Delhi Court October 1998 Judgments

Mohkam Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)853; 77(1999)DLT385; 1999RLR241

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This criminal revision petition is directed against judgment and order dated 6.2.1996 and 19.2.1996 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the petitioner under Section 279/304-A, IPC and sentencing him to RI of one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 304-A, IPC, and the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 29.9.1998 confirming the conviction but reducing the sentence from one year RI to RI of six months. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the deceased Subhash Pahwa along with his pillion rider Harish Chand while going on a two wheeler scooter No. HR-29-5686 towards Rohini side at about 9.00 a.m. at Road No. 41 were hit by truck No. DIL-836 from behind. Both of them had fallen down. Subhash Pahwa had sustained head injuries and died at the spot whereas the pillion rider got some injuries. Report was lodged by Harish Chand on the basis of which FIR was registered. Petitioner's truck was seized and he was arrested at spot. He was held guilty and convicted...

Krishna Cans Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT414TriDel

1. The dispute in this appeal relates to assessment of aluminium containers manufactured by the appellant under Notification No. 271/82.The appellant received aluminium circles as input for the manufacture of aluminium containers. These circles are duty paid. The documents under which the circles were received showed that in certain cases duty was paid by the supplier from the PLA and in certain other cases through RG 23 Part-II account (under Rule 56A).2. The appellant was also availing himself of Rule 56A procedure in respect of the inputs. The adjudication order holds that the appellant could not avail himself of Rule 56A benefit in respect of the inputs on which duty was discharged through RG 23 Part-II account and could not make use of such credit for the payment of duty on the containers. The reason given for this denial is that the circles on which duty was paid through RG 23 Part-II account seems to be non-duty paid goods as taking of proforma credit makes the goods as non-dut...

Poly Flex Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT407TriDel

1. This is an application for stay and waiver of Rs. 65,000/- imposed as penalty in the original order and upheld in the impugned order.2. In spot check of the finished goods and also the inputs, the officer detected shortages in both. In the lower order duty on both kinds of shortages was confirmed and the penalty imposed. Before the Commissioner the plea was made that the defective raw-materials were separated and cleared on payment of duty. Similar removals of finished goods were omitted to be so recorded in the RG-1 Register. The Commissioner observed that no evidence to sustain these arguments was advanced and maintained the lower order.3. Shri K. Kumar, learned Advocate submitted that duty on both counts was paid by the assessee under compulsion. It was his submission that before the original authority the claim was made that the visiting officers had not verified the stock of waste. If that had been done the shortages in finished goods and also raw-materials could have been bal...

Furniture Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT400TriDel

1. Question involved in this matter is regarding classification of dual-desk made of wood. The said goods comprises of (1) seating arrangement made for two persons (2) a desk for two persons and (3) both the seat and the desk are joined together by steel pipes. The appellants herein filed a classification list describing the goods as "all types wooden furniture and parts thereof" and claimed classification under Tariff Heading 9403.00. The classification list was approved.2. Later on, on the basis of some queries and audit objection it was felt by the Revenue that the said product is classifiable under Tariff Heading 94.01 carrying the nomenclature "seats" inasmuch as the dual-desk has a seating arrangement for two school children, a show cause notice was issued asking the appellant as to why duty of Rs. 1,50,049.22 be not recovered from them for the period 30-10-1986 to 31-12-1988 against the show cause notice dated 15-10-1991. The lower authorities have confirmed the aforesaid amoun...

Vijay Chemicals and Plastic (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC451Tri(Delhi)

2. Heard learned JDR, Shri R.S. Sangia in respect of the Revenue's case. We have also gone through the appeal memo, impugned order and other relevant papers on records. Question involved hereunder is whether HDPE sacks manufactured out of fabric produced on circular looms is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 223/86-C.E. or not. This notification granted exemption to woven sacks from whole of duty leviable thereon except sacks which are manufactured on circular looms. The appellants initially paid duty on such sacks manufactured out of circular fabric on consideration that the benefit of the said notification is not available to them. Later on, they filed refund claims for the period 1-1-1990 to 10-3-1990 and 7-8-1989 to 20-12-1989.The lower authorities have rejected the claims on the ground that the benefit of notification would not be available to HDPE sacks manufactured out of circular fabric produced on circular looms. Hence this appeal before us.3. Appellants have stated...

Collector of C Ex. Vs. Kishan Organic (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT674TriDel

1. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of chemicals falling under Chapter 28 and 31 of the Schedule to the C.E.T.A., 1985. They filed classification lists for approval of sodium nitrate/ammonium nitrate (chemically modified) under C.E.T. sub-heading 2834.00 and the classification list was approved on 19-7-1991. During the period from May to August, 1991 and September, 1991 to January, 1992, the respondents took credit of duty paid on ammonium nitrate and utilised the credit. It was found that the classification lists were wrongly approved as no new goods came into existence by conversion of ammonium nitrate (malt) into ammonium nitrate (prilled form) and, therefore, proceedings were initiated for revision of classification lists and recovery of Modvat credit under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules. By show cause notices dated 14-10-1991 and 9-3-1992 the Assistant Collector vide two orders-in-original, dated 23-9-1992 and ...

G.R. Bindra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. The relief sought by the applicant in this Original Application is for a direction to the respondents to calculate pay and retirement benefits on the basis of a basic pay of Rs. 2,100/- which he was receiving immediately before his retirement with an interest at the rate of 18% per annum on arrears and also for a direction for repayment of the recovery from gratuity with interest.3. The admitted facts are that the applicant joined the Railway organisation on 24.7.1956 as a Typist and on 17.6.1960 he was transferred to Construction Organisation while retaining his lien in Headquarters Office of Northern Railway. He retired from the said Construction Organisation on 31.5.1993. He worked there roughly for 33 years and had been receiving promotions in that organisation. It is admitted that the applicant's last pay drawn as per Annexure-A-6-pay bills for the months of September, 1992 to March,1993 was Rs. 2100/-per month. He was drawing this pay in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660/-. His grie...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. O.N.G.C. as Agent of Foramer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)70ITD468(Delhi)

1. These two appeals by the Revenue are directed against a consolidated order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 14-2-1990 for assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The following common ground has been raised in these appeals "That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in hold-mg that income was 'assessable' under section 44BB and not as fees from technical services under section 44D of the Act." 2. M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) as Agent of M/s. Foramer, France (non resident) submitted return of income for assessment year 1985-86 on 28-2-1986 declaring total income of Rs. 8,34,750 and for assessment year 1986-87 on 1-12-1986 declaring total income of Rs. 12,66,980. The Assessing Officer observed that the non-resident company M/s. Foramer, France (FF) had entered into a contract with ONGC for supply of supervisory staff and personnel having expertise in operation and management of drilling rigs "Sagar Jyoti" and "Sagar Pragati" in a...

Sanyukt Nirmata Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 77(1999)DLT626

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Certain disputes having arisen between the parties under Agreement No. 19/EE/HDX/80-81 the same were referred for adjudication to Shri K.S. Gangadharan, Chief Engineer, CPWD, the Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties and going into the claims, counter claims and documents on record made and published his award on 29.1.1992 which was filed in this Court and notice of the filing of the same was accordingly sent to the parties. Both, the petitioner as well as the respondent challenged the said award and filed their respective objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. By this order 1 propose to dispose of both these objections filed by the petitioner as well as by the Delhi Development Authority.2. The petitioner's objections to the award are confined only to the rejection of his additional Claim No. 3 whereby a sum of Rs. 5 lacs towards infructuous expenses and damages allegedly incurred in the execution of the work was claimed by t...

Crompton Greaves Limited Vs. Hyundai Electronics Industries Co. Limite ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1(1999)CLT25; 76(1998)DLT733; 1999(48)DRJ754

M.K. Sharma, J.1. In this suit instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking for a decree for specific performance of the Joint Venture Agreement dated 23.8.1996 and also for a declaration that the letters dated 16.7.1998 and 17.7.1998 written by defendant No. 1 are illegal, invalid, null and void, the plaintiffs have also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151. CPC praying for an interim temporary injunction. In the aforesaid suit as also on the application summons and notices were issued and the defendant No. 2 has entered appearance and filed its reply to the injunction application. By this order I propose to dispose of the aforesaid application filed by the plaintiff against the defendants under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.2. The plaintiffs entered into an agreement with defendants No. 1 & 3 for establishing a joint, venture for providing Globalstar Satellite Link Services in India. A copy of the said joint venture agreement has been placed...