Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments

Hanumant Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT343TriDel

1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 49,53,783/- on M/s. Hanumant Cement on alleged clandestine removal of cement during the period from 1-8-1993 to 19-8-1996 and also imposed a penalty equal to duty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act alongwith penalty of Rs. 10/- lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. Penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed on each of the three Directors under the provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate submits that the basis of the finding that the company is engaged in clandestine production of ordinary portland cement is certain registers recovered from the factory premises. He submits that since the entries in these registers were found to be far in excess of the entries made in the statutory records, the Department has concluded that excess quantity was manufactured and cleared without payment of duty. He submits that the registers...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Dr. Prakash NaraIn Gupta

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These five appeals of the Revenue were heard together as these involve common assessee and common issues are involved.2. The assessee, a doctor by profession and politician was subject of search operation carried out at his house and residential premises, on 13th September, 1985, under s. 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). During search operation large number of incriminating documents were found. It appears that Sr. No. 14 of "G" Annexure to Panchnama prepared at the residence of the assessee was a note book which contained receipt of cash and expenditure on electioneering during the period 12th June, 1977 to 30th June, 1977. As per entry at p. 2 from the end of the book, it was noted by the AO that total election expenditure was Rs. 1,24,500. The said amount was added to the assessee's income as unexplained expenditure in the order under s. 132(5) of the Act for asst. yr. 1978-79. During assessment proceedings for asst. yr. 1978-79 the assessee was...

Kesho Lal Kapur and ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)115; 81(1999)DLT20; 1999(50)DRJ422

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. By this common order, I propose to dispose of the applications registered as I.A. Nos. 10553/1998 and 2003/1999.2. I.A. No. 10553/1998 was registered on the basis of an application filed by the defendants under Order 12, Rule 6, CPC praying for passing of a preliminary decree for partition in view of admissions of both the plaintiffs and also of the defendants that plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 have one-third share each in the suit premises and that plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 have one-sixth share each in the two suit properties. In the aforesaid application, it is also prayed that a Local Commissioner be appointed for suggesting mode and manner of partition of the suit properties on the basis of the share of the parties.3. Subsequent thereto, another application was filed by the plaintiffs registered as I.A. No. 2003/1999 under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC read with Section 22 of the ecific Relief Act, seeking for amendment of the plaint.4. Replies of the aforesaid app...

Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)506; 80(1999)DLT170; 1999(50)DRJ263; (2000)ILLJ332Del

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The facts necessary for the appreciation of the questions raised by the petitioners could be narrated in the following terms:The petitioners, who are 24 in number in CW.585/88 and 7 in number in CW.1692/88, were appointed in Public Enterprises Services Association (PESA). The details of the designation and the date of joining of the petitioners are as under:-Name & Designation Date of JoiningSh. Sunil Kumar, 25.03.85Jr. StenographerSh. Anil Kumar Vohra, 01.04.85Jr. StenographerSh. Ashwani Kumar Das, 10.07.85Jr. StenographerSh. Pradeep Kumar Das, 01.07.85Jr. Accounts AssistantSh. K.N. Vishambharan, 19.06.85DriverSh. P.C. Sharma,DriverSh. Om PrakashPeonSh. Satish Kumar Tiwari, 13.06.85DriverMs. Shanta K.V. 01.07.86TypistMs. Sushma Kumari, 15.10.86Jr. StenographgerSh. Mammen Mathai, 26.06.86DriverSh. Bhuban Chandra Bisht, 07.07.86DriverSh. Rajiv Pande 08.07.86Asstt. EngineerSh. Praphulla K. Srivastava 02.08.86Asstt. EngineerSh. Mukesh Dham, 12.09.86Executive ...

State Vs. Chotey Lal and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)560; 1999CriLJ3411; 80(1999)DLT339; 1999(50)DRJ513; ILR1999Delhi455

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1.By our order dated March 19, 1999, for the reasons which were to follow, Criminal Appeal Nos. 452/98 (Pawan Kumar v. State of Delhi), No. 508/98 (Ashok Kumar Singh v. The State), No. 560/98 (Vimal Singh v. The State), and No. 73/99 (Chotey Lal v. The State) were accepted and conviction and sentence of the appellants were set aside and the Murder Reference No. 4 of 1998 (State v. Chotey Lal & others) was answered accordingly. The appellants in the above appeals were directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case. By this order we give our reasons for not confirming the death sentence awarded to Pawan Kumar @ Shankar, Ashok Kumar Singh, Vimal Singh and Chotey Lal @ Shambhu by Shri H.P. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi, on September 25, 1998 in Sessions Case No. 336/94 under section 302 Indan Penal Code in FIR No. 247/90, P.S. Trilok Puri, Delhi, and for accepting the appeals of the appellants against their co...

P.L. Lamba and ors. Vs. Avtar Kishan Ghai and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)981; 80(1999)DLT126; (1999)123PLR25

S.N. Kapoor, J.1. This order shall dispose of an application under Order XXII Rule X read with Section 151 of the CPC filed in a suit for permanent injunction restraining passing off and infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts or profits and delivery etc. 2. The plaintiffs S/Sh.P.L. Lamba and Sunil Lamba claimed to be joint proprietors of the trademark 'KWALITY' under registration Nos.435340,435341 and 435342 in class.....According to the claim of the applicants, on 14th October,1994, the trademark 'KWALITY' under the said three registrations had been assigned, transferred and sold by the plaintiffs to M/s. Digital Securities Pvt. Ltd.,135, Netaji Subhash Road, Bombay. On 15th November, 1994 the assignee applied on Form TM-24 to have the assignment recorded before the Registrar of Trademarks, which was allowed vide order dated 6th August, 1997. Accordingly, the name of the subsequent proprietor had also been advertised in the Trademark Journal dated 1st November, 1997. The pla...

Brig. H.S. Cheema and anr. Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 80(1999)DLT117; 1999(50)DRJ431

M.K. Sharma, J.1. The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit praying for a decree of possession by ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises and delivery of vacant and peaceful possession of the said suit premises restored in favor of the plaintiff and also for a decree for mesne profits and damages for occupation of the suit premises @ Rs.51,645/- per day subsequent to 1.4.1997 till the date of delivery of possession to the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiff No.1, who has recently retired from active service in the Army together with plaintiff No.2 are the landlords in respect of the suit premises comprising the ground floor at 16, Channan Singh Park, and measuring 6064 Sq. Ft. of area. The said premises were let out the said premises to the defendant bank at a monthly rent of Rs.42,000/-. In respect of the aforesaid tenancy a lease deed was also executed between the parties which is placed on record. The said lease deed is a registered document and it stipulates that the suit p...

i.T.C. Limited Vs. D.G. of Inspection (Cus. and C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT732TriDel

1. Whether additional Consideration is to be added to the price or to the assessable value is an issue to be considered in this case.2. It was brought to our notice by the Senior Counsel that the question involved herein has already been considered by the Tribunal in the very party's case as reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 315 (Tribunal). In that case it was held that the amount of additional consideration flowing back to the appellants has to be added to the wholesale price and assessable value worked back after allowing admissible deductions. It cannot be added to the assessable value already determined dehors the additional consideration. It was also submitted by the counsel that the view taken by the Tribunal has been upheld by the Supreme Court, since the appeal filed by the Department has been dismissed in Civil Appeal No. 9286-90/95 on March 1,1996. Further, the review petition has also been dismissed on August 1,1996.4. Since the issue involved herein has already been considered ...

Foils India Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC871Tri(Delhi)

1. These two appeals are against two orders-in-appeal but since they deal with common subject, therefore, they are being considered together by this common order.2. The short point for consideration is wherher slitting, cutting of Jumbo rolls of aluminium foils to obtain smaller size foils of 0.3 m width and 9 m length, and thereafter winding these on a suitable roll and packing the same as 'house foil' amounts to manufacture or not? 3. Heard Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate 'or appellants and Shri M.P.Singh, ld. DR.4. Ld. Advocate submits that the aforementioned process amounts to manufacture for the following reasons : A. The process is not confined to mere sliting or cutting of jumbo rolls of aluminium foils. Instead, the foils are cut to shape, that is as per the desired width and length and are then rewound and packed. Thus the process is involving the activities which are more than mere slitting and cutting of Jumbo rolls. B. The Jumbo rolls of aluminium foils are obtained from mar...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. K.L. Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC677Tri(Delhi)

1. The Revenue has filed the above captioned three appeals against the orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowing Modvat credit on electrical components, OCB. Voltage Controller and Sandvik Tips in Appeal No. 1156 and welding rods and lubricating oil as inputs in Appeal No. E/1157 and welding electrodes and cables in Appeal No.E/1158. The Assistant Collector disallowed Modvat credit on electrical components, OCB, voltage controller and sandvik tips on the ground that these items are not directly used in the manufacture of the final products. Similarly, in the case of welding rods and lubricating oils, the Assistant Collector held that these items are consumables and hence Modvat credit was not admissible. So also was the case in respect of welding electrodes and cables.2. Arguing the appeals, Shri Satnam Singh, learned SDR submits that these items may be used anywhere not only in the plant and machinery installed in the factory and he submits that this position has not been...