Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 20 of about 321 results (0.025 seconds)Mr. R.S. Srivastava Vs. Managing Director and Acting Chairman, G.i.C.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT579
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner was working as Assistant General Manager and the next post under which he could be promoted was the post of General Manager. On 26.11.1990 a FIR was filed against him. Thereafter, in December, 1993 the CBI sought permission from the respondent Department to prosecute the petitioner. In 1994 the Department Promotion Committee had to consider the candidates for promotion. inspire of there being FIR against the petitioner, his case was put up before the DPC and after considering his case the result was kept in the sealed cover. The CBI had given the final report in July, 1994 and now the matter is pending before the Designated Court. No charge has yet been framed against the petitioner in the criminal proceedings.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. V.K. Rao submitted that as per the policy declared by the respondent on 21.10.1992 the sealed cover can be followed only if the designated Court had taken cognizance in the matter but could be said...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. O. N. G. C. as Agent of Otis Eng ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)66TTJ(Del)897
ORDERM. K. Chaturvedi, JM:All these appeals rotate round the identical issue. For the sake of convenience, these are consolidated and disposed of, by a common order.2. The respondents are non-resident foreign companies. The assessments were made on ONGC as agent of the respondents. The solitary ground raised in these appeals relates to the validity of multi-stage grossing up of the income on account of the provisions of section 195A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act').3. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. Assessments in all these cases were completed by making recourse to the deeming provision as contained in section 44BB of the Act. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued that the tax paid by the employer is a perquisite, given to the employee. This is to be added in the salary of the employee like any other perquisite.4. Our attention was invited on the provision of...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. New Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT708TriDel
1. There are 49 appeals filed by the Revenue. As the issues in these appeals are the same, therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The issues in these appeals are (a) what is the classification of spent sulphuric acid, (b) whether Modvat credit is to be reversed or not; and (c) whether the demand of duty can be raised beyond a period of six months or 5 years under Rule 57-1 as it existed before its amendment on 6-10-1988.2. S/Shri H.K. Jain, ld. SDR and K. Srivastva, ld. SDR submit that the same issue came up before the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Keti Chemicals, Vishnu Chemicals and Apar Agencies and this Tribunal by its Misc. Order No. 52/99-C, dated 2-7-1999 1999 (113) E.L.T. 689 (T) decided the various issues. They submit that the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in regard to classification of spent sulphuric acid held that spent sulphuric acid shall be classifiable under Chapter Heading 28.07. They submit that insofar as th...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Glass Graphics (India) (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT900TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether the process of bevelling, edge polishing, sand blasting and acid frosting carried out on duty-paid mirrors and glass amounts to manufacture.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents and the registry informed that the notice issued to them for the date of hearing has been received back undelivered from the postal authorities. We find that the respondents, M/s. Glass Graphics (India) (P) Ltd. have filed the cross objections in the matter. We, therefore, heard Shri R.D. Negi, ld. S.D.R., and perused the records.Shri Negi, on behalf of the revenue, submitted that the processes undertaken by the respondents amount to manufacture as they bring the changes in the nature and character of the product. According to him, after these processes are carried out, the product acquires a different character and end-use.3. We have considered the submissions of the Revenue and the cross objections...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Pragati Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT450TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue before us is as to whether the product namely 3, 5-dinitro-ortho-tolumide (D.O.T.) is classifiable under Chapter sub-heading No. 2302.00 or under Chapter sub-heading No. 2942.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The Asstt. Collector in his order held that the product is an.organic chemical classifiable under Chapter sub-heading No. 2942.00 and not a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding as described under Chapter sub-heading No. 2302.00. In the assessee's appeal against this or-der-in-original, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) reversed the findings and held that the product was classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 2302.00.3. We have heard Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR for the Revenue. None is present for the respondents though notice of hearing has been duly served on them as evidenced by the records on the file. Since sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the respondents for hearing in this appeal, we proceed to dispose ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Kanjur Bleaching Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT47TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal of the Revenue is the exemption claimed by the partnership firm, viz. Hema Saru Corporation under Notification 253/89. The exemption was sought to be denied on the basis that another unit namely Kanjur Bleaching Co. P. Ltd. and Hema Saru Corporation belonged to the same manufacturer. In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that the benefit was correctly availed by both the units in respect of the processing carried out by them on textiles.2. Arguing the appeal, learned SDR, Shri Prasad submitted that the evidence on record showed both the units having the same labour force, operations being carried out by the same managers and the Directors of Kanjur Bleaching Co. being partners of Hema Saru Corporation; but the Commissioner has not given due consideration while holding that the exemptions were separately available to both the units.3. Countering the aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel, Shri V.Laksmikumaran submits that exemption was with r...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT257TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., is whether the set off of duty paid on stampings and laminations used in the manufacture of stators and rotors, is available under Notification No. 95/79, dated 1-3-1979 or not.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants, who have requested under their letter dated 4-8-1999, to decide the matter on merits. We, therefore, heard Shri Ashok Kumar, ld.JDR and perused the records. Ld. DR submitted that Notification No.95/79 provides a set off of duty paid on stampings and laminations if they are used in the manufacture of electric motors, all sorts, and parts thereof. As these stators and rotors are used by them in the manufacture of compressors, the benefit of notification is not available. The Tribunal in the case of Quadromatic Engg. Pvt. Ltd. v.C.C.E., Pune reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 452 (Tribunal) has held that rotors and stators having been specifically designed and solely...
Tag this Judgment!Mvt International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC524Tri(Delhi)
"In the light of above discussion I find that the contention of the unit that over valuation in exports is not an offence under FERA or Customs Act is untenable. A case of over-valuation has clearly been made out against the unit inasmuch as huge sums through two related persons are sought to be transacted by the channel of software export. I am also not convinced of the view that ERDCI is not competent to value software. As discussed, there is a violation of Section 18(1) (a) read with Section 67 of FERA. It is mandatory for the unit to furnish correct declaration under FERA before attempting any export and Section 48 of FERA requires that every declaration under FERA must be a correct declaration. A false declaration has contravened Section 18(1)(a) and hence attracts the provision of Customs Act. Goods in this case i.e. one CD containing software sought to be exported have become prohibited goods in terms of FERA, which prohibition is deemed have been imposed under Customs Act, 196...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep S. Ahluwalia Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)185; 1999CriLJ4145; 81(1999)DLT111; II(1999)DMC461; 1999(50)DRJ818
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1.Aggrieved by the order dated 21st July, 1998 and also the charge framed under Section 306 IPC by an Additional Session Judge, the petitioner-accused has filed this revision petition. 2. Smt. Namrita after receiving the burns on the intervening night of 16/17.12.1993 at House No. B-I/122, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi, was taken to Safdarjung hospital for treatment and there she succumbed to burn injuries on 20th December, 1993. Thereafter a case was registered under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner and Smt. Susheela Verma, mother-in-law of the deceased. After the filing of the charge-sheet under Section 306 IPC against both of them, by the order dated 21st July, 1998 Smt. Susheela Verma was discharged while charge under the said Section was ordered to be framed against the petitioner and on that day itself charge was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty. 3. I have heard the petitioner who has argued in person and also Sh. Akshay Bipin for the St...
Tag this Judgment!H.C. Goenka and Another Vs. Brig. (Retired) S.P. Kochar and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)298; 1999(51)DRJ215; ILR1999Delhi241; 1999RLR488
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1.The present petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed in 1998 by the respondent No. 1 who is a retired Brigadier in relation to premises at C.161, defense Colony, New Delhi. The present petitioner No. 1 H.C. Goenka, petitioner No. 2-M/S Unique Exports and Imports Pvt. Ltd. were respondent No. 2 and 3 by virtue of the amended petition filed on 6th November, 1992 before the Additional Rent Controller. 2. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that from the perusal of AW2/R1 to AW2/R5 which are the rent receipts it was clear that the property was let out for residential purposes. According to the petitioners, as a matter of fact, the aforesaid receipts demonstrated that the premises were used regularly and right from the inception of tenancy for commercial purposes. In support of his contention he has cited Smt. A.N. Kapoor Vs . Smt. Pushpa Talwar : [1992]1SCR472 , Rakesh Kumar Sehgal v. Nem Chand. AIR...
Tag this Judgment!