Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

industrial Electronic and Allied Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC87

1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Original dated 9.1.91 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune. By this order he has confirmed the duty amount of Rs. 1,46,892.50 in addition to imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000. The allegation made against the appellant is that they had contravened the various provisions of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that they wrongly claimed exemption under Notification No. 132/86 dated 1.3..86 up to 28.2.88 and thereafter under Notification No. 53/88 dated 1.3.88 on the laminated pouches (manufactured in their factory from imported rolls), falling under chapter heading 3926.90 (sic) [3922.90] (Up to Feb' 87) and then under No. 3926.90 and they failed to (1) maintain statutory account in form R.G.-I under Rule 173G(4) read with Rule 53; (ii) to determine duty liability under Rule 173F and (iii) to clear the above excisable goods manufactured in their factory under a cover of valid gate pass under Rule 173G(2) showing p...

Jai Commercial Co. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT, Delhi-II, New Delhi, passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 hereinafter called the Act and relates to the asst. yr. 1995-96.2. The assessee is a group company of Hindustan Development (P) Ltd. (in short HDL). It raised loan amounting to Rs. 14,32,10,000 to purchase the shares of HDL. The loan was raised from the other group companies, namely, Lakshmangarh Estates & Trading Co., Paramount Enterprises Ltd., United General Finance Industries Ltd., Orient Bonds & Stock Ltd., and Hindustan Development (P) Ltd. During the year under consideration the assessee paid interest of Rs. 1,33,11,190. The details of the loan and interest are given here as under :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------S. Name of the party Loan (in Rs.) Interest No. paid (in Rs.) 3. The issue on which CIT found that assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue was in regard t...

Jai Commercial Co. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)76ITD65(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assesses is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II, New Delhi, passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter called the Act] and relates to the assessment year 1995-96.2. The assessee is a group company of Hindustan Development Pvt. Ltd. [in short HDL]. It raised loan amounting to Rs. 14,32,10,000 to purchase the shares of HDL. The loan was raised from the other group companies, namely, Lakshmangarh Estates & Trading Co.; Paramount Enterprises Ltd.; United General Finance Industries Ltd. Orient Bonds & Stock Ltd. and Hindustan Development Pvt. Ltd. During the year under consideration the assessee paid interest of Rs. 1,33,11,190. The details of the loan and interest are given here as under :-- 3. The issue on which Commissioner of Income-tax found that assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue was in regard to the payment of interest only.4. The block assessment of Paramount Ent...

District Excise Officer, Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These four appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of the learned CIT(A) are taken up together as common issue is involved. These are disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.2. The facts in brief as gathered from the order of the AO are that the District Excise Officer, Muzaffarnagar (referred to hereinafter as DETO) was required to furnish half-yearly returns to the prescribed authority within the prescribed time. This was as per provisions of sub-s. (7) of s. 206C of the IT Act. The assessee furnished the returns as under :Period for which returns were Period for which returns werefurnished 3. On scrutiny of the aforesaid returns, the AO found that the DETO had collected tax at 15 per cent on the cost price of country liquor only and not on the purchase price of Nirgam Mulay. Accordingly, show-cause notices were issued to the DETO asking him to explain the reasons for short-collection of tax. He was also required to submit the information pe...

Anil Agarwal and Others and Vinod Kumar and Others Vs. the Institute o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)104; AIR2000Delhi320; 2000(54)DRJ415

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two writ petitions, C.W.P. No. 6426/99 and C.W.P. No. 4139/99 as common questions arise for consideration. 2. The petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letters dated 20th May, 1999 and subsequent communication dated 19th June, 1999 respectively. By these communications the Institute of Chartered Accountants have rejected the plea of the petitioners to pass no confidence motion against the Chairman of the Northern India Regional Council (for short NIRC) of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The communications dated 20th May, 1999 and 19th June, 1999 may be reproduced as below :- 'May 20, 1999. Shri Praveen Kumar Bansal, Secretary, Northern India Regional Council of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, I.P. Marg, New Delhi- 110002. Dear Sir, The Central Council in its meeting held from 15th-17th May, 1999 at...

Sumer Singh, Sunil Kumar and Others Vs. Delhi State Mineral Developmen ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)200; 2000(52)DRJ715

ORDERN.G. NANDI, J.1. In both these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for the relief of quashing of the Office Order dated 30.6.1993 contained in Annexure-E and for a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioners in service in the Corporation and to pay their salary and allowances with all annual increments of salary to which the petitioners have become entitled during the course of their service. 2. In Civil Writ No.4868/93, the say of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 was appointed as Roneo Operator, petitioner No. 2 as Dresser and petitioner No. 3 as Messenger against the existing vacancies on temporary and ad hoc basis. After the petitioners had taken charge of their posts and started working, the respondent issued Part-II Office Order dated 6.10.1989, confirming the appointment of the petitioners on their respective posts. Petitioner No. 2 and 3 were also issued similar Office Order on the same day. The respondent iss...

Binay Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)373; 83(2000)DLT686; 2000(52)DRJ767

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. The petitioner is working as Director (Personnel) in the Public Sector Undertaking known as Power Grid Corporation of India which is imp leaded as respondent No.4. It is a common case that the appointment to the post of Director (Personnel) is a Board level appointment which is made by Central Government/Union of India (respondent No.1) on the recommendation of Public Enterprises Selection Board (respondent No. 2) after the approval of Appointment Committee of Cabinet. The appointment of the petitioner is governed by terms and conditions contained in letter dated 9th June, 1999 by respondent No.1. Reference to the relevant terms and conditions as incorporated in this letter would be made at the appropriate stage. At this stage it would be sufficient to mention that as per paragraph 13 of these terms and conditions Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules framed by Respondent No. 4 in respect of its non-working category staff are to apply to the Petitioner mutates-mut...

S.S. Jaitley Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)398; 2000(1)ARBLR660(Delhi); 84(2000)DLT767; (2000)125PLR13

ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. Certain disputes having arisen between the parties under Agreement No. 7/27/EE/HD XVI/DDA/84-85 the matter was referred for arbitration to Shri Suresh Mehta, Superintending Engineer (Arbitration)-I, D.D.A. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties made and published his award on 19th August, 1996. After the award was filed in Court notice of the filing of the same was given to the parties and the respondent-D.D.A. has filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award. 2. It is argued by Mr.Kapur on behalf of the Objector that the Arbitrator has not applied his mind to the matter in issue and has thus misconducted himself and the proceedings and the award is, thereforee, liable to be set aside. It is also contended by him that the claims referred to the Arbitrator were barred by time and the Arbitrator has, thereforee, illegally made and published his award against the respondent - DDA. In support of his contention that t...

Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. Mahabir Prasad Chaudhary and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)393; 2000(1)ARBLR428(Delhi); 83(2000)DLT672

ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The petitioner filed this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of certain disputes to an Arbitrator. The facts in short are:- 2. That by Hire-Purchase Agreement dated 26th May, 1980 the petitioner gave on hire to respondent No.1 a motor-vehicle on the terms and conditions as contained in the agreement executed between the parties. The respondent did not make the payment of the hire installments in time nor did he return the vehicle and thus disputes having arisen between the parties, the matter was sought to be referred to an Arbitrator in terms of Clause VI of the agreement. The petitioner accordingly filed a petition being Suit No. 86- A/83 in this Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of the disputes to the Arbitrator. In that petition notice was issued to the respondent and certain interim orders were also passed by the Court. However on 17th October, 1985, the petition was dismissed in default. 3. Instead of ...

Rajinder Tiku Vs. Union Public Service Commission Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)73; 84(2000)DLT369; 2000(53)DRJ110

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner presented the writ petition on the 5th of December, 1997 praying for the following reliefs:- 'That in view of the submissions made above, it is most respectfully prayed as under:- (a) that your lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition thereby restraining the respondents, its officials etc., from in any manner making promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer at respondent No. 2 except in accordance with the seniority as given in the Office Order dated 15.07.93 (Annexure P-5 to the writ petition) and your lordship may also be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to forthwith regularise the services of the petitioners and other likewise situated at the level of Executive Engineer.' 2. Later on, the writ petition was amended and in the amended writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs:- 'That in view of the submissions made above, it is most respectfully preyed as ...