Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. In this complaint filed by Mr. Hukma Raj Badla, complainant for short, it has been averred that Mr. Sumesh Kumar Suri, MD of Aristocrat Consultants Pvt. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the OP, gave an advertisement in the Newspapers for filling vacancies for Sr. Project Manager (Civil) with Multi-National Companies on 27.8.96. The complainant contacted Mr. Suri and he was promised a job with Rs. 30,000/- per month salary in addition to perks. He was charged Rs. 15,000/- for the service promised to be tendered by the OP. He paid Rs. 5,000/- on 3.9.96, another cheque of equal amount on 24.10.1996 and balance in cash amounting to Rs. 5.000/- on 15.11.96. The OP called the complainant a number of times but every time postponed his meeting with the proposed employer on one pretext or the other. The complainant claimed compensation amounting Rs. 1,80,000/- with 24% interest and Rs. 2,000/- on account of expenses incurred on despatch, telephone, telegram etc. a to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(97)ELT180TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the order-in-appeal dated 25-11-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, is under challenge. In his order-in-appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) had observed that from the catalogue produced and from the details furnished it was clear beyond doubt that the goods in question i.e. spares for reiter unifloc automatic bale blending machine were parts of the numerical control panel for the said reiter unifloc automatic blending machine. He has recorded that this fact had been accepted by the original authority and that Heading No. 8538.90 is specific for parts of numerical control panel. He had directed the reassessment of the goods under Heading No. 8538.90 of the Customs Tariff. The order-in-appeal was issued in November, 1988.2. As this is the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Department was asked to serve the notice on the respondents M/s. Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. When the matter had come up on 14-11-1996, the Bench had direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(94)ELT694TriDel
1. Appellant had filed price list in Part I for their supplies to their sole distributors, M/s. Voltas Limited and another price list for their supplies to their customers who were wholesale dealers. In the former price list, discount of 20% was claimed as deduction while in the latter price list the discount claimed was at the rate of 15%. During the period 5-12-1987 to 31-12-1987 appellant had cleared their goods to their wholesale dealers and paid duty after deducting the higher discount of 20%. This was objected to by the Department and after issue of show cause notice the Additional Collector of Central Excise passed the impugned order disallowing the discount claimed. The present appeal has been filed against the said order.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant stated that the discount of 20% which have been claimed for their sales to their customers who are wholesale dealers had actually been passed on them.They subsequently filed price list covering such supp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(95)ELT345TriDel
1. This is a stay application w.r.t. the order of Commissioner (A), Allahabad dated NIL.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Die Cast Rotor/Stator falling under chapter sub-heading 8503.00; stampings under chapter sub-heading 8812.00 and cover sets of 18" fan falling under chapter sub-heading 8503.00.3. The officers on their visit to the factory on 26-7-1994 seized the excess stock which was found over and above the recorded balance in RG 1 Register. The officers also found 101 steel sheets and 72 aluminium ingots as against the NIL balance in form IV Register.4. The officers recorded the statement of Shri R.K. Shukla authorised signatory of the appellants who stated that the excess stock seized was duty accounted for in the raw material account and would have been duly entered in the RG 1 Register after final inspection. He also apprised the seizing officers that the appellants had vide their letter dated 13-4-1992 addressed to the Range Superin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)2STR231
1. Appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Television Set and during the period 1976-77 to 1981-82 recovering certain sums from their customers towards service charges by separate invoice which was not reflected in the relevant price list and in respect of which no deduction had been claimed therein. Show cause notice was issued on 20-5-1982 alleging that appellant had failed to disclose the correct assessable value and had evaded excise duty to the extent referable to such service charges. The show cause notice was resisted by the appellant containing that the said amounts were not recovered from all the customers but only from those who had exercised the option of availing warranty provided for such sets purchased by them. The defence plea was rejected by the Collector to confirm duty demand of Rs. 9,99,823.25 invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The order has been challenged in the present appeal.2. Arguing the case of the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) raising for the consideration of the Tribunal numerous grounds, but by far the most contested was the issue pertaining to "loss on embezzlement" claimed at a figure of Rs. 1,44,47,500. This ground is now discussed and disposed off in the succeeding paras.2. The appellant is a closely held company engaged in manufacturing activities having two units i.e. "Carbon Black Unit" and "Cycle Unit".In the course of the assessment proceedings the AO came across a claim for deduction to the tune of Rs. 1,29,47,500 on account of embezzlement. The case made out was to the effect that the managing director of the company, Mr. Sanjeev Pahwa used to remain out of Ludhiana for long spells and in his absence it was necessary to ensure the smooth working of the company and with this in mind blank cheques/information copies signed by the managing director and his mother, Smt. Krishna Rani were handed over to Shri R. P. Mahajan, the financi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1998)60TTJ(Del)451
ORDERR. M. MEHTA, A.M. :This appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) raising for the consideration of the Tribunal numerous grounds, but by far the most contested was the issue pertaining to 'loss on embezzlement' claimed at a figure of Rs. 1,44,47,500. This ground is now discussed and disposed off in the succeeding paras.2. The appellant is a closely held company engaged in manufacturing activities having two units i.e. 'Carbon Black Unit' and 'Cycle Unit'. In the course of the assessment proceedings the AO came across a claim for deduction to the tune of Rs. 1,29,47,500 on account of embezzlement. The case made out was to the effect that the managing director of the company, Mr. Sanjeev Pahwa used to remain out of Ludhiana for long spells and in his absence it was necessary to ensure the smooth working of the company and with this in mind blank cheques/information copies signed by the managing director and his mother, Smt. Krishna Rani were handed over to Shri R. P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1999Delhi126
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 6.3.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision petition No. 37/97 confirming the order dated 10.2.1995 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate for framing charges under Sections 279/338/304-A IPC against the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 14.1.1993, the complainant Surinder Malhotra along with his wife Smt. Kanchan, daughter Pooja and son Deepak were going on the scooter bearing registration No. DIV 1582. A Maruti Gypsy bearing registration No. DDV 8538 driven by the petitioner came from behind and hit the scooter causing the death of Pooja and injuries to Smt. Kanchan. According to the prosecution case, the alleged incident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the said Gypsy by the petitioner. The report of the alleged incident was lodged by Surinder Malhotra. Investigation thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997IVAD(Delhi)985; AIR1997Delhi17; 68(1997)DLT212; 1997(42)DRJ747
D.K. Jain, J. (1) The issue involved in this bunch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which we propose to dispose of by this common judgment, is identical. The petitioners have assailed the office order dated 20th October, 1995, issued by the Chief Engineer (COML) on behalf of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (for short the DESU), which announces the approval by the special officer, exercising powers of Delhi Electric Supply Committee (for short the DESC), the levy and recovery of fuel adjustment charges (hereinafter referred to as FAC) for different periods commencing from 1st October, 1993. For the sake of ready reference the impugned office order is reproduced hereunder :- 'DELHI Electric Supply Undertaking No.COI/5/Com.26/35/95-96/24 Dated 20.10.95 Office Order Subject : Recovery of Fac from various consumers from the period 1.10.93 to 1995-96. SPECIAL Officer exercising the powers of DESC/MCD vide decision No. 4874/GW/Corp, dated 11.10.95 has appro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 68(1997)DLT69; 1997(42)DRJ503
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) PETITIONER'S land situate in village Tihar was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for which award No.2177 was made on 11.11.1968. Petitioner's share in the land was 2 bighas 6 biswas. Under the policy for allotment of alternative residential plots to the persons whose land is acquired under the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition (Development and Disposal) of Land in Delhi, an application was submitted by the petitioner. Through letter dated 23.12.1988 (annexure P-2) Land & Building Department, Delhi Administration made a recommendation for allotment of a plot of land measuring 250 sq. yards in the West Zone.(2) The grievance of the petitioner is that alternative plot measuring 800 sq. yards @ Rs.40.00 per sq. yard was also offered to one Gurbax Rai, an evacuee of the same village whose land was also acquired under the same notification for the same public purpose. Peti...
Tag this Judgment!