Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments

S.C. Sood and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 75(1998)DLT691

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. In the matter of disputes which had arisen between the parties under Agreement No. 15/EE/HD-X-9-10/ DDA/80-81, Mr. H.C. Sharma, Superintending Engineer (Plan Survey IV), Delhi Development Authority was appointed as Arbitrator. Reference having been made to him and the parties having submitted their submissions before him the Arbitrator on 5th August 1988 made and published his award. The award was caused to be filed in this Court on 10th August, 1988.2. Notice of the riling of the award was issued to the parties. The respondent was served with the notice of filing of the award on 31.10.1988. While the petitioner did not file objections to the award, the respondent on 30th November, 1988 filed his objections. This objection petition comprised of only one page and did not mention anything as to what was the objection of the Delhi Development Authority to the award and as to why the same was liable to be set aside. The objections were signed by Mr. Yakesh Anand, Advocat...

Ottavio Quattrocchi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 75(1998)DLT97

Devinder Gupta, J.1. The petitioner, who is an Italian citizen who had been working as Regional Director of M/s. Sham Progetti in India and is presently residing and conducting business at Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), filed this petition on 24.3.1998 under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') praying for setting aside order the (Annexure-B) passed on 6.2.1997 by Shri Ajit Bharioke, Special judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi directing issuance of non-bailable warrants of the petitioner's arrest in connection with RC 1(A)/90-ACU-IV SPC, C.B.I., New Delhi on allowing the application (Annexure-A) moved by the respondent.2. The respondent in its application prayed for issuance of non-bailable warrants of the petitioner's arrest, alleging that the aforementioned case (RC1(A)/ 90-ACU-IV SPE, C.B.I. New Delhi) was registered on 22.1.1990 on the basis of sources, certain facts and circumstances th...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.D. Ramnath and Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1999]235ITR31(Delhi)

R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. For the assessment year 1981-82, the following questions of law have been referred at the instance of the Revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of the High Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that cash compensatory support received by the assessed is not taxable as income 12. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not holding that duty drawback (Rs. 6,28,395) ; profit on sale of import entitlements (Rs. 2,24,870) and profit on sale of imported material (Rs. 11,477) are capital receipts not liable to tax ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that bank commission (Rs. 39,378) ; freight, octroi and insurance (Rs. 9,09,148) ; packing expenses (Rs. 8,93,675) and interest other than interest on pre-shipment credit is not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35B of...

Dr. K.E. Moses Vs. Chief Post Master

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. K.E. Moses, complainant, opened an NSS Account in Gol Dak Khana Post Office on 28.2.1990. The credit Balance became due for payment on 2.4.1993. The complainant needed the money badly and he waited in the queue of people waiting to receive the money in their accounts. On 3.4.1993 the complainant applied to Shri Ram Tirath Nagar Post Office for transfer of the account from Gol Dak Khana to the said Post Office. He also deposited his Pass Book alongwith application for transfer. He made enquiries every day from the SRT Nagar Post Office only to be told that the account had not been transferred to that Post Office. On 19.4.1993, on advice from the Post Master, SRT Post Office, he made an application which, together with necessary endorsement, was personally carried by the complainant to Gol Dak Khana (GDK) where the complainant met the Chief Post Master. The complainant was asked to fill-in from 16A and get the same counter...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bhartiya Plastic Udyog

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT161TriDel

1. The appeal by the Commissioner of Customs II, New Delhi is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 34-DLH/Cus./ICD/95, dated 31-10-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi setting aside the Order-in-Original 10/95, dated 25-5-1995 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi whereby that authority had confiscated under Section 111(d) of Custom Act, 1962 a consignment of PVC Scrap imported by M/s. Bhartiya Plastic Udyog, who are respondents in the present proceedings but giving them the option to redeem them of payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- besides imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on them. The present appeal seeks the restoration of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs by setting aside the order in appeal.2. Supporting the grounds taken in the appeal, Shri T.A. Arunachalam learned Departmental Representative stated that the term Plastic scrap is synonymous with plastic waste. Plastic waste is covered by Paragraph 27(2) o...

Ahura Chemical Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT433TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. ADN/105/B-I/91, dated 14-3-1991 confirming the classification of Ahuracryl PVN, Ahuracryl TX 50, Ahuracryl SZA & Ahuracryl RCF under sub-heading 3906.90 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The appellants submit that they purchased Polymethyl Methacrylate and diluted it by adding the required quantity of water. The difference among these products is the ratio between methacrylate and water in them. They also submit that methacrylate purchased by them is duty paid and the only process carried out by them is that of dilution. They also submit that methacrylate is in emulsified primary form on purchase by them and after dilution also it is methacrylate in emulsified primary form. They, therefore, submit that the process of dilution carried out does not amount to manufacture warranting assessment to duty on these four items. As the Adjudicating and the Appellate authorities had relied on Note 6 to Chapter 39, they submit that this Chap...

Antartic Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT496TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Antartic Industries Ltd. is whether the goods imported by them were melting scrap or these were classifiable as old, used, rusted pipes.2. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the ld. Counsel submitted that the Appellants are manufacturing M.S. Ingots in induction furnace for which imported scraps is the main inputs. They had imported waste, heavy melting steel scrap and accordingly filed the Bill of Entry. On examination, the goods were found to contain 80% old, used and rusted pipes of different sizes and it was also observed that the ends of the pipes were not finished. The rest of the 20% scraps was bent and crushed in nature. The Commissioner of Customs, Kandia, after offering personal hearing to the CHA and the representatives of the importers, confiscated the goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine Rs. 5 lakhs, holding that there was misdeclaration as goods were declared as scrap whereas they have been found out ...

Cce Vs. Talbros Automotive Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(81)LC144Tri(Delhi)

1. Price lists filed by the respondents claiming deduction, inter alia, of cash discount having been approved, appropriate duty on the approved price was being paid. Subsequently, show cause notice was issued stating that cash discount was not given to most of the buyers and therefore it was not admissible for deduction. The notice proposed demand of differential duty on that basis. Though the respondent resisted the notice, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand.However, his order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals). Hence the present departmental appeal.2. The only ground urged by the Department is that the cash discount declaredin the price lists was not actually disbursed to most of the buyers. The Department had no case at any time that cash discount was not known to all the buyers at the time of clearances or that it was not available to all buyers who satisfied the requisite condition. Cash discount will be allowed only to those who make payment in cash immediately o...

Dhampur Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT498TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal, dated 31-5-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi confirming the order of the Assistant Collector. By an order of the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, dated 21-5-1991, a direction was given to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Moradabad, to determine the benefit to which the petitioner is entitled according to certain orders of the Supreme Court and the Collector (Appeals), as the case may be, with respect to three sugar years and communicate his orders to the present appellant. The Hon'ble High Court's order contained a further direction as follows: "The Counsel for the petitioner says that he has also claimed interest. This plea, if raised before the Superintendent, Central Excise, may also be dealt with by him according to law".Persuant to the said direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the Superintendent, Central Excise, by order, dated 23-9-1991 allowed interest at the rate of 18% on the account claimed ...

Shah and Sanghi Automobiles Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC149Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the value of clearance of goods, which are exempted from payment of whole of duty following Chapter X procedure, is to be taken into consideration while computing the aggregate value of clearance for the purpose of Notification No. 77/83 or 77/85.2. M/s. Shah & Sanghi Automobiles have requested, under their letter dated 15-05-1998 that their appeal may be decided on the basis of submissions already made by them and on merit. Heard Shri R.D. Negi, ld DR.3. The Appellants have submitted in their appeal petition, that the clearance of goods under Chapter X procedure to the O.E. manufactures availing total exemption from duty under Notification No. 167/79, dated 19-4-1979 are not to be taken into account for claculating the value of clearance under Notification No. 77/83 or 77/85 in view of the provisions contained in Explanation II to the Notification. They also submitted, that the Board's letter No. 13161/86-CX, dated 18-7-1986 ...