Delhi Court February 1991 Judgments

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Parmod Nath and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 43(1991)DLT498

R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This regular second appeal has been filed by the appellant along with tills application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. (2) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on this application to see whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned or not. I am of the view that this appeal is hopelessly barred by time and there is no sufficient ground disclosed in the application to condone the delay. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment of the first appellate court passed on 15.2.90. The file of this case is alleged to have remained with the counsel of the appellant up to 29.9.9U and it was only on that date that the file of this case was sent by the counsel. From the above circumstance, can it be said that the lapse was only on the part of the counsel The answer is no. Some duty was cast upon the officials of the Corporation also to procure the file from the counsel. Apparently the file of the case was sent by the counsel after mo...

Neirah Bhargava and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 43(1991)DLT745

B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) RULE. D.B. (2) The challenge in this writ petition is to the demand of the respondents for a sum of Rs. 4,49,226.00 on account of 50% being claimed as unearned increase and interest @ 18% p.a. on the said amount. (3) Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner No. 1 had agreed to sell her house to petitioner No. 2 and in June 1984, an application had been made to the Delhi Development Authority for grant of permission to sell. A formal agreement to sell was executed on 15th January, 1985. Thereafter, again an application for permission to sell was filed on 25th August, 1986. (4) According to the respondents, no documents had been filed by the petitioner and the application was incomplete. It is further alleged by the respondents that the petitioner No. 1's attorney was called on 24th January, 1986, and 22nd May, 1986 for clarification. It is further alleged that documents were supplied only in May, 1986. Thereafter, no action seems to have been taken by the re...

Mohan Lal Kuba Vs. S.K. Mehra and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 44(1991)DLT217

B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) The prayer in this writ petition is that respondent No. 1 should clear the name of the petitioner for allotment of land. (3) The petitioner became member of respondent No. 2, which is a Co-operative House Building Society. According to the petitioner, he had paid the entire dues of the respondent Society. Nevertheless, the Managing Committee on 7th October, 1977 sought to expel the petitioner from membership. It is alleged that this expulsion was approved by the Registrar, respondent No. 1, in 1978, though the factum of the same was not communicated to the petitioner till 1990. (4) Being unaware of the approval, and as the Society was not receiving money from the petitioner, a reference of the disputes between the petitioner and the Society was made under Section 60 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act to an arbitrator. This reference was made by the Joint Registrar of respondent No. 1. On 11th March, 1986 the arbitrator gave his award in favor of th...

Essar Gujarat Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT221TriDel

1. These two appeals emanate from the same impugned order. As the recital of brief facts, to follow, will show, the dispute arose when the appellants imported certain goods and declared a value for the purposes of assessment. Customs wanted to include in the value, several other items. The Collector who adjudicated the matter ordered the inclusion of some items and help that other items were not includible.The importers/appellants came up in appeal (Appeal No. C/405/90-A) against the inclusion ordered by the Collector and the Department came up in appeal (Appeal No. C/1975/90-A) against the items which the Collector held as not includible. For the sake of convenience and clarity we propose to first dispose of the appeal filed by M/s. Essar Gujarat Ltd. (herein after referred to Essar) and then to consider the Department's appeal.2. The facts in brief common to both the appeals are that Essar who wanted to produce Sponge Iron at Surat sought the importation of a second-hand plant. The ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mahindra Engg. and Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1991)LC125Tri(Delhi)

1. The Revenue has come in appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), HV-537/PN-133/86, dated 22-10-1986.2. The issue pertains to repacking of products. The respondents bring duty paid synthetic resin and Hardener in bulk. They repack them in dual packs of small quantities and market the same under their own brand name. The appellants contend that the dual pack marketed with brand name brings into existence a different and distinct marketable product. The respondents have accepted the excisability of this product and had filed classification list for assessment under Tariff Item 68.The question pertains to the correct classification of the final product marketed in a dual pack at a much higher value and assessable under T.I. 15A(1) of CET. In his order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has held that the classification under Tariff Item 15A as a new product is incorrect and set aside the order of classification under Tariff Item 15A CET. The case of...

Perfect Drop Pins Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1991)LC191Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an application for stay of operation of the order dated 30-3-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, by which he had asked the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division III to work out the demand of duty on a certain basis and to intimate the amount to the applicants within a fortnight and which should be paid forthwith by them. Besides, the Collector had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the applicants for various contraventions alleged in the show cause notice. Among the grounds on which stay is sought are the following :- (a) The Collector has treated the relationship between the applicants and certain independent manufacturers as of one unit employing another unit on hired labour basis; (b) The Collector has held independent manufacturers as dummies and facade to benefit the applicants to get his value of their clearances within the exemption limits available to small scale units; (c) the proceedings have been initiated as well as conclu...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Continental Devices India Ltd. (13-02-1 ...

Court: Delhi

 B.N. Kirpal and S. Duggal, JJ.1. In this petition for the assessment year 1982-83, the petitioner seeks reference of the following five question to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 7,72,465 in respect of the under valuation of the closing stock by following their earlier order of the assessment year 1980-81 by ignoring the material facts that the order relied upon by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not been accepted by the Department and the under valuation of the stock was due to the change in the method of valuation of the closing stock which was not bona fide 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing that investment allowance and depreciation may be allowed on a sum of Rs. 3,11,270 which was ac...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Apparels Export Promotion Council

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1991]190ITR163(Delhi)

1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this court in this petition for the assessment year 1979-80 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs, received from the Cotton Textiles Export Promotion Council forms part of the corpus of the trust and hence is not taxable ?' 2. The respondent had received Rs. 20 lakhs from the Cotton Textile Export Promotion Council. This amount was not taxed by the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax passed an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, and set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer and directed the Income-tax Officer to investigate the matter. The assessed filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessed contended before the Tribunal that the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs which was received formed part of the corpus. Reliance was placed on the treatment given to this amount in the assessed's own balance-sheet and also ...

India Medico Instruments Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 44(1991)DLT11; [1991(63)FLR275]

R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26 9 89 passed by the Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Delhi by which he dismissed the petition of the appellant. (2) The appellant filed a petition alleging that it was a registered partnership concern and running two units one at 14, Angoori Bagh Market Delhi and the other at 759, Gall No. 9, Raghbarpura No. 2, Gandhi Nagar Delhi. It further alleged that there was no inter-dependence or intertransferability employees. The number of employees in each Unit was alleged to be less than 10 and, thereforee, the respondent-corporation wrongly covered the appellant firm under the Employees State Insurance Act. thereforee, the appellant was not liable to pay any contribution. (3) The petition was contested on behalf of the respondent alleging that both the units run by the appellant stood covered in the definition of factory as given in the Act on the basis of 01 Form submitted by the appellant. It was held by the learned ...

Safari Industries (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1991)LC303Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue in question is that the aluminium frames processed out of duty paid aluminium section are claimed to be not excisable, and no duty is attracted.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of travel goods viz.suitcases/brief-cases, vanity cases etc., falling under Heading 42.01/4201.10. The appellants also manufacture plastic shells, aluminium frames, etc., as intermediate products. The aluminium frame is prepared by bending aluminium sections procured form the supplier.The bending of the aluminium frames is done manuajly with the help of male and female dies. The frames undergo various processes such as finishing, drilling, anodising and pinching, subsequently in order to use them as components in making of travel goods. The Department has held that these aluminium frames are goods falling under Heading 8307.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and subsequently held these as classifiable under Heading 8302.90.3. The appellants claim that the Department has all along been ...