Delhi Court September 1997 Judgments

Delhi Bottling Company Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT42TriDel

1. In the captioned 8 appeals, the issue is same, therefore, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants in this case are manufacturers of aerated water and fruit drink packed in glass bottles and sent in plastic crates shells. A dispute, arose whether Modvat credit will be admissible on glass bottles and plastic crates used for packing aerated water. Before 1-3-1994, duty on aerated water was specific. With effect from 1-3-1994, duty on aerated water became ad valorem. Glass Bottles and crates are packaging material of durable nature and are returnable. Explanation (iii) under Rule 57A provides that inputs do not include packaging materials, the cost of which is not included or had not been included during the preceding financial year in the assessable value of the final products under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4(4)(d)(i) provides that value in relation to any excisable goods where the ...

Chhata Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT52TriDel

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-8-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad.2. The appellants have claimed refund of excise duty on the ground that they have paid excess duty without claiming concession in terms of Notification No. 130/83, dated 27-4-1983.3. The point to be considered in this case is whether the amount of duty paid in excess on the sugar cleared by the appellants during June, 1986 to September, 1986 at a normal rate in spite of the release order already received by them from the Directorate of Sugar which actually pertains to the additional free sale under the Incentive Scheme under Notification No. 130/83, dated 27-4-1983 is refundable under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The refund claim filed by the party has been rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that notification does not provide anywhere that assessees may collect higher rate from the purchasers...

imperial Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Ami Chand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)1006; 71(1998)DLT296; 1997(43)DRJ741

Mahinder Narain, J.1. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant. The appellant has come before us against the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge which had stated that by merely a payment of Rs. 50,000/- against the total sale consideration of Rs. 22,00,000/-, it is not possible to get an order of injunction. The Hon'ble Single Judge had relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanshi Ram Vs . Om Prakash, : AIR1996SC2150 , in which the total sale consideration was Rs.16,000/- and only a sum of Rs. 2,500/- had been paid. In that case, the total consideration which had been paid was only 16 per cent of the total sale consideration. In the instant case, the amount which has been paid is only 2.27 per cent of the total sale consideration.2. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that a buyer would not be entitled to a decree for specific performance despite the fact that two Courts below directed the specific performance of the contract.3. We wanted to see the bona fides of the...

Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]234ITR447(Delhi)

1. This common order shall govern the disposal of IT Ref. No. 19 of 1980 and IT Ref. No. 222 of 1980. The two references are between the same parties though arising out of different assessment years. IT Ref. No. 19 of 1980 is at the instance of the assessee. It arises out of the asst. yrs. 1969-70 and 1970-71 seeking the opinion of the High Court on the following common question : 'Whether, on the correct interpretation of law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the disallowance of Rs. 59,842 paid to Shri K. L. Sahni as guarantee commission and in interpreting the circular of the Reserve Bank of India as a condemnation of the practice of the banks asking personal guarantee in the case of public limited companies holding large assets ?' 2. The assessed is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of crystal sugar. It was amalgamated with Triveni Engineering Works by an order of the High Court of Del...

Suresh Desai and Associates Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)578; (1998)148CTR(Del)345; 71(1998)DLT772; 1998(44)DRJ87; [1998]230ITR912(Delhi)

R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 filed on 30.11.1993 seeking mandamus to the ITAT New Delhi to draw up a statement of case and refer the questions stated in the petition for the opinion of the High Court.2. It is not necessary to state the questions of law on which the reference is being sought for looking at the nature of preliminary objection raised by the respondent to the maintainability of the petition, which is being disposed of by this order. The relevant facts only need be noticed in brief. 3. The petitioner-assessee was a firm engaged in the business of production of motion pictures a Bombay. During the assessment year 1980-81 the firm had produced a film by the name of SUHAAG. The 'muharat' was rformed on 12.1.1996. The production of the film was completed in or about October, 1979.The film was released on 16.11.1979. A search and seizure action conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement was carried out at the business pr...

People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)446; AIR1997Delhi395; 68(1997)DLT686; 1997(43)DRJ236

A.P. Misra, J. (1) This Petition is filed as a public interest litigation to secure the accountability of some of the respondents, who are presently or in the past controlled the medical establishment of the Government of India and Government of Nct, Delhi for their alleged acts of willful abuse of public office. The petitioner is the Delhi State Branch of the People's Union for Civil Liberties. (2) According to this petition, the respondents are involved in serious irregularities relating to the purchase of Iv fluids for the hospitals and for deliberately keeping vital medical and diagnostic equipment non-functional in the hospital for months and years. This petition is filed in respect of three specific cases where the respondents being fully aware of acts of fraud and abuse leading to deaths, injury, inconvenience and financial losses to the Government and to the patients, and yet they have not done anything to bring erring officials to book. The three cases are:- (I)The purchase of...

Som Beer Singh Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT421

Devinder Gupta, J. (1) Order of dismissal Annexure P-l dated 29th June, 1992 and order Annexure P-3 dated 2nd April, 1994 conveying rejection of his petition are under challenge in this petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India. (2) The admitted facts are: that the petitioner was enrolled in Border Security Force (for short 'BSF') on 15th April, 1988, and joined 124 Bn. BSF. He was posted to 22 Bn. Bsf on 28th January, 1989. Sixty days Earned Leave was granted to him with effect from 21st January, 1991 to 23rd March, 1991. Respondent's case is that, the petitioner did not report back to his Unit for more than 30 days - and thereby overstayed beyond the leave period. A one-man Court of enquiry under Section 62 of the Border Security Force Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was constituted. Based upon the opinion of the Court of Enquiry, it is alleged that the petitioner was declared 'deemed to be a deserter'. Subsequently, a show cause notice wa...

M.P. Singh Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(43)DRJ29

Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This petition instituted on 16.5.1995 seeks to quash annexures P-5 (letter dated 4.12.1991 from Maj. Gen. K.N. Sardana, Additional Director, General Army Education to the petitioner), P-10 (Communication dated 12.2.1993 rejecting the petitioner's non- statutory complaint dated 14.7.1992 against Acr for period 1990/91), P-12 (Communication dated 31.3.1993 rejecting the petitioner's non-statutory complaint dated 26.11.1992 against A.C.R. for the period 1991-92) and P-20 (Communication dated 14.3.1995 by which the petitioner was informed about the result of his interview with Chief of Army Staff that he had not been found fit for promotion to higher grade). Consequently the petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions against the respondents to take into consideration the special inputs (annexure P-15 and annexure P-16) in assessing his suitability for the post of Major General; to expunge the report made by Major General K.N. Sardana, and the report alleged to h...

Uttam Singh Vs. Raghubir Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)671; 69(1997)DLT302; 1997(43)DRJ331

Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) The appellants through the present appeal have taken exception to a judgment and order dated November 20, 1996 passed by an Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby he allowed the application moved by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No. 1 for the sake of convenience) for the grant of mandatory injunction directing the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants in order to facilitate the reference) to hand over possession over the property bearing No. 3443(1/2), Gali Lallu Missar, Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the disputed property for the sake of brevity). (2) Brief facts which gave rise to the present appeal are as under: that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against the appellants herein with the allegations that the respondent No. 1 is the owner/landlord of the property bearing Municipal No. 3...

M.T.N.L. Vs. Sikandar Dutta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1 .Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Sikandar Dutta, complainant for short, has been subscriber of telephone No. 310359 at his residence. The telephone had STD facility. The admitted case is that on 22.2.1988, the complainant applied for barring the STD. The complainant had been getting bi-monthly bill of 400 to 600 calls which he paid in time. Suddenly he received two excessive bills, the first one was dated 1.2.1993 (for the period 15.11.92 to 15.1.93) for Rs. 2,441/-. He was allowed to deposit split bill for Rs. 795/- pending investigation. The second excessive bill was dated 1.4.93 for Rs. 8,997/- (for the period 16.1.1993 to 15.1.1993). The complainant again protested. An Inspector came to the house of the complainant and told him that STD facility had not been discontinued and that he should approach the SDO to discontinue the same. Accordingly, the complainant contacted the SDO and the Commercial Officer and ultimately STD facility was barred on 27.4...