Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IIAD(Delhi)785; 72(1998)DLT93; 1998(44)DRJ743
Usha Mehra, J.1. Respondent/tenant is seeking review of the order of this Court dated 13th February, 1997 primarily on the ground that while disposing the appeal this Court did not consider the effect of the partition of the property in question. In the suit for partition filed by the respondent and other legal heirs the Civil Court granted a preliminary decree of partition. In view of the preliminary decree this respondent alone could not terminate the tenancy nor could file the petition for ejectment. She being the co-owner and the rights having been determined in the preliminary decree other owner had to be joined in the petition. Having failed to do so eviction petition was not maintainable. 2. I have heard Mr. C.K. Mahajan for the applicant/respondent and Mr. R.K. Saini and Mr. Prag Chawla for respondent/appellant. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions now raised, I would like to recapitulate the relevant facts of this case. Applicant/ respondent was inducted as tenant by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IIAD(Delhi)295; 1998(45)DRJ24; [1998]232ITR921(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. In this batch of fifteen references, at the instance of the assesses, the following two questions arising out of its consolidated order have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for short the Act) for the opinion of this Court:1. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the amounts of refund of income-tax and other direct taxes for various asset. years prior to the asset. year 1981-82 to which the assesses became entitled as a result of the appellate orders passed subsequent to the valuation date relevant to the asstt. year 1981-82 were 'assets' belonging to the assesses on the valuation date within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the W.T. Act, 1957? 2. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the amounts lying to the credit of the applicant in the Compulsory Deposit Scheme(Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 72(1998)DLT371; 1998(45)DRJ49; 1998(100)ELT344(Del)
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal. J.1. The challenge in this petition is to summons dated 30th April 1994 and 2nd May 1994 issued by Air Customs Superintendent under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 requiring the attendance of the petitioner in connection with the enquiry being made regarding export by M/s. Rancan Impex. The petitioner contends that the said summons are vocative of Article 20 of the constitution of India.2. The facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties briefly are that an FIR dated 30th April 1994 was registered under Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC, interalia, stating that on scrutiny of registers and documents it has come to the notice of Assistant Collector of Customs that three exporters, namely, M/s. Rancan Impex Pvt. Ltd. M/s NOIDA Medicare Centre Limited and M/s Apollo Impex and their custom house agent M/s Aditi Services have exported certain consignments by forging the signatures on the shipping bills. The investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. Umesh Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998(45)DRJ175
Vijender Jain, J.1. This writ petition can be disposed of in view of the Full Bench decision of this court in Smt. Sheelawanti and Anr. v. D.D.A. and Anr. reported in : AIR1995Delhi212 . In Smt. Sheelawanti's case (supra), the Court in paragraph 42 of the judgment held as under :-'However, we feel that in view of the judgment in A.K. Bahl's case, (supra) which is given in its own facts and perhaps misled the petitioners to approach this Court seeking a similar relief, not available to them, it would be fair to direct the D.D.A. not to charge interest on the amount demanded from the date of the judgment in A.K. Bahl's case or from the date of filing of the writ petitions, whichever is later, up to 31st March, 1995.'2. In view of the observations of the Full Bench and also in view of the fact that all the petitioners have deposited 50% of the demand money in terms of order dated 11.8.1988 and some of the petitioners have deposited the full payment of the amount demanded by the DDA, it wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(103)ELT105TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi dated 24-9-1990.2. Learned DR stated that in this case, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of 'Organic Surface Active Agents' such as Acid Slurry and Liquid Detergents. They filed classification list with effect from 1-3-1987 and 1-4-1987 wherein they had mentioned the products 'Spent Sulphric Acid' indicating Chapter Heading 2807.00 and seeking exemption under Notification No. 170/65, dated 23-10-1965. The respondents filed another classification list with effect from 21-12-1987 but, changed their earlier stand as apparent from the remark that Spent Sulphuric Acid was non-taxable either under Chapter 34 or 28.3. They also explained the process of manufacture of their goods as follows :- "While manufacturing acid slurry (an organic surface active agent) they mix sulphuric acid or oleum to react with LAB (Linear Alkyl Benzene) an organic chemical." The Departme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IIAD(Delhi)436; AIR1998Delhi259; [1998]93CompCas89(Delhi); 72(1998)DLT355; 1998(45)DRJ386
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal. J.1. In these petitions the main question which falls for determination is about the validity of section 32-G of State Financial corporation Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act' ) as also about the true scope and ambit of this Section.2. One of the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners also is that Section 32G applies in respect of dues from an industrial concern and does not cover the case of dues from a surety. Yet another contention urged is that specifying the procedure contemplated by Section 32-G is a condition precedent for invoking the said section.3. In order to appreciate the questions it would be necessary to first briefly examine the scheme of some of the provisions of the Act.4. The object of the Act is to facilitate industrialisation of the country by financing medium and small scale industries. The financial corporations have been established as an extended arm of a welfare state and there can be no doubt that its approach has to be public oriented...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1999)153CTR(Del)461
D.K. Jain, J.In this batch of fifteen references, at the instance of the assessees, the following two questions arising out of its consolidated order have been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the amounts of refund of income-tax and other direct taxes for various assessment years prior to the assessment year 1981-82 to which the assessees became entitled as a result of the appellate orders passed subsequent to the valuation date relevant to the assessment year 1981-82 were 'assets' belonging to the assessees on the valuation date within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the amounts lying to the credit of the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(102)ELT354TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 17-2-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur ordering appropriation of Rs. 14,000/- of Bank Guarantee executed by the present appellants against provisional release of 72 rolls of rubber belting seized from them, apart from confirming a duty demand of Rs. 1,32,983.26 for clearances made by the appellants during years 1989-90 and 1990-91 allegedly beyond their entitlement under Notification No.175/86. They were also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of rubber beltings classifiable under sub-heading No. 4010.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also availing the exemption under the provisions of Notification No. 175/86-C.E.2.2 Officers of the Central Excise (Preventive) visited the appellants' factory on 23-1-1991 and after conducting checks and verifications certain vouchers and challans in the names of one Vijay Babu and Vikrant Udyog were resu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(60)ECC372
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 18-11-1996, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). By this order, the Commissioner has confirmed the Order-in-Original No. 85/95 holding that the refund claim filed by the assessee as time barred. It was stated before the Commissioner that the deposits had been made on the unlawful directions of the range Superintendent without having conceived about the rate of duty at which sugar will be cleared from outside godowns on receipt of release warrants from the sugar directorate, therefore, his directions have to be treated as nothing short of provisional assessment under Rule 9B, final assessment made on the RT 12 return in the month of February-March, 1993. Hence, it was contended that the claim is well within six months. It was also contended that they were storing the sugar in outside the godown as provided under Central Excise Rule 57(5) and had been so storing there after making the advance deposit of the amounts of money as directed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(100)ELT214TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh upholding the Dy. Commissioner's order of confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 98,358.30 on a quantity of 37,847.85 mtrs. of processed man-made fabrics found short on 16-7-1994, and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16-7-1994, Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the appellants herein who are engaged in the processing of man-made fabrics falling under Chapters 54 and 55 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and inspected the records. RG 1 register was found written up to date depicting nil balance of fully finished fabrics and on verification of EB-4, no fully processed fabrics were found, which tallied with the record. The statement of Shri Narender Kumar Khanna, Partner of the appellants unit was recorded on the spot, wherein he explained that, out of the total alleged excess, a quantity of 28,616 mtrs. was receive...
Tag this Judgment!