...

All India Station Masters' Vs. Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ102CAT

1. In all these Original Applications an order passed by the respondents on 23.07.2004 upholding the restructuring effected in group 'C cadre vide order dated 9.10.2003 in the category of Station Masters, Assistant Station Masters, Yard Masters and Traffix Inspectors for short SMs ASMs, YMs and TIs unifying into the cadre of SMs/ASMs, is impugned. As cause of action and relief sought are identical, in order to avoid multiplicity of decisions, these O.As. are being disposed of by this common order.2. In O.A. No. 2001/2004, All India Station Masters' Association, Delhi Division Branch along with others, have assailed merger of categories of SMs ASMs, YMs and TIs with a relief to quash Para 10.1 of the Notification dated 9.10.2003 and Board's letter dated 23.7.2004 or in the alternative to give effect to Para 10.5 dated 9.10.2003 from prospective date.3. Likewise in O.A. No. 2008/2004 filed by the All India Station Masters' Association along with one other, a challenge has been made to t...

Escorts Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)104ITD427(Delhi)

1. Income-tax Appeal No. 567/Del/2005 is an appeal by the assessee and ITA No. 1562/Del/2005 is an appeal by the Revenue and both these appeals are directed against the order dt. 31st Jan., 2005 of CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi, relating to the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. First we shall take up for consideration the assessee's appeal. The first ground of appeal of the assessee is general in nature and does not call for any specific adjudication. 2. (A) The CIT(A) erred in invoking the provisions of Section 2(24) whereas the AO had made the addition under Section 2(24)(iv). The CIT(A) in fact during the course of hearing of the appeal had required the appellant to advance arguments only with reference to the provisions of Section 2(24)(iv) and at no point of time during the hearing of the appeal which lasted over a period of 3 months did she indicate her intention of invoking Section 2(24). (B) The CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 2(24) without giving necessary opportunity to the appellant to advance...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Dharampal Prem Chand Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)113TTJ(Delhi)290

1. This appeal by the Revenue against the order dt. 2nd May, 2003 of learned CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi raises the following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in: (1) deleting addition of Rs. 2,12,12,644 on account of sale of silver outside the books of account. (2) directing the AO to allow deduction under Section 80-IB on account of income from Agartala unit which arose because there was a refund of excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,61,92,386 without appreciating that refund of excise duty cannot form part of income for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IB as it is not a profit and gain "derived" from the undertaking.In the first ground, the Department has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 2,12,12,644 on account of silver deemed to have been sold outside the books of account.2. Briefly the facts are that on the basis of assessment order of earlier years and relying on the test report of a sample of a product by Shri Ram In...

Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99ITD177(Delhi)

1. As common issues are involved in these 9 appeals the same have been argued together by the common counsel of the assessees and the common departmental representative. We are deciding these appeals together for convenience.2. These appeals, with the exception of IT(SS)A No. 312(Del)/2005, have been filed by the assessees on 11.2.2005 against the orders of the learned CIT(Appeals)-I, New Delhi dated from 21.10.2004 to 1.11.2004 in the cases of the assessees in relation to orders Under Section 158BC for the block period 1.4.1995 to 11.9.2001. Appeal in IT(SS) A. No.312(Del)/2005 has been filed by M/s Balaji Wires Pvt. Ltd. on 23.6.2005 against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals)-I, New Delhi dated 17.5.2005 in relation to the order Under Section 158BC for the block period 1.4.1995 to 11.9.2001.3. The facts of the case leading to these appeals briefly are that search and seizure operations Under Section 132(1) of the Act were conducted at various residential and business premises of ...

The Management of Ram Lal Anand College Vs. the Workman Sh. C.L. Yadav ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ731; 2006(3)SLJ251(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The writ petitioner in these proceedings challenges an order dated 21. 3. 1996 as well as the final award dated 4. 3. 1998, of the Industrial Tribunal-I. 2. The writ petitioner is the management of Ram Lal Anand College affiliated to the Delhi University (hereafter called the college). The first respondent (who had raised the industrial dispute and was claimant before the Tribunal is hereafter referred to ''as the workman''. )3. The workman was appointed by the college, on 1. 11. 1973 as Superintendent (Accounts). His services were confirmed on 1. 11. 1974. The college issued a memorandum alleging certain objectionable conduct to the workman on 17. 1. 1976. He replied to it on 2. 2. 1976. By an order, dated 28. 6. 1976, the college placed the workman under suspension from its services. The order of suspension was revoked on 23. 7. 1976. The workman was reinstated to the services and reported for duties. 4. On 29. 11. 1976 a charge-sheet was served upon the workm...

Paul Manufacturing Co. Vs. the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(32)PTC285(Del)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India there is a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ, direction and order in the nature of certiorari and/or any other writ/order quashing the Registration Certificate of the Trade Mark Registration No. 1280913 granted under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by the Registrar of Trade Marks. It has been asseverated that the Petitioner has filed a Rectification Application before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which, however, is not functioning due to absence of Coram, and hence the Petitioner has been left with no alternative but to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.2. It has been noted in these proceedings that on 20.10.2005 Joint Secretary, Government of India, had appeared in this Court and had stated that the appointment of the Technical Member (Trade Marks) of the Appellate Board would be carried out within one month. This was not done and time was extend...

National Horticulture Board Vs. Infragro Industries Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT661; 2006(87)DRJ438

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This application has been filed on behalf of the defendants. However, in the meanwhile, defendant No.3 passed away and his legal heirs have been brought on record. They have moved a separate application being I.A. No. 1072/2006 which, although styled as an application under Order XXIV Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is actually an application for leave to defend on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.3. Both these application are taken up for disposal.2. The suit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that a sum of Rs 60,00,000/- was extended by way of loan facility to the defendant No 1 and the defendants 2, 3 and 4 gave personal guarantees for repayment of the loan. The defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 were Directors in the defendant No.1 company. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the suit was filed primarily on the written agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and on the basis of the guar...