Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments

Commr. of Cus. Vs. Bharat Kumar and Chandu Lal Jain

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT754TriDel

The appellant Bharat Kumar Rajawat being an Indian repatriate from Kuwait during the Gulf war between Iraq and Kuwait imported a car Civic Honda and claimed benefit of Notification No. 258/90-Cus., dated 23-10-1990. Bill of Entry for the imported said car was filed on 4-1-1991. Benefit was allowed to the appellant on execution of a bond/undertaking :- (ii) Not to sell, transfer or give on loan or in any other manner part with the car. (iii) To inform the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise & Customs having jurisdiction over the place at which he is residing and was taking the car to.2. In terms of the aforesaid bond, the appellant informed the Asstt.Collector, Central Excise, Udaipur, about his residential address and the place to which he was taking the car. It appears that the applied for obtaining the CCP to the DGFT Authorities on 17-1-1992 but the said authorities informed the appellant in February 1993 that the importation of car has been brought under OGL w.e.f. 16-8-1991 and ...

Electro Mexicals Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT128TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 14-1-1992 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bangalore by which Order-in-Original dated 23-12-1991 passed by Assistant Collector denying the present appellants the benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. was confirmed.2. Under Bill of Entry No. 019271 dated 18-9-1991 appellants imported a consignment of defibrillator capacitors (life saving equipment). The same was assessed under Heading 8432.09 read with Notification No.91/89-Cus. Appellants contested the assessment arguing that the item imported, i.e. capacitor was a component of DC Defibrillator (life saving equipment) and therefore eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 208/81. They claimed that the imported Defibrillator capacitors were eligible under the said notifications in terms of SI.No. 6 as "Life Saving Equipments".3. In adjudication Assistant Collector rejected the claim holding that these items were specifically excluded from the purview of the said notification....

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indian Textile Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT189TriDel

1. The authorities below took up the question of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 101/66 for the two products namely (1) Turkey Red Oil and (2) Det Oil. The Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Bombay-1 denied the benefit of the said notification to the two products in question and thus confirmed a number of show cause notices issued by the Department and also decided a matter in de novo proceeding on remand by Collector (Appeals).2. On appeal by the respondents herein the lower appellate authority has held that benefit of notification cannot be denied to TR Oil as well as Det Oil. Benefit to TR OH was extended by the lower authority on the ground that no condition whatsoever is appended in respect of that oil for extending the benefit of exemption 101/66-C.E., dated 17-6-1966 to TR Oil.3. In respect of Det Oil the Collector (Appeals) found that it is an Organic Surface Active Agent preparation containing soap on the basis of the Dy. Chief Chemist report given by the later in ...

Farm Fresh Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT441TriDel

1. In this appeal, the issue involved is whether amount collected as freight which is more than the amount spent on actual transport is includible in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act.2. We have heard Ms. Ginni Bedi, learned Advocate and Shri Shiv Kumar, learned DR for the Revenue.3. Ms. Ginni Bedi, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants were using specially designed trucks for the transport of the pipes and accordingly their rates were not comparable to the rates charged by truck unions and, therefore, the allegation of excess recovery was not sustainable. She also mentioned that the issue stands settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1997 (22) RLT 5 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court held that the duty of excise is a tax on the manufacturer and not a tax on the profits made by a dealer on transportation. As in this case, the Department has not adduced any evidence to show that the extra freigh...

Steel Home Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)69ITD240(Delhi)

1. These two appeals filed by the assessee relate to the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88.2. Shri C. S. Aggarwal who appeared on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the assessee is a firm consisting of three partners namely Shri Yoginder Kumar, Smt. Usha Juneja and Smt. Amita Dua. It filed returns for assessment years 1986-87 & 1987-88 declaring income at Rs. 62,080 and Rs. 79,890 respectively. It so happened that searches were conducted in the premises of Shri Gulshan Kumar Juneja, husband of Smt. Usha Juneja - partner of the firm. Certain documents were recovered from the premises and on the basis of particular document mainly Annexure P the income was assessed at Rs. 3,50,000 for assessment year 1986-87 and Rs. 2,42,320 for assessment year 1987-88.As per the arguments advanced no material was brought on record to show that the documents pertained to the assessee-firm and that the entries reflected therein related to it. In fact admittedly the aforesaid documents were wri...

Om Parkash Kuthiala Vs. Dr. Sharad Rohtagi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ34

ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a decree for possession of Barsati Floor of House No. 51/3 (Original Road) Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts which have led to the filing of the present appeal are as under: 3. On 26th October 1971, Smt. Mangla Devi let out the first floor and a motor garage on the ground floor in the aforesaid premises by lease deed dated 26th October 1971. Under clause 13 of the said deed, the lesser had permitted use of terrace on the second floor temporarily without any compensation. Clauses 13 and 14 of the said lease deed are as under: '13. That the Lesser has permitted temporarily without any compensation the use of the terrace on the second floor. The Lessee covenants with the Lesser specifically that he will not obstruct or make any hindrance in the construction of the second floor if the Lesser obtains requisite permission to do so from the Authorities concerned. ...

G. Premjee Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashoka Alloys Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1999Delhi83; 1998(47)DRJ262

ORDERM.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the said Act for adjudication and resolving the disputes arising between the parties.2. The petitioner has filed the present petition contending, inter alia, that a Sale and Purchase Contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 25th July, 1995 wherein, the respondent agreed to purchase 826, 234 Metric Tonnes of Shredded Scrap consisting of homogeneous Iron and Steel Scrap as per the specifications at the price mentioned in the said Contract. As per clause D of the said Contract, the shipment was to be effected by 31st July, 1995 and as per Clauses D and F of the Contract, the letter of Credit was to be established within seven days of signing of the Contract.3. It is alleged that the respondent committed breach of the Contract by failing to establish Letter of Credi...

Hari Shankar and ors. Vs. Bihar Bhavan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ372

K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The Bihar Bhavan in Delhi had been put up for the benefit of the officials coming down from the State of Bihar on governmental duties to Delhi. In Bihar Bhavan, in or about June or July, 1990, the post of Officer on Special Duty to the Chief Minister, the State of Bihar, was created. One Mr. H.P. Singh was appointed as Officer on Special Duty to the Chief Minister of Bihar. The petitioners were appointed on daily-wages basis to work as peons to that Officer on Special Duty for three months along with two others. The Officer on Special Duty to the Chief Minister of Bihar continued to function and, thereforee, further extensions were granted from time to time to the petitioners.2. In July, 1991, the post of Officer on Special Duty to the Chief Minister of Bihar was abolished by order dated the 15th of July, 1991. Consequently, the services of the petitioners, working on daily-wages basis as peons, stood automatically terminated.3. This is challenged by the petitione...

Atul Kumar JaIn Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1999)64TTJ(Del)786

ORDERNathu Ram, AM:The appeal preferred by the assessed is directed against the order of the assessing officer passed under s. 158BC of the Income Tax Act for the block period relevant to the assessment year 1985-86 to 1996-97.2. The facts, in brief, are that this is the case of an individual who derived income from house property, share income from M/s Mahavir Spinning Mills and income from other sources. A search was conducted in the business and residential premises of various assessees of this group including the assessed on 16-11-1995, and during the course of search certain books of account, documents, share certificates, etc. were seized. The assessing officer issued a notice under s. 158BC on 15th March, 1996, requiring the assessed to file return of income in Form No. 213 and in response the assessed filed a return on 8-11-1996, showing Nil undisclosed income. Subsequently the assessing officer issued a notice along with a questionnaire requiring the details and Explanationns....

Ram Lal Sharma Vs. Central Staff Ministry for Communications

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Ram Lal Sharma, complainant for short, instituted complaint registered as C-34/94 against the opposite parties claiming Rs. 9 lacs and odd as compensation against the Postal Authorities arraigned as opposite parties. By order dated 7.3.1994 this Commission observed that the amount of claim was highly inflated and, accordingly the complainant was directed to file the complaint before the District Forum after putting proper valuation on the amount of compensation claimed. The complainant, accordingly, re-filed the complaint before District Forum-II and the same was registered as Case No. 797/94. The grievance is that inspite of numerous adjournments the District Forum had not proceeded further with the complaint. It has been prayed that the complaint be transferred to this Commission and disposed of according to law. It appears that the whole confusion has arisen as the complainant appears to have filed the complaint without making any change in the amount of...