Delhi Court July 1994 Judgments

Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995LC575(Delhi); 1994(73)ELT25(Del)

ORDER NO. 24/14/93 The trade has represented on the issue of lack of uniformity in the addition/deduction of certain items of expenses in arriving at the assessable value. 2. The Supreme Court of India decided vide their judgments dated 9-5-1983 and 7-10-1983 [1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (SC), 1985 (19) E.L.T. 869 (SC] and their subsequent clarificatory judgments 14-11-1983/15-11-1983 [1984 (17) E.L.T. 329 (SC) in the case of UOI v. The Bombay Tyre International Ltd. & Others, several aspects of the issue of valuation and prescribed guidelines for deciding several other aspects of valuation. 3. The Supreme Court of India's decision dated 21-12-1986 in the case of UOI v. MRF Ltd. was recalled by the Supreme Court vide their order dated 7-5-1989. Meanwhile, CEGAT and High Courts have been giving decisions relying on the said decision dated 2-12-1986 of the Supreme Court. 4. Lack of uniformity in valuation has brought in disparity in the pricing of the commodities by the assessed with conse...

Renu Sharma and ors. Vs. Delhi University and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(31)DRJ423

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioners numbering eight, who got diploma in Physiotherapy from the Institute for the Physically Handicapped (I.P.H.) in the years 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1990, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction or order requiring the respondents to formulate a policy and offer a 'Bridge Course' for them to get a degree of B.Sc.(Honours) Post Diploma in Physiotherapy or Occupational Therapy for the year 1993-94, and thus enabling them also to obtain a degree from the Delhi University in accordance with the rules. There is also a prayer to set aside the admission of the sixth respondent to this very course, but since respondent No.6 did not get any admission this prayer does not survive. (2) There are six respondents, namely, (1) the Delhi University; (2) the Vice Chancellor; (3) Institute for the Physically Handicapped; (4) Union of India in the Ministry of Welfare; (5) Mrs. C.P. Gupta, Director of I.P.H; and (6) Ms. Puja Jairath. Fac...

Suresh Pahwa Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)708; 55(1994)DLT362; 1994(30)DRJ274

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) Both the petitions which I propose to dispose of by this order, revolve around the notifications issued under section 4 read with section 17(1) and section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act(hereinaftercalled the Act) and raise interesting questions of law. However, first a brief resume' of the facts.(2) The land in question, which is only around 8 bighas in all, falls within the Revenue Estate of village Bamnauli,Tehsil Mehrauli. On January 9, 1987 the Delhi Administration issued a notification under section 4(1) read with section 17(1) & (4) of the Act for a public purpose namely' construction of a 400k.v. power sub-station for the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking'. It claimed that the Lt. Governor was of the opinion that the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act were applicable to the 451 bighas of land likely to be acquired and directed, under sub-section (4) of section 17, that the provisions of section 5A shall not apply. Consequent thereupon a de...

Signet Corporation Vs. Commissioner, M.C.D. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. The complainant has a manufacturing unit, sales office and administrative office at S-78, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi110020. The premises are linked with the sewarage system of the opposite party (O.P.) which is maintained by them. 2. It is pleaded, that the sewerage system passing in front of the complainants premises has been damaged, resulting in its blockage and accumulation of garbage and filth due to which the filthy water is flowing in the factory premises spreading foul smell and that the whole area has become breeding place of flies and mosquitoes. It is alleged that the stagnating water is hindrance in reaching the premises and there is likelihood that some epidemic may break out. They reported the matter to the concerned authorities several times but they did not pay any attention. Consequently, they undertook to remove filthy water and garbage etc. themselves by employing labour and installing sucking pump. 3. It is further pleaded ...

Him Cables (India) Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT399TriDel

1. This is an application under Section 35G CESA, 1944 filed with reference to the Tribunal's Order No. A/454/90-NRB passed in Appeal No.E/3329/88-NRB.2. The original application was neither in the proper form nor the questions were properly framed. Attested copies of required documents were also not filed.4. The Tribunal's order shows that the case was not contested on merits but a lenient view was requested. After hearing, the fine and penalty were reduced by the Bench order with reference to which this application has been filed, mainly on the point regarding mens rea that is whether it was as essential ingredient of Rule 173Q and the applicability of Rule 173Ql(b) to the facts of the case. The matter was heard; and due to difference of opinion between the members it was referred to a third member; And in view of the majority opinion further action was required to be taken in terms of Rule 34 of the CEGAT procedure rules and Chapter 16 of the CEGAT manual (Judicial) and a hearing w...

Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT604TriDel

1. M/s Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. Shri R.S. Saini, the learned Consultant has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He pleaded that the item in dispute is levy of excise duty on chain cover during the period 1st May, 1984 to 7th November, 1984.He pleaded that though in the Show Cause Notice the period is mentioned as 18th June, 1980 to 7th November, 1984 and the Show Cause Notice is dated 1st November, 1984, but the Collector had confirmed the demand only for six months for the period 1st May, 1984 to 7th November, 1984.The learned Consultant pleaded that Central Government had issued a notification under Section 11C of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 vide Notification No. 3/86 dated 16th January, 1986 which gives retrospective exemption from 19th June, 1980 to 17th March, 1985. He argued that the period from 1st May, 1984 to 7th November, 1984 falls within the exempt period and a...

Arvind Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)51ITD79(Delhi)

1. The assessee-company has filed the present appeal against the order dated 30-10-1989 of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi on the following ground : The learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in holding that the jeeps and jongas are motor cars for the purpose of Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 and, therefore, includible in computing the net wealth liable to tax.The assessee-company filed a return on 24-8-1984 showing a wealth of Rs. 5,76,400. The assessing officer issued a notice and required the assessee to show cause why the value of jeeps may not be included in the net wealth of the assessee since motor car includes jeeps. Relying on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Good Hope Plantation [1988] 170 ITR 173, the assessing officer included the value of jeeps in the taxable wealth of the assessee-company.2. The CWT (Appeals), following the said Kerala Hi...

S.P. Kohli Vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(31)DRJ12A

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to have the proceedings initiated against him by the first respondent quashed. These proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') on a complaint dated 10 January 1991 filed by the second respondent Sat Bir Singh Yadav. The third respondent is the Lt. Governor, Delhi. The petitioner claims that he is not covered under the provisions of the Act and that the first respondent has wrongly invoked its jurisdiction in the matter. We also issued notice in the matter to Mr. Madan Lokur, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, as we thought we required his assistance. No one has appeared on behalf of the second respondent to oppose this petition though earlier Mr. B.R. Madan had been appearing for him.(2) The petitioner is running a factory under the name and style of Mechelec and manufactures cutting tools. His factory is at Gurgaon. T...

S.P. Bhatnagar Vs. Indian Oil Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)898; 1994(30)DRJ374

D.K. Jain, J.(1) The appetent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) holding a Civil Engineering Degree from the Stanford university in the Usa got employed as Installation Engineer with the respondent - Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) in April 1960 and became the Head of the Engineering Department. On some charges he was put under suspension on 29 September 1967 and in consequence of a departmental enquiry held against hm by the defendant he was dismissed form service on 24 December 1973 with immediate effect. Alleging that his dismissal was bad in law the plaintiff filed a Suit for a declaration that he continued to be in the service of the defendant and was entitled to all the emoluments, benefits of service and for rendition of accounts in respect of the emoluments and benefits from the date of suspension till reinstatement; or in the alternative for recovery of Rs.5(),()()().00 as damages for wrongful dismissal.(2) The suit was contested ...

Pawan Tyres Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT212TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 3-7-1990 passed by the Additional Collector in which it has been held that the appellants were not entitled to Modvat credit in respect of Rubber Chemicals namely, "Pilflex -13" and "Pilnex TDQ" used as inputs since in the declaration filed under Rule 57G in respect of certain chemicals under the heading "Rubber Chemicals" the appellants had failed to specificially mention these chemicals.2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, ld.Advocate submitted that in the declartion filed under Rule 57G the appellants declared "Rubber Processing Chemicals" falling under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tarrif. She stated that "Rubber Chemicals" are of different types and they are available in the market under different brand names of the manufacturers. She stated that on this account the appellants had specifically listed 8 different Rubber Chemicals under General description "Rubber Processing Chemicals". She contended that the ...