Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

Kisan Co-operative Sugar Factory Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29-4-2005, confirming the order of the adjudicating authority by which cenvat credit of Rs. 1,49,010/- was disallowed and a penalty of equal amount imposed, besides ordering interest to be paid in terms of Section UAB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. According to the Revenue, during April 2003 to December 2003, the assessee had taken and utilized Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,49,010/- on welding electrodes falling under Heading 8311, plain plates, HR sheets, channels, angles falling under Chapter 72 and synthetic enamel (paints) falling under Chapter 32 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as capital goods. Since these were not covered under the definition of "capital goods" given in Rule 2(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the appellant had violated the provisions of the rules by taking such credit. Show cause notice dated 27-3-2004 was, therefore, issued to the ap...

Tehri Hydro Development Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(212)ELT366TriDel

2. These appeals are directed against the order in Appeal No. 104/2004 dated 31.8.2004 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhava Sheva.The appeals are in regard to the rates of duty applicable to consignments of 'Micro Silica' (Sio 2 -Silicon Dioxide) imported by the appellant.3. The appellant raised two claims - one that the item should be classified under heading 25 of the Customs Tariff and the other that the consignment should be allowed the benefit of Project Import under Chapter 98.4. The impugned order held against the appellant on the first issue and confirmed classification under Tariff heading 28, in particular under heading 2811.22. The order omitted to consider the second claim of the appellant (project assessment).5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Silicon Dioxide would be classifiable under tariff heading 25 as 'natural sands'. It is pointed out that natural sands, even after processing, would continue to fall under heading 25. The c...

Kothari Products Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC562

1. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Parag Gutkha and they are liable to pay duty under Central Excise Act. The Food Inspector seized 203 cases of Gutkha under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in May'98 alleging violation of the provisions of the said Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dt. 31.7.03 ordered for destruction of the said goods as the goods were smelling bad and not fit for human consumption. As such the appellant by its letter dt. 6.8.03 requested the Commissioner of Central Excise for remission of duty of Rs. 5,06,688/- on stock of Pan Parag Gold Gutkha 203 cases. By order dt.2.11.04, the Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the application dt. 6.8.03 for remission of Central Excise Duty. Hence the appellant filed the present appeal.2. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the Commissioner accepted that the goods become unfit for marketing or for consumption and the...

Agauta Sugar and Chemicals Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ200CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre deposit of tax of Rs. 6,75,545.00 and penalty.2. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that a show cause notice dated 8.11.2004 was issued under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 proposing demand of Servic Tax for the period from 16.11.1997 to 02.06.1998 in respect of Service Tax for "Goods Transport Operators". He submits that the applicants are deemed to be a person come under Section 71 A of the Finance Act, 1994 and therefore, Show Cause Notice issued under Section 73 is not maintainable. He relied open the following decisions:I. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II v. L.H. Sugar Factories Limited II. B.P.L. Engineering Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore 2006 (3) S.T.R. 747 (Tri. - Bang.) III. L.H. Sugar Factories Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II 2006 (3) S.T.R. 230 (Tri.-Del.) 3. The Ld. DR on behalf of the respondent submits that this Tribunal in the case of J.K. Industr...

Deepak Chhabra Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This misc. application has been filed by the assessee under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. It is submitted that there are mistakes in the order of the Tribunal which need rectification.2. The appeal before the Tribunal was that of the Income-tax department. The relevant grounds taken by the department were against the order of the CIT (Appeals) deleting (a) the addition of Rs. 1,00,761 made on account of under-stated turnover; (b) the addition of Rs. 2,90,180 made on account of under-stated gross profit rate; and (c) reducing the addition of Rs. 13,81,852 made on account of discrepancy on account of closing stock to Rs. 5 lakhs. So far as the first two additions were concerned, the Tribunal deleted the same vide paragraph 10 of its order. As regards the addition of Rs. 13,81,852, the Tribunal restored the addition, reversing the order of the CIT (Appeals) reducing the addition to Rs. 5 lakhs. The present misc. application is directed against the order of the Tribunal restori...

VipIn Kalia and ors. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT541; 2007(95)DRJ14; [2007(113)FLR892]

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The appellants are erstwhile employees' of State Bank of India. They opted for voluntary retirement under the State Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which was valid during the period 15th January, 2001 to 31st January, 2001. The option exercised by them was accepted by the respondent on 31st March, 2001.2. All the appellants have either completed 15 years of service or were of 40 years of age as on 31st December, 2000. Accordingly, as per the provisions of the State Bank of India Employees' Pension and Provident Fund Rules, they are not eligible for pension. Rule 22(1) of the aforesaid Rule reads as under:A member shall be entitled to a pension under these rules on retiring from the Bank's service-a)after having completed twenty years' pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years, or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 1.11.1993, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the a...

Sh. Ram Niwas JaIn Vs. Central Govt. Health Scheme and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT237; 2007(94)DRJ586

Rekha Sharma, J.1. It was April 25, 2002. The petitioner, little knowing what was ordained for him, went to attend a function at a relative's house. While he was there he felt pain in his chest and became unconscious. This was unforeseen emergency and called for emergent action. He was rushed to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre (EHIRC) where he underwent bypass surgery and remained admitted as an indoor patient from April 25, 1992 till May 10, 2002. He escaped death alright but not what was to follow.2. The petitioner had retired from the post of Upper Division Clerk from the office of Central Public Works Department (CPWD) on March 31, 2002. A card No. 058538 was issued to him on May 30, 2002 on the basis of which he and his wife became entitled to medical treatment in semi private wards of all the hospitals approved by the Central Government under the Central Government Health Scheme. It appears that under the said scheme, some Office Memorandums were issued by the Central...

Shri Prakash Chand Kapoor and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ29

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present Appeal has been filed by Mr. Prakash Chand Kapoor and four others (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants for short) and is directed against the judgment dated 4th August, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing their Writ Petition.2. It is an admitted case of the parties that in 1964, land including built up structure belonging to Mr. Manik Chand Kapoor, father of the appellant nos. 1-4 was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Compensation was awarded and paid to Mr. Manik Chand Kapoor towards acquisition of the land including the structures constructed on it.3. It appears that Mr. Manik Chand Kapoor did not hand over vacant possession of the constructed building and continued to remain in occupation of about 225 sq. yds of land.4. In these circumstances, the Delhi Development Authority in 1989 issued notices under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975.5. The Estate Officer passed an e...

Vinod Khanna Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT136

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The petitioner had taken voluntary retirement from the respondent bank on 15th January, 2001. The present writ petition was filed on 30th January, 2006 after five years of his retirement with the following two prayers:A) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to pay one month's salary to the petitioner on account of the debiting of the leave account of the petitioner, whose benefit in the form of LTC was not given to the petitioner.B) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to give Air Tickets to the destination of the petitioner's choice, or equivalent amount in money.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent has placed on record a receipt dated 15th January, 2001 signed by the petitioner which goes to show that he was paid a sum of Rs. 1,81,920.80/- towards leave encashment. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the submission that the petitioner has not been paid one ...

Builders Association of India and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India (U ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT578

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The challenge in these writ petitions, and the connected appeals against interim orders, is to the constitutional validity of:(a) The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 ('BOCW Act'). (b) The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 ('Cess Act'). (c) The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Central Rules, 1998 ('Central Rules').(d) The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Rules, 1998 ('Cess Rules').(e) The Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 ('Delhi Rules').2. The challenge to the statutes is by contractors who have entered into construction contracts. They are either in the process of executing the contract or have completed it. The contracts are with various government departments agencies or public sector undertakings (PSUs) for...