Delhi Court May 1997 Judgments

Joginder Singh Vs. Roma Arjani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT90

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks an adjournment. Learned Counsel for the Caveator has opposed the request. This appeal is pending for admission since 31.1.1997. Several adjournments have been granted to the appellant is hereby rejected. (2) HEARD. (3) The respondent No. 1-Smt. Roma Arjani filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law from dispossessing her from first floor of the premises N/5, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. Along with plaint, she also filed an application u/Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 for an interim injunction. (4) By the impugned order dated 7.12.1996, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge allowed the said application restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the respondent No. 1 over the premises in question. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this appeal. (5) Admittedly, the respondent No. 1 is the wife of the respondent ...

Bhartiya Cutter Hammer Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT208TriDel

1. This appeal arises from order in appeal dated 23-11-1990 rejecting the claim of the appellants for classification of the imported goods under sub-heading 7318.22 as "other washer". The imported goods is described in the Bill of Entry as "Components of Contractors above 20 AMP 3 Retainer". The same was claimed to be used in contact of bar assembly. The goods were initially assessed as washers under sub-heading 83.22. However, the department issued a demand notice for seeking reclassification. The appellants did not file any written reply, therefore, the Asstt. Collector passed the impugned order in a cyclostyled form. This was challenged before the Collector (Appeals).The Collector (Appeals) decided the case against them. Ld. Collector has held that the appellants did not describe their goods as washers and did not furnish any catalogue or literature and he has proceeded to decide on the basis of the Dictionary meaning of washers and on that ground he rejected their pleas and confir...

Kosan Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT62TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Kosan Industries Ltd., formerly known as Kosal Metal Products Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the enhancement of margin of profit in respect of the raw materials supplied by the customers while arriving at the assessable value of the LPG cylinders. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of LPG cylinders out of the raw material supplied by their customers who were oil companies. The assessable value were declared on the basis of the cost of raw materials plus job charges recovered by the appellants from the oil companies. The Revenue sought to add the margin of profit to the steel sheets which had been imported by the oil companies and had been supplied to the appellants for manufacturing LPG Cylinders. The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur who adjudicated the matter added the notional margin of profit at the rate of 10 per cent of the cost of the value of the cylinder. The order passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, N...

R.K. Induction Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT342TriDel

The first appellants, M/s. R.K. Induction Industries P. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots and were during the material period for the purposes of the said appeal availing the Modvat credit on the ship breaking scrap received by it and used in the manufacture of their final product. On 18-8-1992 appellants factory was visited by the Central Excise Division, Jaipur and the stock lying in the appellants factory was verified. Statement of Shri Asgar Ali, authorised signatory of the appellants was also recorded on the said date. It was disclosed that they were purchasing scrap from various manufacturer of ship breaking scrap directly as also from the various local scrap dealers and traders. In the said statement, it was also disclosed by him that the scrap was purchased from the local scrap dealers and traders was received by them on FOB basis and freight was being paid by the suppliers of the scraps. Various documents were also seized from the appellants factory. Based upon...

Wearwell Tyre and Tubes Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT409TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 18-1-1988 of Addl.Collector of Central Excise, Indore.2. The demand of duty amounting to Rs. 91,862.55 has been held as payable by the appellants on the ground that the rubber sheets in regard to which they had taken Modvat were removed without payment of duty when exemption was dependant on the fact that no credit of duty on inputs has been taken under Rule 56A or 57A.2. Arguing for the appellants, ld. Advocate submits that by mistake they had taken Modvat credit even in respect of goods which were exempted under Notification No. 71/68 but as soon as they came to realise their mistake they have made the reverse entry vide PLA 81, dated 21-1-1987. This was done before the mistake was detected by the officer who had visited the factory on 27-1-1987. He cited in support of his contention that in case if subsequently such credit is again debited, they would be entitled to exemption in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. Collector...

Hill Packaging Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT543TriDel

1. Modvat credit of Rs. 2,66,547.94 has been disallowed to the appellants and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed upon them.The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE and Polypropylene bags, sacks and tapes etc. and were during the period working under the Modvat Scheme. As per the facts on record a quantity of 9 MTs. of polypropylene was cleared by its manufacturer IPCL vide gate-pass No.7684, dated 23-10-1992 and equivalent was cleared vide gate-passes No.400 to 404, dated 2-12-1992 to their own depot at Samaipur Badali, New Delhi. From there, the said material was transferred to M/s. Gaura Enterprises and the relevant gate-passes were endorsed in favour of M/s. Gaura Enterprises. The appellants purchased the entire quantity of 9 MTs. covered by the above each gate-pass in two consignments of 2 MTs. and 7 MTs. As per the appellants when the first consignment of 2 MTs. of inputs was received by them gate-pass was not endorsed in their favour though number of the gat...

Tek Chand Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1981-82 is directed against order of Dy. CIT(A), Rohtak, upholding assessment of gain arising on sale of land and denial of exemption under s. 54B of IT Act.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that appellant along with his mother purchased agricultural land measuring 29 canals situated outside municipal limits of Rewari on 9th January, 1976, for total sum of Rs. 30,000. They got the land levelled and made it fit for cultivation. A Tubewell was also installed. In all total expenses of Rs. 26,670 were incurred. The aforesaid land was sold to members of Thathera Vikas (backward class), Mandals in asst. yr. 1981-82, for total consideration of Rs. 1,33,268. The AO held that the land was sold after cutting it into plots and, therefore, assessee and his mother carried on an adventure in trade. The gain on sale was assessed as business income after allowing deduction towards cost and expenses.This led to assessment of Rs. 32,300 in the ...

P.V. Narasimharao Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)1; 1997CriLJ3117; 67(1997)DLT567; 1997(42)DRJ78; ILR1997Delhi376

Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) This is an application by Rashtriya Mukti Morcha through their President for permission to intervene in the present proceedings preferred by Shri P.V.Narasimha Rao for quashment and setting aside the order dated May 6, 1997 passed by the trial court.(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.N.Lekhi, Senior Advocate, has contended that initially a complaint was lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation by the applicant showing the commission of a cognizable offence, yet no case was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. It was only when a direction was given by a Division Bench of this Court as per the request of the applicant in Civil Writ Petition No. 1718/96 on February 26, 1996 that the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case against the Members of Parliament belonging to Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. Learned counsel thus contends that the Central Bureau of Investigation was very much reluctant to register an Fir against the...

Dharam Pal Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT596

Arun B. Saharya, J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) against award and decree dated 2.8.1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, determining the amount of compensation payable to the appellants for acquisition of their land situated in Village Badii, Delhi. (2) The piece of land in question was acquired by notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 24.10.1961. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 6.12.1966 and Award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 10.11.1981. (3) The question of market value of the land in the same village, acquired by the very same notification, was the subject-matter of Rfa No. 208/1993: Bhoop Singh v. Union of India, which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.12.1984. In that case, market value was assessed @ Rs. 7,000.00 per bigha. (4) Accordingly, we hold that market value of the land of the appellants in the present cas...

Sneh Nagpal Vs. Indira Priyadarshi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT337

Usha Mehra, J. (1) It is established principle of law that in order to obtain leave to defend the tenant must make out a prima facie case thereby raising such pleas and issue which if proved would disentitle the landlord of an order of eviction.The triable issues should be sufficient to grant leave. The test is triable issue and not the final success. At the same time, while considering the leave application extraneous and frivolous defense cannot be considered.(2) Keeping this principle in mind we have to see whether the defense raised by the present petitioner amounted to triable issue or was frivolous and extraneous.Let us have quick glance to the leave affidavit filed by the petitioner. The pleas raised therein can be summarised, under following heads, namely, (1) the motive of seeking eviction was to pressurise the tenant to increase the rent. In this regard here lied on a notice issued by the landlady dated 8/12/1985. Secondly, the need of the landlady was not bonafide. The first...