Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments

Didar Steel Complex (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC525

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 27.2.2004, which upheld the order-in-original for denial of Modat credit and imposition of penalty.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants herein availed Modvat credit on the invoices issued by M/s.Laxmi Steel. An investigation carried out against Laxmi Steel indicated that they did not have any manufacturing facility and nor were there any raw material or finished goods and they were engaged only in paper transaction. Based on such transaction, the lower authorities issued show cause notice to the appellants for denial of the Modvat credit availed by them on the invoices of Laxmi Steels. The appellants resisted the show cause notice on the ground that they have received the goods and used the same for the manufacture of the final products.The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand relying upon the adjudication order of the Commissioner. Chandigarh, who confirmed the demand on the Laxm...

Flex Laminators Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 13-5-2004 which upheld the order-in-original confirm the demand and imposing penalty.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are manufacturers of plastic granules and they stopped the manufacturing of plastic granules. The appellants had availed Modvat credit on the capital goods purchased by them in the year 1994-95 for such manufacturing activity. Somewhere in September, 2000, the appellants decided to close down the section and shift the same to their another factory at Malanpur. They intimated to the Department vide their letter dated 16-9-2000 regarding the removal of such capital goods without payment of duty under the provisions of Rule 173 read with Rule 156A of the erstwhile CER, 1944. Having not received any response from the authorities, the appellant on their own removed the capital goods on 4-10-2000 and 6-10-2000 by using the AR-3A given by the Superintendent of Central Excise...

Castrol India Ltd., Mr. A. Batra Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These three appeals are before us on remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, under judgment dated May 4, 2006.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of lubricating oil. That oil is packed in plastic containers. During the period 1.7.98 to 26.3.99, the appellant received in its factory plastic granules for the purpose of manufacture of plastic containers. Input (modvat) credit was also taken (equivalent to the excise duty paid on the granules). The granules were passed on to job workers for manufacture of containers. Upon return of the containers, the appellant used them for packing both dutiable (excise) and non-dutiable oils. It is to be noted that no input credit is available in regard to manufactured goods which are exempt from duty. Therefore, clearly, the credit taken on that portion of the granules, which went into the production of containers which were used for packing non-duty paid oil was not available to the appellant. Upon this being noticed, a S...

Aviation Employees Coop. H/B Socy. Ltd. Vs. Desu and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT313

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The writ petitioner, a Housing Co-operative Society, has approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to provide regular and uninterrupted electric supply in street lighting service in Gagan Vihar area which are inter alias developed by the petitioner. The petitioner's colony was incorporated and was registered under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act; its members were approved by the concerned authorities. The Delhi Development Authority on 15.7.1980 approved building activity. It appears that the society took up the issue of electrification of the common areas and street lighting sometime in August 1981. 2. The petitioners have urged that a total amount of more than Rs. 14 lakhs were deposited with erstwhile DESU from time to time. The latter had charged Rs. 359916/- at the rate of Rs. 8595/- per acre for the total area. After electrification of the colony by the DESU, the MCD appears to have issued a general notice for the purpose of taking over ...

Vijay Pal Vs. I.T.D.C. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ434

Manju Goel, J.1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 1.4.2002 passed by respondent No. 2, the General Manager of Ashoka Hotel, terminating the petitioner from the service of respondent No. 2. The order of 1.4.2002 under challenge gives the following facts:The petitioner Vijay Pal was issued a charge-sheet on 13.6.2001 for absenting from duties unauthorizedly for 129 days during the year 2000. An enquiry was conducted by Mr. S. Paul, Enquiry Officer. On receipt of a copy of the enquiry report notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why his service should not be terminated. Shri Arun George, General Manager (A) of respondent No. 2 agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges levelled against Vijay pal, the petitioner, to have been conclusively proved in the enquiry. He found no substance in the reply of the petitioner dated 31.1-2002. Finding that the charge amounted to grave misconduct and taking into consideration all extenuating a...

E. Shanmugam Vs. Aps Cam-o-matec P. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]148CompCas701(Delhi)

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act').2. The appellant herein was a director of APS Cam-O-Matec P. Ltd. ('the respondent-company') and was/is holding 40 shares. The balance 200 shares were equally held by Mr. Surjit Singh and Mr. Lakhbir Singh. Thus, the appellant held 16.66 per cent, of the paid-up capital and the balance 83.32 per cent, were held by the respondent-group. This shareholding pattern continued till fresh shares were issued on December 9, 2002. 9,760 additional shares were allotted to Mr. Lakhbir Singh and after the said allotment the shareholding of the appellant got reduced from 16.66 per cent, to barely 0.004 per cent.3. It is admitted by counsel for the parties that further shares were issued on December 9, 2002, pursuant to the direction given by the Ministry of Company Affairs that minimum paid-up share capital of a company should be Rs. 1 lakh.4. Disputes and differences arose between the appellant o...

Door Sanchar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Shri R.K. Bara ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR491(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Door Sanchar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. awarded work of construction of 120 dwelling units to the respondent. In respect of the civil works parties entered into an agreement dated 8.4.1987. In respect of certain items of work (civil) modifications/substitutions were effected vide agreement dated 5.5.1990. A supplementary agreement was executed in May 1991 wherein on account of material escalation objector agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 6 lacs. On 14.6.1991 further agreement pertaining to rates for earth filling work was entered into. It was followed by another agreement dated 1.8.1992 pertaining to certain extra items of works (civil) which were awarded. Vide a separate agreement dated 27.9.1989, sanitary and water supply works were awarded. This agreement was modified by another agreement dated 25.1.1993.2. Pertaining to electrical works agreement dated 24.9.1988 was executed.3. The period of completion of the civil works was 30 months commencing from t...

Puran Singh S/O Late Shri H.S. Aithani and ors. Vs. R.P.G. Transmissio ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT317

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. 1. With the consent of the parties, arguments in all of these writ petitions have been heard together. 2. By these writ petitions, the writ petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the orders of Industrial Tribunal dated 7th October, 2002, 12.11.2002 and awards passed by Tribunal dated 2.12.2002, 14.11.2002 16.4.2003, 14.5.2003, 15.5.2003 and 1st September, 2003 in IDs Nos. 1/2002 to 15/2002. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders and awards whereby the termination of services of the petitioners was held legal and permission under Section 33(2) was granted by the Tribunal. 3. All these awards are based on same set of facts involving same questions of law. The first set of award holds inquiry conducted by management as fair and just. By second set of awards, Tribunal dismissed applications under Section 33A of ID Act and by third set of awards, Tribunal allowed applications under Section 33(2)(b) of t...

Asoke Ghosh Vs. Ms. Urmi A. Goswami and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT69

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By these Orders I shall dispose of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which accompanied the filing of the Plaint. The prayers in the Plaint pertain to the passing of a permanent injunction and the grant of damages amounting to Rupees one crore. Copious and lengthy arguments have been filed with photocopies of decisions from across the globe. Counsel have made their submissions within the parameters of the decision of the Division Bench in Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi : AIR2002Delhi58 which holds that an injunction should not be granted at the pre-publication stage. However, it does not inexorably or logically follow that an injunction cannot be granted postpublication. The Division Bench was only concerned with an injunction at the pre-publication stage; yet it specifically took note of prior publications which had been made in respect of some of the defamatory statements which the Plaintiff had prayed to be injuncted. T...

N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC323

1. These appeals are before us on remand by the Hon'ble Supreme ourt vide judgment dated 03.5.2006 in Civil Appeal Nos. 7785/2001 & 1702/2002. We may read the remand order: Aggrieved against the order passed by the authority-in-original, respondent filed the appeal before the Tribunal which has been accepted by passing the impugned order. The order-in-original has been set aside. Tribunal has held that the assessee was entitled to the exemption from payment of duty under notification No.5/98-CE.2. Exemption under the notification is available subject to the conditions specified at Sl. No. 10 of the annexure to the notification.A perusal of condition No. 10 shows that exemption under the notification is available subject to the condition that the manufacturer does not avail of credit of duty (i) on the products mentioned in column 2 of Sl. No.69 of the notification or (ii) on other products manufactured in the same factory. There is no dispute on the point that respondent had not a...