Delhi Court May 1994 Judgments

Detecon Indian Project Office Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)278; 55(1994)DLT456; 1994(29)DRJ527

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The petitioner is a non-resident (foreign) company incorporated in Germany, having its registered office at Bonn, Germany It has its project office in New Delhi which is regularly assessed to income-tax. In January, 1986 it entered into an agreement with the President of India through the Ministry of Transport, Department of Railways by which it agreed to act through its New Delhi Project office as consultants and to provide consultancy services with regard to architecture and planning for integrated communication network, for Indian Railways. Since for the purpose of executing the said agreement the petitioner company required the services of expatriate employees, question arose with regard to income-tax payable by them. Clause 29 of the Agreement took care of that. The said clause reads as under: 'I.R.(Indian Railways) shall take full responsibility for payment of all taxes for which the Consultant or his expatriate employees are and/. or 83 shall be liable under ...

Pramod Kumar Garg @ Ravinder Chandhok Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)206; 1994CriLJ3121; 1994(3)Crimes168; 1994(29)DRJ464

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner, a detenu under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974(for short 'the Act'), filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for his release from the custody. The petitioner was detained on 3 January 1994 under order dated 22 December 1993 by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him under section 3 of the Act on his satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and also preventing him from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. The petitioner was supplied with the grounds of detention. He had been intercepted on the night of 18/19 September 1993 when he arrived from Hongkong via Bangkok by an Air France flight at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. He had concealed gold secreted in his body which he ejected through his rectum. T...

Jwala Pershad Ashok Ashok Kumar Chopra and anr. Vs. Nath Tubes Pvt. Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)31; AIR1994Delhi327; 55(1994)DLT277; 1994RLR357

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is an application for direction to the defendants to pay rent/damages for use and occupation of the premises, which was let out by the plaintiff, H.U.F. to defendant No.1.(2) In the suit the plaintiff has alleged that the premises in dispute were let out to defendant No.1 and that defendant no.4 who is its Managing Director and defendants 2 and 3, who are the Directors of defendant No.1 had guaranteed the payment of rent. It is further stated that at the time of institution of the suit the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 35000.00 per month. Plaintiff has alleged that the defendants had not been paying any rent.(3) The position taken up by the defendants is that though defendant No.1was the tenant initially, but subsequently at the time of renewal of the lease deed the tenancy was transferred to defendants 3 and 4 and that defendant No.1 is not liable to pay rent for the premises in dispute. The case of defendant No.2 is also that initially the premises were let out ...

Detecon Indian Project Office Vs. Income-tax Officer and Others.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1994)123CTR(Del)416; [1994]210ITR260(Delhi)

JASPAL SINGH J. - The petitioner is a non-resident (foreign) company incorporated in Germany, having its registered office at Bonn, Germany. It has its project office in New Delhi which is regularly assessed to income-tax. In January, 1986, it entered into an agreement with President of India through the Ministry of Transport, Department of Railways, by which in agreed to act through its New Delhi project office as consultants and to provide consultancy services with regard to architecture and planning for integrated communication network for the Indian Railways. Since for the purpose of executing the said agreement, the petitioner-company required the services of expatriate employees, the question arose with regard to income-tax payable by them. Clause 29 of the agreement took care of that. The said clause reads as under :'I. R. (Indian Railways) shall take full responsibility for payment of all taxes for which consultant or his expatriate employees are and/or shall be liable under th...

S.V. Rao Vs. Byford Leasing Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the Commission directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 93,681/- with interest on Rs. 83,681/- from the date of the complaint till the date of recovery within a period of three months failing which action shall be taken against them u/Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. 2. The respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Commission to the National Commission, which is still pending before it. In the appeal they prayed for stay of the operation of the order of the Commission. The National Commission granted the stay, subject to the condition that the company deposited before the State Commission for payment to the respondent, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- within one month from the date of the order. It was further ordered that if the deposit was made the amount be paid to the complainant without insisting for any security and in default of the compliance of the above condition, the stay shall stand automatically cancelle...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. National Engg. India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT588TriDel

1. Question involved in all these matters are common and, therefore, a common order is being passed.2. The assessees (whether the appellants or respondents) are manufacturing cycle grade steel balls. They contend that the steel balls manufactured by them either fall under Chapter 87 Tariff Heading 87.14 or Chapter 73 Tariff Heading 73.26 as parts of cycles or other forged products, as the case may be. On the other hand, the department contends that the steel balls manufactured by the assessees are polished steel balls within the specifications given in Note 6 to Chapter 84 of the CETA, 1985 and, therefore, all these steel balls fall under Tariff Heading 84.82 as parts of ball bearings. Consequently, benefit of Notification No. 62/86, dt. 10-2-1986 .or 162/86, dt.1-3-1986 given to parts and accessories of cycles and cycle rickshaws will not be available to the steel balls manufactured by the assessees.It is the case of the assessees that prior to 1-3-1986 i.e. the date from which the n...

Bansal Plywood Industries Pvt. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT288TriDel

1. Shri A.M. Guha, the ld. Consultant appeared for the appellant and Shri B.D. Bhagat, the ld. JDR for the respondent.2. Heard the submissions of both sides. The main emphasis of the ld.Consultant appearing for the appellant was that the goods had not reached the RG-1 stage; that they were maintaining pre-RG 1 register incorporating the daily production reports; that a number of operations were required to be conducted on the goods before they could be entered in RG 1 register; that the statement of Shri Upadhyay which has been relied upon by the adjudicating authority as well as the Appellate authority was retracted; that in a case reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T.425, the Tribunal had held that the plea put forth by the appellant could be accepted if they had maintained and produced private records incorporating the daily production of the goods. Relying on this decision on an analogy basis, the ld. Consultant submitted that the appellant was maintaining records in pre-RG 1 register whic...

PravIn R. Shah Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT573TriDel

1.1 The appellant herein, a non-resident Indian came on 1-11-1978. He filed two baggage declaration forms on 6-11-1978 comprising several electronic items in respect of his unaccompanied baggage. The goods were examined on 9-11-1978. The Customs authorities assessed the value of the goods at Rs. 72,950/- CIF. No import licence for importation of these goods was produced. Since in respect of both the baggage declaration forms the appellant had declared the contents as personal clothes, foodstuffs and books, there appeared to be a prima facie case of misdeclaration rendering the goods liable to confiscation 111(d) read with Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. A show cause notice dated 10-11-1978 was issued to him. In his written explanation dated 30-11-1978 the appellant stated that he brought with him only one tape recorder with several accessories absolutely for his personal use and not for resale. He further stated that he was not aware that these items could not be brought as p...

Gujarat Fisheries Central Co-op. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT496TriDel

1. M/s. Gujarat Fisheries Central Cooperative Association Limited, Veraval, have filed the present two appeals against the common Order-in-Appeal No. B. 665-666/Ahd-3637/83, dated 23-3-1987, passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. As both the appeals arise out of the common Order-in-Appeal, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The matter in these appeals relate to the inclusion of the value of the bought out accessories supplied separately, in the value of the wooden fishing boats manufactured by the assessee, for the purposes of levy of Central Excise duty under Tariff Item No. 68 of the erstwile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff'). The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that "Since the accessories in question were essential part of the boats, their value has to be included for determining the assessable value of the boat". The appellants have, however, c...

Rajasthan Processors (India) Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT427TriDel

1. These are five appeals filed by (1) M/s. Rajasthan Processors (India) Ltd., (RPIL, for the short), (2) M/s. Bhilwara Textiles Pvt.Ltd. (BTPL, for short) (3) M/s. Venus Engg. Corporation (VEC, for short), and (4) M/s. Bhilwara Processors Ltd. (BPL, for short), all of Bhilwara (Rajasthan). Two appeals being Appeal No. 4830 and 4831 have been filed by RPIL, while one appeal has been filed by each of BTPL, VEC and BPL. All the five appeals arise out of the two orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, Order No. 57/92- Collector - C.E., Jaipur, dated 14-8-1992 is against RPIL and BTPL, while Order No.61/92-Collr. C.E., Jaipur, dated 26-8-1992 is against RPIL, BPL and VEC. Since the issues involved in all the five appeals are common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. BTPL and VEC the merchant manufacturers of man-made fabrics. They got their grey (unprocessed) man-made fabrics processed on job work basis from the processors RPIL an...