Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments

Anil Dhall Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)894; 81(1999)DLT501; 1999(51)DRJ198; ILR1999Delhi429

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. On 27th December, 1982 petitioner was commissioned in the Army Medical Corps (Indian Army) having passed the MBBS degree from Armed Forces Medical College Pune. In the year 1990 he completed his M.D (Medicine) from Bombay University. On 28th March, 1996 Petitioner started his post-doctoral training in Cardiology from 184 Military Hospital (MH). Subsequently on having obtained an Open Merit Competitive Vacancy in the G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi he was moved by the Army Headquarter to Delhi in May, 1996. He was on two years study leave for doing this course. Since the two years study leave of the petitioner was due to expire prior to his DM examination he requested for posting in Delhi to enable him to complete his training. However on 24th February, 1998 he was transferred to Command Hospital Udhampur. Accordingly he took two months annual leave from Udhampur to clear his examination at Delhi which he passed in April, 1998. 2. It is the case of the petitioner tha...

Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(Del)280

ORDERSikandar Khan, A.M.A search was conducted at 54, Janpath, New Delhi in the premises of M/s. Bhagat Industrial Corporation and Shri R.D. Bhagat on 28-2-1996 and concluded on 23-3-1996. Shri R.D. Bhagat is the chairman of the said company as well as the present assessee- company. Books of accounts, documents etc. were found and seized which were later on handed over to the Deputy Commissioner, Special Range, Amritsar holding jurisdiction over the case of M/s. Bhagat Industrial Corporation. On scrutiny of the seized materials the said Deputy Commissioner was of the opinion that the unexplained advances/loans and income on the basis of loose sheets and books of accounts relating to M/s. Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. i.e. the present assessed were required to be examined by the assessing officer assessing M/s Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. Being satisfied in the matter the aforesaid Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar handed over the relevant seized materials under section 158BD to the assessing officer ...

Leelaram O. Akatrai Vs. Assistant Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/417-418/AD/DRS/B/94 dated 29-11-1994 (despatched on 16-12-1994) under which a penalty of Rs. 20,000 has been imposed for contravention of section 7(1) and (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). The appellant has also been held guilty of contravention of section 8(1) and (2) of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 35,000 has been imposed therefor. The appellant has already deposited the total amount of Rs. 55,000. This order disposes of the appeal on merit. 2. The adjudication proceedings in these cases were held in common in pursuance of two SCNs, viz., SCN-I and SCN-II. The charge of contravention of section 7(1) and (2) is contained in SCN-I whereas that of section 8(1) and (2) is contained in SCN-II. It is seen that the adjudicating authority has considered the charges in the order of SCN-II and SCN-I. I, therefore, propose to examine the findings of the adjudicating authority in that order. 3. At the outs...

Ram Gopal Singh Vs. S.N. Wahal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is directed against order dated the 23rd April, 1999, passed by District Forum-IV in Case No. 621/98 entitled Sh. S.N. Wahal v. Sh. Ram Gopal Singh and Anr. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Sh. S.N. Wahal had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the District Forum, averring that the respondent/complainant wanted to purchase a flat and for that purpose paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance to the appellant and to his associate Sh. Ramesh Bahuguna. The balance payment was directly made to the allottee of the flat in question. However, the deal did not mature and the allottee returned the money paid to him directly by the respondent/complainant except Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-. The respondent/complainant demanded his money back from Mansa Properties of which th...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Tainwala Chemicals and Plastics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT482TriDel

1. The Revenue assails the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay classifying the product Wet Detergent Cleansing Tissues with the brand name 'Fresh Ones' under sub-heading 3401.30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 -the Department seeks classification of the same under sub-heading 3307.90.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of pre-moistered detergent tissues under the brand name 'Fresh Ones', the classification for which was approved earlier by the Assistant Collector under sub-heading 3401.30 attracting duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem. For the year 1989-90, the respondents filed classification list 53/89 effective from 1-4-1989 and this list was approved by holding the product to be classifiable under sub-heading 3307.90 attracting duty at the rate of 105% ad valorem. The lower Appellate authority held that the product was 'paper impregnated with detergent' falling for classification under sub-heading 3401.30 and not a Cosmetic or Toil...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Norma Detergents Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT818TriDel

1. These are two appeals, one filed by the Revenue and the other filed by M/s. Norma Detergents Pvt. Ltd. being aggrieved with the two different Order-in-Appeals dated 26-3-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad.2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in the impugned order had held that the spent acid was a by-product arising during the sulphonation process of LAB or Nitro Benzene. He had also held that the claim of the assessees for the benefit of Notification No. 81/75- C.E.was not sustainable. He had also denied the benefit of modvat credit on the ground that the Spent Acid was not the sulphuric acid. As both the appeals, one filed by the Revenue and the other filed by M/s. Norma Detergent Pvt. Ltd. arise out of the same order-in-appeal, they are taken-up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. When the matter was called, Shri Randhir Singh, Proxy Counsel submitted that this matter is to be argued by Shri Ramesh Singh...

Sawhney Export House (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC259Tri(Delhi)

1. In this Petition No. C/ Misc/97/99-A filed on 2-2-1999, petitioner prays for taking appropriate action for non-compliance of this Tribunal's Order-in-Appeal No. C/l & 2/91-A. Short facts necessary for understanding the issue are as follows :- 2. Petitioner imported two consignments of buttons from abroad under two Bills of Entry dated 9-9-1987 and 13-11-1987. Value of the consignment was declared at Rs. 7,305/- and Rs. 7,518/- respectively.The Customs Authorities enhanced the values to Rs. 10,521/- and Rs. 14,688/- respectively. Appellant was compelled to pay duty on that enhanced value as computed by the authorities. On payment of this enhanced duty they cleared the goods. Order imposing duty on the higher value was challenged unsuccessfully before the Commissioner and then before this Tribunal. This Tribunal by Final Order No. 2362/96, dated 18-7-1996 set aside the orders impugned in the appeals. As a result of that decision imposition of duty on the higher value assessed was...

Meema Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT334TriDel

1. The issue involved in these two appeals arising out of common order dated 29-3-1993 is regarding demand of duty on Gharghanties which were classified by the Department under 85.09 as against 84.37 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act claimed by the Department.2. Shri K.A. Sindhi, learned Consultant submitted that the Central Board of Excise & Customs vide Circular No. 82/82/94-CX, dated 5-12-1994 has clarified that Domestic flour mill for milling cereals is appropriately classifiable under Heading 84.37. He further submitted that the Supreme Court in Ranadey Micronutrients v. C. C.E. - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) has held that the Department cannot argue against the circulars issued by the Board Under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act. According to him this decision has been followed in subsequent cases by the Supreme Court and the latest decision is in the case of Mathew M. Thomas v. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 4 (S.C). Relying on these decisi...

State Bank of India Vs. Avon Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)174; 82(1999)DLT101

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. The Plaintiff State Bank of India filed the above suit for recovery of Rs. 2,17,037.48 in the court of the Senior Sub Judge, Faridabad. The defendant No. 1, Avon Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The defendant No. 2 Shri S.K. Budhiraja is its Managing Director. In October, 1974, the defendant No. 1 as borrower through the defendant No. 2 and the other Director Sh. Pritpal Singh Arora (Sh. P.P. Arora) approached the plaintiff for taking credit facilities. The plaintiff granted them Cash Credit (Bills) facility to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- for which the defendants 1,2, and Sh. P.P.Arora executed various documents viz. Demand Promissory Note, Take Delivery Letter, Agreement of Cash Credit, Agreement of Guarantee etc. On the strength of the necessary documents, the defendant No. 1 availed the said credit facility. The defendant No. 7, Raunaq Singh had stood surety from the repayment of the due amount of ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-ii, N. D. Vs. Bharat Commerce and Ind ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)234; 81(1999)DLT889; [1999]240ITR256(Delhi)

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, in respect of the assessment year 1973-74, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court : '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in law in not entertaining and disposing of on merits the additional ground sought to be raised by the assessed that the surtax payable was an allowable deduction in the computation of income for the purposes of income tax 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the assessor's claim of loss of Rs. 5,28,475/- arising out of revaluation of slow moving raw material at estimated realisable value? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that in ...