Delhi Court April 1998 Judgments

Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC195

1. The applicants/appellants herein have come in appeal against the Commissioners' order dated 23-9-1997 determining provisionally the annual capacity of production on the basis of which they are required to pay duty in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 3A and rules made thereunder. The learned Advocate has submitted that the appellants have made all efforts to persuade Commissioner to redetermine the annual capacity in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 3A ibid but to no effect. It is vehemently argued by the learned Advocate, Shri R.Santhanam that annual capacity has been wrongly determined under Sub-section (2). He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside and the Commissioner be directed to determine the annual capacity in terms of Sub-section (4). He submits that the appellants have produced sufficient evidence in support of their plea that the production determined by the Commissioner under Sub-section (2) is not correct and it should be lower than what has been ...

Khaitan Electricals Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT81TriDel

1. M/s. Khaitan Electricals Ltd. have filed an application for the rectification of mistake (ROM) with regard to the Tribunal's Final Order No. E/1295/97-B, dated 2-9-1997.2. We have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S. Nunthak, JDR is present for the respondents/Revenue.3. We have carefully considered the matter. The ROM application filed by the applicants is reproduced below : (1) That in the said Appeal the question involved is regarding interpretation of Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which at the relevant time (4/88 to 8/88) read as under : "Manner of utilisation of the inputs and the credit allowed in respect of duty thereon - (1) The inputs in respect of which a credit of duty has been allowed under Rule 57A may- (i) be used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of final products for which such inputs have been brought into the factory; or (ii) be removed, subject to the prior permission of the Collector of Central Excise, from the ...

Wembley Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT166TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi dated 14th March, 1991.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Quick Fix classifiable under [Heading] 35.06.3. On 19-9-1989 a sample of the product was drawn and tested and subsequently they received a show cause notice alleging, inter alia, removal of goods without proper accountal and that the product was an adhesive based on plastics and as such under Notification No. 125/87 it was liable to pay duty @ 25% adv.4. The A.C. rejected their submissions and so did the Collector (A); Hence, the petition.5. It was their submission that the Chemical Examiner's report is self-contradictory; on one hand it says that it is composed epoxy type on the other hand it is said that it is based on plastics. It is not a comprehensive report and based only on presumption.6. Their request to get the sample retested was not accepted by the A.C. although noted, not taken into account by th...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Uma Dyeing and Printing Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT74TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the Order-in-Appeal No.AMP-161/B. III-91/88, dated 1-6-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay is under challenge. The matter relates to the eligibility of the cotton fabrics subjected to the processes through the machine known as Kier under Notification No. 253/82- C.E., dated 8-11-1982. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Kalyan, Bombay had held that the processes undertaken by the assessee was not a process of scouring but was a process of bleaching which was not eligible for the benefit of exemption under the said Notification. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay observed that as the assessee was only doing the process of scouring, the goods in question were eligible for exemption even when Kier was used.2. The matter was posted for hearing on 24-4-1998. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR is present for the appellants/Revenue. When the case were called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, M/s...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Man Mohan Singh

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals for the concerned years have been filed by the Revenue as well as by the assessee.2. Taking up the appeals of the assessee first, in ITA No. 2207 for asst. yr. 1986-87, the first contention raised relates to confirmation of disallowance at Rs. 44,272 made out of reimbursement of medical expenses. Shri M. S. Syali who appeared on behalf of the assessee submitted that Sardar Man Mohan Singh was the managing director during the period relevant for asst. yr. 1986-87. He had gone abroad in connection with the collaboration agreement entered into with M/s Frick, USA which was for supply of technical know-how and expertise for manufacture of tailor-made refrigeration equipment. While abroad, the assessee suddenly developed cardiac problem and had to be operated upon immediately. Subsequently, the Board of Directors as a gesture of respect to its Chairman-cum-MD agreed to reimburse the expenditure incurred on medical treatment incurred in USA. The aforesaid amount was treated...

Mohd. Chaman Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998CriLJ3739

A.K. Srivastava, J.1. In Sessions case No. 134/96, State v. Mohd. Chaman, the Additional Session Judge, Shahdara, Delhi Shri S.L. Bhayana, has convicted Mohd. Chaman (hereinafter called 'the accused'), under sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence awarded are death penalty and fine of rupees five hundred under Section 302 and life imprisonment and fine of rupees one hundred under Section 376.2. Since death penalty was awarded, a reference has been made by the concerned Sessions Judge for confirmation thereof. It has been registered as Murder Ref. No. 5/97. On the other hand, the accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 305/97 against the aforesaid conviction and sentence. The murder reference and the criminal appeal are being decided by this common judgment and order.3. The charge against the accused was that on 10.4.1995 around 7.45 P.M. at House No. 5416/6 Gali No. 4, Shakti Gali, Amar Mohalla. Raghupura, Gandhi Nagar within the jurisdiction of police station Gandhi ...

Balkishan Sharma Vs. Mithlesh Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 80(1999)DLT102

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The learned Additional Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on the ground specified under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to contest. 2. The petitioner has filed this revision petition, challenging the impugned order on numerous grounds. One of the grounds that is canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the entire proceedings under the Act are without jurisdiction. It is urged that as per the eviction petition, the premises were constructed in the year 1992. By virtue of Section 3(d) of the Act, it would not have any application to premises constructed after commencement of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 for a period of 10 years. 3. Learned Counsel fairly states that this objection had not been taken in the application for leave to contest before the Additional Rent Controller. 4. Mr. Deepak Gupta enters appearance on...

Major Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ601

M.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner herein was Charge-sheeted under Section 48 of Border Security Force Act for alleged commission of an act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force. Record of evidence was prepared on the basis of which trial by Summary Security Force Court was ordered by the Commandant against the petitioner. After the trial, the Summary Security Force Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to the punishment of dismissal of its order dated 3rd February, 1996.2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed a Mercy Petition before the Director General, BSF. The Director General, BSF converted the sentence of dismissal passed against the petitioner to that of removal from service. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the punishment of removal is not envisaged under the provisions of BSF Act and the Rules...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Impulse (i) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]233ITR615(Delhi)

R.C. Lahoti, J.1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a mandamus to the Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court :'1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in directing to exclude commission from the purview of the total turnover for Section 80HHC ?2. Whether, the Tribunal was correct in not giving categorical decision on the ground of appeal taken by the Department that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in directing to exclude the commission receipts from the purview of total turnover for purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC ?3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in applying the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of International Research Park Lab Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, 60 ITD 37 and in not appreciating the facts of the case as independent of the facts i...

Gopika Nina Pillai and ors. Vs. Media Asia Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 73(1998)DLT804

J.B. Goel, J. 1. By this order is No. 2334/98 under Section 20(b) of the C Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is being disposed of. 2. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for recovery of Pound Sterling 1,59,127.79 (=Rs. 1,03,78,341.46. Plaintiff No. 1 is widow and plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are two minor children of deceased K. Rajan Pillai (for short 'Rajan Pillai')- It is alleged that in January/February, 1995 deceased Rajan Pillai and defendant No. 2 who is Editor-in-Chief and Managing Director of defendant No. 1 had negotiations for incorporating a new Company to take over the London office franchise of 'The Asian Age' newspaper published on behalf of defendant No. 1; Rajan Pillai was to invest certain amount and in pursuance thereof he vide letter dated 1.3.1995 (sent from Singapore) had transferred from his bank account Pound Sterling 1,25,000 in the bank account of defendant No. 3 with Barclays Bank Plc. London and similarly another sum of Pound Sterling 9924.55 was remitted ...