Delhi Court January 2010 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Kanpur Vs. M/S. A.V. Valves Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. dated 29.1.08. The matter is before the Tribunal for the second time having been remanded earlier by Tribunal s Final order No. 490/07-SM(BR) dated 18.2.07. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that on 20.12.01, when the officers visited the factory premises of the respondent company, they found shortage of finished goods valued at Rs.3,44,400/- and also shortage of inputs valued Rs.3,79,990/-. The Director of the respondent company in his statement dated 20.12.01 admitted the shortage and stated that the same occurred due to absence of proper accounting staff deputed for the purpose who could not make the proper accountal of production and clearances made by them during past 15 days. He also submitted that sometimes they receive inputs in lesser quantity compared to the quantities mentioned in the invoices. However, he agreed to pay the duty involved and accordingly, duty amounting t...

Cce, Indore Vs. M/S. Allied Asia Gears Ltd., Shri Ramesh Tourani, Dire ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per RAKESH KUMAR: Facts leading to filing of these two appeals by the Revenue and the cross objections by the respondents are, in brief, as under:- 1.1. M/s. Allied Asia Gears Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the respondent company) are engaged in the manufacture of Transmission Gears and Shafts, chargeable to central excise duty under heading 87.08 of Central Excise Tariff. While Shri A.T. Kukreja is the Managing Director of the Respondnet company, Shri Ramesh Tourani is theDirector of the respondent company. On 4.1.2001 on account of default in fortnightly payment of duty by the respondent company, the factory premises of the respondent company were visited by the jurisdictional central excise officers for recovery of duty and for this purpose 303 boxes of finished goods Transmission Gears valued at Rs. 14 lakhs were placed under detention. On a surprise visit of the factory premises 14.12.2001, the central excise officers checked the stock of the goods detained on 4.1.2001 and found th...

M/S Anant Raj Industries Vs. C.C.E., Delhi Iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: These two appeals by the same appellants involve common issue and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellants manufacture ceramic glazed tiles and avail concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No.6/2002 dated 1.3.2002 as amended. As a condition to avail the benefit of the said notification the appellants were not availing credit on the duty paid on the inputs under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellants claimed refund of proportional credit involved on the inputs attributable to the portion of goods exported by them. 4. The very same issue relating to the very same appellant has been decided against them vide Final Order No.103-204/2010-SM(Br) dated 5.1.2010 with the following findings: “6.1. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. It is not in dispute that the appellants did not avail the Cenvat credit under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit rules. If they had availed the c...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Auora Foam (P) Ltd ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: These two appeals by the Department are against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 47-48/CE/CHD/2008 dated 18.1.08. 2. Heard both sides. 3. When the officers visited the factory premises of the respondent company on 10.3.07 and conducted stock verification, the stock of finished goods was found tallied with the recorded balance. However, the stock recorded of raw materials namely, Flexi PU foam sheets/ blocks was 14,102.11 Kgs. whereas the actual stock was 16,421 Kg. thus excess stock of 2318.89 Kgs. valued at Rs.2,78,267/- involving Cenvat credit of Rs.45,859/- was found and the same was seized. Show cause notice dated 9.7.07 was issued and the original authority after holding that unaccounted raw materials were kept for the purpose of manufacture of excisable goods without bringing into account and for removing clandestinely, confiscated the excess found raw materials under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 but allowed the same to be redeemed on pa...

Prem (Smt.) Vs. Satyam Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

M.L. Sahni, Member: 1. This appeal by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) is directed against the order dated 3.3.2008 passed in complaint case No. 675/2005 by the District Forum, V (North West) ) Shalimar Bagh, Delhi dismissing the complaint of the appellant. 2. The case of Appellant, briefly stated, is that the Appellant was suffering from some uterine problem and as such she contacted the Respondent/OP-1 on 13.8.2004 for treatment of the said problem and the Respondent/OP -2 conducted the operation on 14.8.2004. The appellant was discharged on 17.8.2004 and was advised to come up for post-operative check-up on 21.8.2004. When the appellant turned up for check-up on 21.8.2004, the catheter which was placed on the appellant after operation was removed. After the removal of the catheter, the appellant started continuous dribbling of urine. The problem was reported to the Respondents on the same day. She was told that it was a routine problem which might occur to ...

Shri Sanjeev Kumar JaIn S/O Late Shri Sher Singh JaIn Vs. Shri Raghubi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT528

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The importance of this decision lies not in any substantial question of law having been decided - indeed, no question of law was urged before us, only issues touching upon facts. The importance lies in the nature of the dispute between the parties, which is a purely commercial dispute in which litigation expenses have touched the sky. In our opinion, the only way in which a successful litigant can be compensated financially is by awarding actual costs incurred by him in the litigation. The Supreme Court has recommended this course of action and we think the time has come to give more than serious weight and respect to the views of the Supreme Court. We have endeavoured to do just that in this appeal by awarding to the Respondents the actual litigation expenses incurred by them, which is a staggering Rs. 45,00,000/-.2. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 8th November, 2004 passed by a learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 227/2004 in CS (OS) No. 2213/2003. By th...

Joginder Gulati Vs. Io Dri

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT789

V.K. Jain, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 135(1)(a) of Customs Act. The case of the complainant is that on receiving intelligence about smuggling of contraband goods into India through speed post parcels, officers of DRI went to speed post centre at Bhai Vir Singh Marg, New Delhi on 12.10.2002 and identified eight packages. Four parcels out of them belong to accused No. 1 Beam Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and were consigned by VIST International Pte. Ltd. from Singapore. Description of the goods had not been given on the consignment note affixed on them and the goods found inside the packages were not in terms of the description given in the invoices found inside the packages. A letter was also received from Sh. Pradeep Jain, counsel for accused No. 1 Beam Technologies Pvt. Ltd., enclosing certain invoices therewith and claiming that there was no variance in the description give...

Jai Bhagwan Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT563

Mukta Gupta, J.1. The Petitioner was a constable in Delhi Police when on charges of illegally extorting Rs. 100/- from one Mrs. Ranjana Kapoor, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. He was formally charged in the following terms:ChargeYou, Ct. Jai Bhagwan No. 770/A are hereby charged that on the night intervening 6/7.3.95 while performing duty on Belt at X-Ray machine at gate No. 7, 8 and 9 in Shift A. NITC had extorted Rs. 100/- as an illegal gratification from Mrs. Ranjana Kapoor during the course of Security Check of passengers of flight No. AF-177. She made a complaint of this incident to Shri P.S. Narang Operations Officer of Air France, who introduced her to Shri O.P. Yadav Inspr. She handed over a complaint to the Inspector and identified you, Ct. Jai Bhagwan No. 770/A as you had accepted Rs. 100/- from her which was later on returned to her by you in the presence of Inspr. O.P. Yadav and SI Arjun Singh.The above act on the part of you, Ct. Jai Bhagwan No. 770/A amou...

Rajpal Kumar and ors. Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT515

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The petitioners before me are the sons of ex-employees of the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called the 'FCI'). Their fathers, namely, Birbal Mehto, Lakshmi Dass and Gopal were working as H/Lab in the CTO (Naraina). They sought voluntary retirement inspired by a voluntary scheme of the FCI contained in a circular dated July 03, 1996 which, the petitioners contend, gave their fathers the option to take voluntary retirement on medical grounds and also held out a promise to them that consequent to their such retirement, their dependants will be given compassionate appointments in their place. In their letters/applications seeking retirement which were dated January 28, 2002, January 21, 2002 and April 22, 2002, they expressed their inability to work on account of their medical unfitness and accordingly, they requested that they be sent for medical check-up and also requested that their sons be provided jobs in their place. The FCI acceded to their request but on...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Del)167

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Revenue is aggrieved by the order dated 13th July, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 207/DEL/2005 relating to the assessment year 1997-98.2. The issue before the Tribunal was as to whether certain prior period expenses amounting to Rs75,96,534/- had been rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Act.3. It is an admitted position that the reopening was subsequent to the four-year period stipulated in the proviso to Section 147 and, consequently, the same could only be initiated if any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 or in response to a notice under Section 142(1) or Secti...