Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments

Escorts Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT814TriDel

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 78/95, dated 14-7-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri Vivek Kohli, learned Advocate, submits that only point to be considered in this case is whether profit made on erection and commissioning work is required to be added to the assessable value. He submits that it is settled position now that installation, erection and commissioning charges for equipment installed at customer's premises is not to be included in the assessable value. In this context, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Thermax Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.). He submits that any profit made out of such charges is also not to be included in the assessable value. In support of this contention, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Boving Fouress Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalo...

Shri Nem Datt Bhardwaj and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicants, confirmed Inspectors of Delhi Police, are aggrieved because of (i) Respondents' failure in not convening the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC for short) proceedings since 1992 for the purpose of effecting regular promotions to the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP for short) in Grade II Group B posts and (ii) adopting "pick and choose" policy to promote a large number of Inspectors to the rank of ACPs on ad-hoc/out-of-turn basis and even by adjusting then wrongly against ex-cadre posts. Consequently, they have sought reliefs in terms of quashing of Annexure A-1 tcolly orders dated 10.10.94 and seriesof other orders issued between 1995 and 1998 favouring unduly private respondents as shown in the amended memo of parties from Sl. Nos. 5 to 17.2. Annexure A-1 orders have been challenged on the basis that promotions effected through that order were in exercise of powers under Rule 24(1) of DANIPS Rules, 1971, which has now been superceded by 1995 Rules...

Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)73ITD30(Delhi)

1. In these two appeals directed against the orders passed by the CIT(A), common issues have been raised the first of which is the determination of the value of perquisite on account of gas, electricity and water in respect of certain employees of the company whether actual amount spent by the company or at 6.25% of the salary of the employees as prescribed under rule 3(d)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules.2. On perusal of the returns filed in form No. 24 for both the years, the ITO, TDS Ward noted that in respect of certain employees the value of the aforesaid perquisites was taken at 6.25% of the salary without there being any evidence on record that the accommodation provided was used to some extent for official purposes as well. On being asked the appellant replied that some of the senior executives were required to maintain an office portion at their residence and which was used for holding conferences, meetings etc. with employees and business associates. This reply was found to be va...

Mitsui and Company Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are the appeals preferred by the assessees against the common order of the CIT(A) for the financial years 1989-90 to 1994-95 confirming the penalties levied under s. 271C of the IT Act, 1961.Since the facts are common, these appeals have been heard together and are decided by this consolidated order.2. The assessee involved have raised the common grounds and the same are reproduced hereunder : "1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding that the appellant company was liable to deduct tax at source under the IT Act (of India) from salary paid outside India from the funds available outside India. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding that the alleged default of not deducting the tax at source was without reasonable cause. 3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the pe...

Yoginder Kumar Sharma Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma (Shri) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)357; 80(1999)DLT660; 1999(50)DRJ39

ORDERN.G.Nandi, J.1.In this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the petitioner has been praying to quash the complaint case titled 'Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Yoginder Kumar Sharma' pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi. 2. It has been mainly contended by Mr. M.R. Chawla, learned counsel for the petitioner that a cheque issued can be presented for realization as many times as one wants within the validity period of the cheque but once the cheque returns dishonoured and notice under clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is served by the payee/holder in due course, then the complaint has to be filed within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice by the drawer on failure to make the payment. It is further contended that the telegraphic demand by the payee after the return of the cheque should be...

Kanwal NaIn Vig Vs. Pran Nath Khosla and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)649; 81(1999)DLT818; ILR1999Delhi550; 1999RLR514

ORDERVijendra Jain, J.1. This petition involves a very interesting question with regard to the interpretation of Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The eviction petition was filed by the petitioner against the respondent on the ground that the respondent has acquired vacant possession of some other premises. It was contended before the Additional Rent Controller that the acquisition of the alternative accommodation bearing No. 85, New Rajdhani Enclave, New Delhi by the wife of the respondent Along with her sons is covered under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was further contended that the relationship between the wife and the respondent were cordial and the respondent was residing in the said accommodation Along with his family members whereas the tenanted premises were lying locked. Before the Additional Rent Controller the respondent took the plea that the case of the petitioner was not covered under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act as r...

Mitsui and Company Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1999)65TTJ(Del)1

ORDERNathu Ram, A.M.These are the appeals preferred by the assessees against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the financial years 1989-90 to 1994-95 confirming the penalties levied under section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the facts are common, these appeals have been heard together and are decided by this consolidated order.2. The assessees involved have raised the common grounds and the same are reproduced hereunder :'1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in holding that the appellant company was liable to deduct tax at source under the Income Tax Act (of India) from salary paid outside India from the funds available outside India.2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in holding that the alleged default of not deducting the tax at source was without reasonable cause.3. That, on the facts and circums...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Raj Plaster Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT429TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur.2. In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that the Plaster of Paris manufactured by the respondents was not classifiable under Heading 25.05 of the Central Excise Tariff (in short, CET), prior to 20-3-1990.3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Plaster of Paris. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents classifying the Plaster of Paris manufactured by them under Heading 25.05 of the CET. After adjudication the proceeding under the show cause notice was dropped by the Collector.4. Learned DR appearing on behalf of the appellant-Collector reiterated the grounds of appeal.5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal papers. In this case the issue is whether the Plaster of Paris manufactured by the respondents was classifiable under Heading 25.05 of the CET prior to 20-3-1990. In the impugned order, ...

Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1056TriDel

1. The short point involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd., is whether penalty is imposable for non-maintenance of records of the intermediate product.2. Shri Shekhar Vyas, ld. Advocate submitted that the appellants are bringing duty paid copper and aluminium rods which are being drawn into aluminium wire and taken for making insulators immediately. As the wires were captively consumed for making insulators they had not maintained the accounts. He further mentioned that as the wires were drawn in a continuous process of making final product i.e. insulated PVC cables they had not maintained any account. They are, however, maintaining proper record of their finished product. He further mentioned that in any case the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 will be available in respect of wires as these are captively used in the manufacture of insulated PVC cables. There is no allegation by the department of any clandestine removal and in view of these facts, no pena...

Shreeji Industries Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT736TriDel

1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by M/s. Shreeji Industries is whether the foam sheets imported by them are classifiable under sub-heading 9603.40 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Chapter 39 as held by Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants in spite of notice nor there is any request for adjournment.We therefore, heard Shri A.M. Tilak, ld. JDR and perused the records.3. The appellants had imported foam sheets which were to be used as pads for painting tools after being cut to size in pieces. The A.C.Customs classified the product under sub-heading 3926.40 of the Customs Tariff as the impugned goods were in the running length and these were to be cut to size and handles were to be fixed before they could be put to use.4. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) also did not classify the impugned product under sub-heading 9603.40 holding that sub-heading 9603.40 does ...