Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

Medical Council of India Vs. Mr. Tarun Goel and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)288; AIR2000Delhi128; 83(2000)DLT499; 2000(52)DRJ455

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. This batch of Letters Patent Appeals and writ petitions were heard together and common arguments were addressed. As such it will be but appropriate to dispose of the same by a common order.2. L.P.A. No. 508/98 arises out of an order passed on 18.9.1998 by learned Single Judge allowing writ petition (C.W. No. 3599/97) filed by the respondents holding the decision of the appellant dated 17.10.1996 and 23.10.1996, insofar as it require the respondents to undergo one year further internship/training in India, after successful completion of degree course as a condition precedent for enrolment in the State Register and for grant of permanent registration as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Medical Council Act thereby directing the appellant to grant enrolment and registration to the respondents subject to their furnishing and, thereafter, verification of the original degrees/certificates of having successfully completed the degree course, which included...

Charak Pharmaceuticals (i) Ltd Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)363; 2000(52)DRJ544; 2000(67)ECC749

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B. 2. Since a short question of law is involved and there is not much controversy on facts, with the consent of counsel for the parties, we proceed to decide the petition finally at this stage itself. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of : (i) a letter dated 9th March, 1999 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (T), Central Excise, Delhi - respondent No. 3 herein, returning the declaration dated 21st January 1999, pertaining to the additional excise duty demand (Rs.19,29,642/-) for the period from 1st September, 1995 to 31st January, 1998, filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (for short 'the KVSS') on the ground that no show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner for the amount mentioned in the declaration and (ii) a demand cum show cause notice dated 16th March, 1999 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise Range Pan...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Del)539; [2000]242ITR129(Delhi)

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) to state the case and refer the following questions, stated to be one of law, for the opinion of this Court :'Whether the ITAT was correct in :-(1) setting aside the order of the CIT u/s. 263 of the Act and restoring the order of the AO ;(2) holding that the provisions of Explanationn-8 to Section 43(1) cannot be interpreted in the reverse order so as to capitalise the amount of interest paid on borrowings and include the same in the actual cost of the machinery;(3) applying Explanationn-8 to Section 43(1) of the Act to the facts and circumstances of the case;(4) not appreciating the true importance of the provisions of Section 43(1) which provide that any amount of interest paid or payable in connection with the acquisition of an asset for any period before such asset was put to use cou...

Charak Pharmaceuticals (i) Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]109TAXMAN290(Delhi)

Jain, J. Rule D. B.2. Since a short question of law is involved and there is not much controversy on facts, with the consent of counsels for the parties, we proceed to decide the petition finally at this stage itself.3. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of : (i) a letter dated 9-3-1999 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (T), Central Excise, Delhi - respondent No. 3 herein, returning the declaration dated 21-1-1999, pertaining to the additional excise duty demand (Rs. 19,29,642) for the period from 1-9-1995 to 31-1-1998 filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as `the KVSS') on the ground that no show-cause notice had been issued to the petitioner for the amount mentioned in the declaration, and (ii) a demand- cum-show-cause notice dated 16-3-1999 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Panipat, for recovery of the said duty amount of...

M/S. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Mr. Karan Sehgal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, named above, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated the 19th November, 1999, passed by District Forum-I in Complaint Case No. 5/98 entitled Sh. Karan Sehgal v. M/s. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring that M/s. Cookson Mattney India Ltd. entrusted a consignment consisting of 10 packages, containing Zircosil-5 for carriage from Hosur to Delhi vide consignment note No. H.G. 29897 dated 18.1.1997. The respondent was the consignee and owner of the above said goods which were entrusted to the appellant in sound condition on 18.1.1997 for carriage and safe delivery at Delhi. It was alleged by the respondent in the complaint filed by him that due to c...

Dr. Sabharwal'S Bulk Drugs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT634TriDel

1. The correct classification of product called 'Polyester Casting Tape imported by the appellants herein arises for determination in this appeal. According to the Revenue, it merits classification under heading 3005.90 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act while the importer claims classification under Customs Tariff heading 9021.19.2. We have heard Shri Surendra Mishra, learned Consultant who submits that the product is in the nature of fracture appliances as it can serve the purpose of a splint for providing greater strength at fracture site and he refers to the HSN explanatory notes in support of his contention on classification.3. The learned DR on the other hand, submits that classification, as confirmed by the department, is correct in view of the fact that the item in dispute is nothing but a bandage which is put up in packing for retail sale and therefore, having regard to the HSN explanatory notes, the goods merit classification under Customs Tariff heading 3005.90.4. We...

M/S. Raj Steels Vs. C.C.E. Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for rectification of mistake in Final Order No. A/344/99-NB(S) dated 3.5.99.2. The contention of the applicants is that in the impugned order the benefit of deemed credit order was denied wherein in similar cases, the benefit was allowed by the Tribunal. The contention of the applicants also is that even in applicants own case, decided subsequently by the Tribunal, the benefit of deemed credit was allowed.4. In the Final Order, the Tribunal relied upon earlier decision in the case of Ankur Steels reported in 1999 (31) RLT 322 whereby the appeals filed by other appellants against the same impugned order, were decided by the tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.Balram, I.T.Officer, Bombay vs M/s.Vclkart Brothers reported in A.I.R. 1971 (S.C.) 2204 held that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning of points on which there ma...

Specialities Aluminium Grills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC190

1. In this appeal filed by M/s Specialities Aluminium Grills (P) Ltd., the matter relates to the Modvat credit and the demand of duty when the inputs were cleared after carrying out the process of anodising etc.The appellants have taken a plea that no process of manufacture was involved and that they had reversed the Modvat credit taken by them.The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had taken a view that the aluminium profiles after anodising had been sold by the appellants at a much higher price and that there was a process of manufacture and he confirmed the demand of Rs. 11945.52. No penalty was imposed.2. When the matter was called no one appeared for the appellants. The appellants are from Kanpur. The notice was issued on 14.12.99.3. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR submits that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of aluminium profiles and they have taken Modvat credit in respect of the inputs received by them. As their final product was separately excisable and dutiable, the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Universal Cables Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT386TriDel

1. The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of Insulated wires and cables falling under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. On 29-2-1992, i.e. the date appointed for presentation of the Annual Budget for the year 1992, they applied for and obtained permission from Central Excise Authorities for clearing the goods between 1700 hours to 2400 hours on 29-2-1992, on furnishing an undertaking that they would pay the differential duty amount, if there was any increase in the rate of duty applicable to goods cleared on budget day between the above mentioned hours, in terms of Rule 224(2A) of the Central Excise Rules. As per the Finance Bill, 1992, rate of duty on cables was enhanced from 25% to 30% ad valorem and therefore, in terms of the undertaking furnished under Rule 224(2A), the Jurisdictional Superintendent demanded defferential duty of Rs. 3,28,634/- on the cables cleared between 1700 hours to 2400 hours. The amount was paid by the respondents who then preferred...

N.S. Ravindran and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)210

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule.Since short question is involved with the consent of the parties the matter is taken up today and disposed of at this stage.2. Petitioners admittedly were working as work charge employees with DDA. By mutual agreement between DDA and MCD services of certain colonies were transferred from DDA to MCD Along with staff charged to these colonies. As a result thereof the service of all these employees including the petitioners were transferred to MCD. Petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging their transfer to MCD. It is contended that the petitioners are not working in this scheme which are transferred to MCD and thereforee the petitioners are not liable for such transfer. It is also contended that even if the staff deputed on the scheme to be transferred is found in excess than the officials who rank senior in that category are to be retained and only junior most persons are to be transferred. Likewise in case of shortfall the same is to be made out f...