Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1998)147CTR(Del)385; [1998]230ITR9(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This petitioner under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks direction to the respondent for payment of interest on the amount refunded to the petitioner in the background of the facts stated hereinafter. It appears that the petitioner-Delhi Development Authority (DDA), undertook construction of flats and allotted the same to the buyers, having entered into contracts with each of them consistently with the scheme governing the allotment of flats. It also appears that the DDA was liable to payment of interest to the flat buyers on the amount paid by them, if the flats were not constructed and possession made over to the allottees in accordance with the terms agreed upon between the two. The DDA had to pay interest to the flat buyers for the period of delay in construction and delivery of possession. The ITO (TDS) Ward No. 8(6) formed an opinion that there was default on the part of the DDA in not deducting tax at source which was required to be done under s. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Mahavir Singh, complainant for short, registered himself under 1979 HUDCO pattern scheme for L.I.G. category flat to be constructed by DDA. He was successful in the draw of lots dated 31.3.1982 and was allotted flat No. 68-A, PocketA2, Lawrence Road Delhi in April, 1983. He deposited Rs. 17.000/- (this amount is Rs. 13.600/- according to DDA) demanded by DDA. Letter of possession was issued on 2.9.1983. When the complainant went to receive possession on 21.9.1983, it was found that possession had already been delivered to one Swaran Singh. The DDA appears to have cancelled the allotment in favour of Swaran Singh who filed a Civil Suit which was ultimately decreed in his favour in July, 1991. The complainant kept on pressing the DDA for allotment of an alternative flat. On 16.11.1983 DDA wrote to the complainant that he was being allotted flat No. 98A in Pocket A2, Lawrence Road on the original terms and condi-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998(47)DRJ127
Vijender Jain, J.(1) A peculiar situation has arisen on account of the action of the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher for first standard student by Parent Teacher Association. A resolution was passed by the Parent Teacher Association Executive Committee held on 15th July, 1993 to this effect. It will be important to note the minutes, which are as follows:- 'THEP.T.A. Executive Committee meeting held on 15th July, 1993 at about 10.00 a.m. under the Chairmanship of the Principal for considering the day to day requirements of the school, as such the urgent call was given to the members of the Executive as per the advice of the Principle. The following discussions were made in congenial atmosphere and unanimously passed for immediate implementation; Arrangement of a teacher for 1st standard student, the payment will be arranged Rs. 500.00 p.m. as consolidated amount.'(2) What has been agitated before me by the petitioner is that although she is working as a teacher si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(96)ELT570TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order dated 6-3-1997 by which Commissioner (Appeals) has not accepted Invoice No. 575, dated 6-7-1994 as the goods had been received from the consignee agent and has held that it cannot be treated as proper documents under Notification No. 32/94-C.E.(N.T.), dated 4-7-1994 issued under Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules.2. Ld. Advocate submits that the consignee agent had obtained licence on 8-7-1994 and in terms of subsequent Board's circular, the invoice received by such consignee agent up to 31-12-1994, could be accepted.He brings to my notice the Board's Circular No. 76/76/CX., dated 8-11-1994. He also points out to Delhi Collectorate Trade Notice No.79/94, dated 28-12-1994 and another Delhi Collectorate Trade Notice No.80/94, dated 28-12-1994. By both these Trade Notices, the matter has been clarified that consignee agent would be eligible to issue invoice in terms of said Notification No. 32/94-C.E., subsequent to his registration on or after 4-7-1994 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)LC578Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Tractors, was purchasing Roof Canopy and "Luxury Mud-Guard Seat" for supply along with tractors to those buyers who desire the same. Appellant was however paying duty on the value of the tractor without adding thereto the value of the roof canopy or mud-guard seat. At an earlier stage, the Department raised a contention that the value of roof canopy must be included in the value of the tractor and this contention was negatived by the Tribunal in the decision reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 772 (Tribunal).In respect of the period from 1-9-1981 to 30-4-1982, show cause notice dated 11-6-1981 was issued alleging that the value of Luxury Mud-Guard Seat should have been included in the assessable value of the tractor and proposing demand of duty on this element on the ground that the seat has to be regarded as integral part of the tractor. Appellant resisted the notice contending that seat was only an optional accessory and not an integral part of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)LC280Tri(Delhi)
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR appearing for the appellant.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of Bolts, received an order from the Railways for supply of "Crossing Bolts and Nuts upto 25 mm diameter of varying lengths as per details shown in Annexure 'A' and conforming to specification No. IRS-T10". Respondent purchased duty-paid nuts and washers from the market, manufactured bolts in the factory, fitted the bolts, nuts and washers and supplied the same to Railways, paying duty only on the assessable value of bolts. Show cause notice was issued stating that duty was payable also on the element of cost of nuts and washers. Though the respondent resisted the notice, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. This order having been set aside by the Collector (Appeals), the Collector of Central Excise has filed the present appeal.3. The supply order is for Bolts and Nuts. Bolts manufactured by the respondent and nuts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1998]230ITR361(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, seeking the opinion of the High Court on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the cash award of Rs. 920 is exempt from taxation under s. 10(17B) ?' 2. The reward to the assessee, who was an ITO at the relevant time, had been given by the Central Government directly in connection with the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. A separate approval of the Central Government for the purpose of exemption under s. 10(17B) of the Act was not given. That being the position, cl. (17B) of s. 10 of the Act was not attracted and the reward was not liable to be excluded from the computation of the income. So is the view taken in CIT vs . S. N. Singh, ITO : [1991]192ITR306(Patna) . 3. For the foregoing reasons, the question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. 4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)579; 69(1997)DLT591; 1998RLR152
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) This is an appeal arising out of order dated 7th November, 1989 passed by learned Single Judge in 1.A. No. 259/87 directing the said application to be decided Along with the main suit. (2) The appellant has filed suit (S. No. 273/86), during pendency whereof, the aforementioned application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, Civil Procedure Code was filed complaining that there has been disobedience of the interim order passed on 6.2.1996 in I.A.No. 846/86, which was made absolute on 5th August, 1986. (3) On this application which was being tried separately, learned Single Judge, in the impugned order observed that the plaintiff/appellant will have to prove by leading evidence Along with the evidence in main suit the precise act of disobedience alleged on the part of defendant-respondent No. 3. (4) In appeal as many as 10 respondents were imp leaded. The appeal after notice was duly admitted for hearing on 20.2.1991 where after service could not be effected on the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(96)ELT165TriDel
1. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron and imported certain plant and machinery under project import. On certain parts and components they claimed Modvat credit as capital goods. The lower authorities did not allow them, the benefit of Modvat credit on 'refractory Bricks' 'through flow mixer' and 'conveyor belt' on the ground that Rule 57Q specifies that capital goods means machines, machinery, plant equipment, apparatus tools or appliances used for producing of processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products and also includes components, spare parts, accessories and moulds, dyes etc. and that since the products imported by the appellants are not covered by the above definition, therefore, they were not entitled to Modvat credit.Against the above findings of the lower authorities the appellants have filed the present appeal before us.2. We heard Shri P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(94)ELT663TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Ruchika Electronics Ltd., the matter relates to the eligibility of the importers and the imported goods to the benefit of Customs Notification No. 232/83-Cus., dated 18-8-1983.There is no dispute in the proceedings that the goods imported were covered by the description given in the table annexed to that notification. The only dispute is that the importers had not produced any certificate from the prescribed authorities that they were actual users (industrial) of the goods imported. Initially the goods were allowed clearance at the concessional rate of duty as provided in the aforesaid exemption notification. The goods were cleared under bill of entry dated 19-7-1986 and subsequently the demand notice was issued on 4-4-1988 by the Assistant Collector, Customs on the ground that the requisite certificate from the prescribed authorities with regard to the status of the importers as the actual users has not been produced.This demand notice was not adjudica...
Tag this Judgment!