Delhi Court April 1996 Judgments

Rathi International Equipment Vs. Coll. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT301TriDel

1. This appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector dated 26-9-1986. The short facts are as follows: 2. The appellants imported Twin Lobe Compressors (Rotary compressors) with accessories and sought their assessment under Heading 98.01. Their contract for project import had already been registered with the Customs House. The Additional Collector denied the request for assessment under Project Report and ordered assessment of the goods on merit. He also ordered confiscation of the imported goods under the provisions of Section lll(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. He gave the option to redeem the goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs.2 lakhs.3. The grounds for making this order as listed in the show cause notice and in the discussions made by the Additional Collector were as follows : (i) That the imported goods were not completed equipment but that they were parts of the full machinery. As suc...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Nova Vision Electronics P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT430TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the Order-in-Appeal No. 1999-CE/MRT/95, dated 17-7-1995 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad. When the matter was posted for final hearing on 16-4-1996, none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of the fact that notice has been issued to them. On going through the issue involved in this case, I felt that the matter can be disposed of even in the absence of the respondents. The point to be considered in the instant case is whether the assessee can avail Modvat credit in respect of one commodity while availing full exemption respect of another commodity under Notification No. 175 of 1986-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. The Assistant Collector has held that Modvat credit is not admissible since the assessee availed of exemption in terms of Notification No. 175/86 though it was in respect of another input. On the other hand the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the assessee availed of exempt...

Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Vs. Kailash Enterprises (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the CWT(A), dt. 4th March, 1994, for the asst. yr. 1986-87, for which the valuation date was 31st March, 1986.2. The assessee is a private limited company. The return of wealth was originally filed on 25th March, 1988, in response to the notice under s. 17 served on 15th Jan., 1988, declaring net wealth of Rs. 61,85,100.The return was subsequently revised on 31st July, 1988, showing net wealth at Rs. 6,32,788. Another revised return was filed on 12th Oct., 1988, declaring net wealth of Rs. 6,88,100. The assessment order was passed on 27th March, 1990, under s. 16(3) wherein the net wealth was determined at Rs. 7,01,000. In the said assessment order dt. 27th March, 1990, the following Office Note was left : "Office Note : The valuation of property at No. 1, Community Centre, Zamrudpur, New Delhi, is pending for decision by the DVO II, IT Deptt. Rohit House, New Delhi, vide V. O.'s letter No. DVO/II/IT/Val. /WT/88-89/280 dt. 28...

Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Kailash Enterprises (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Del)95

ORDERA. SATYANARAYANA, VICE-PRESIDENT :This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the CWT(A), dt. 4th March, 1994, for the asst. yr. 1986-87, for which the valuation date was 31st March, 1986.2. The assessed is a private limited company. The return of wealth was originally filed on 25th March, 1988, in response to the notice under s. 17 served on 15th Jan., 1988, declaring net wealth of Rs. 61,85,100. The return was subsequently revised on 31st July, 1988, showing net wealth at Rs. 6,32,788. Another revised return was filed on 12th Oct., 1988, declaring net wealth of Rs. 6,88,100. The assessment order was passed on 27th March, 1990, under s. 16(3) wherein the net wealth was determined at Rs. 7,01,000. In the said assessment order dt. 27th March, 1990, the following Office Note was left :'Office Note : The valuation of property at No. 1, Community Centre, Zamrudpur, New Delhi, is pending for decision by the DVO II, IT Deptt. Rohit House, New Delhi, vide V. O.s letter No. D...

Kartar Kaur Vs. Mikho and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997RLR103

Venkataswami, J. (1) Leave granted. (2) Heard Counsel on both sides (3) Even at the outset we would like to express our unhappiness over the disposal of the second appeal in two words 'No merit. Dismissed' by the Punjab and Haryana High Court especially when the controversy related to genuineness of a will which is not a mere question of fact, but a mixed question of fact and law. The High Court should have gone into the matter in detail and its failure to do so made us to go through the entire records by ourselves. (4) The appellants are the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration that they are joint owners in respect of l/3rd share of the land measuring in all 429 kanal 7 marlas as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1983- 84 situated in the area of village Kahneke. The plaintiffs also prayed for a dated 2.6.1986 sanctioned by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Barnala was illegal and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs and consequently, relief sought for was to restrain ...

Antony Faria Vs. Secretary, Council for the Indian School Certificate ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)ILLJ66Del

Devinder Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner on November 4, 1995, filed a writ petition praying for the quashing of the charge sheet dated November 22, 1993, on the ground that enquiry proceedings initiated against him on the basis of charge sheet is illegal and void and for stay of enquiry proceedings till disposal of criminal case. Along with the petition, an application for interim relief was also moved praying for staying the departmental proceedings. On November 6, 1995, while issuing; notice to show cause in the petition, on the application for interim relief, (CM 6914/95) an order was made for staying the enquiry proceedings and directed that criminal proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate to be disposed of expeditiously. The respondents filed a separate application (CM 126/96) praying for vacation of stay. It is on these two applications that we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question whether or not the stay granted by this Court deserves to be vacated. 2. Le...

Triveni Pool Intairdril Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(1996)BC617; 62(1996)DLT613

Devinder Gupta, J.(1) In this application filed under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act read with land Schedule thereof and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for an order of injunction restraining the respondents from encashing the bank guarantee dated 28th March, 1990 for Rs. 20,53,125.00 issued by M/s. Standard Chartered Bank till the final disposal of the accompanying petition filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, in which a prayer has been made for filing of the agreement entered into between the parties containing an arbitration clause and for reference of disputes to the Arbitrator, in terms of the arbitration agreement. (2) The subject matter of the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act pertain to contract No. MAT/DRL/CH/RIGS/140/TPIL/MP-1/89 dated 9th February, 1990 entered into between the parties for the charter hire of one land rig (Type-1 of 3600 mts capacity). The rig was required to be installed and operated at Madhy...

Raj Eshwar Vs. Aarohi Builder (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ340

N.G. Nandi, J.(1) By this is the respondents seek to set aside the order dated 15.3.1995, the award dated 12.12.1994 whereby, in the proceedings under Sections 14-17 of the Arbitration Act (here inreferred to as the 'Act'), has been made decree/rule of the court.(2) The say of the applicants/respondents, for the purpose of setting aside the order/decree dated 15.3.1995, is that the respondents have not been given the notice of the making of the award dated 12.12.1994 by the arbitrator at any point of time and that the respondents were not aware of the contents of the award till 15.9.1995 as it is only on 15.9.95 after meeting the petitioner that the respondents came to know about the contents of the award; that the award dated 12.12.94 was not made on 12.12.94; that no notice u/s. 14(1) of the Act by the arbitrator nor notice u/s. 14(2) of the Act by the court) have ever been issued to the respondents. (3) It has been stated in the petition that certain disputes had arisen between the ...

Sahaj Cerchem (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT656TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 8/Addl.Collr./MD/89, dated 29-9-1989. The appellants have been denied the benefit of concessional duty under Notification No. 175/86 on the ground that during the relevant period they did not hold valid registration certificate from the Directorate of Small Scale Industries.2. Arguing for the appellants, ld. Consultant submits that by a resolution the appellants company changed its name from Sahaj Zips Private Limited to Sahaj Cerchem Private Limited. This change was allowed by the Registrar of Companies on 10-8-1987 and in this connection he draws our attention to Page 42 of the Paper Book. They also applied to Directorate of Industries for necessary amendment in the small scale registration certificate issued to them in 1981. This application was made on 1-9-1987. The Directorate of Industries made the necessary change in its certificate on 11-8-1988. Subsequently when they sought clarification from them they made this changed...

Brij Lal Bishnoi Vs. State and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996CriLJ4286; II(1996)DMC137

Jaspal Singh, J. 1. The prosecution story revolves around four characters, K. J. Bose, Minati Basu, Brij Lal and Tapas Kumar. It is not that there are no other persons involved. There are, but then they move in the periphery - mere side characters introduced to complete some sequences. I shall come to them in due course. First, let me introduce the main characters. K. J. Bose claims to be married to Minati Basu. He was working as a Civilian Store Keeper in the Ordinance Depot, Shakur Basti. Not knowing what was to befall on him, he got Minati Basu also employed in the same Depot. This proved to be his undoing. It so happened that Brij Lal too was working in the same Depot and soon enough Minati found herself drawn into his amorous arms. One day she took her children, bid adieu to the four-walls of the house of Bose and set up an independent establishment of her own. And, with this her liaison with Brij Lal became more pronounced and open and all this despite protests from the character...