Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments

Keshav @ Paviter Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ1201

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal No. 596/2000 is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 59/98 arising out of FIR No. 100/96, Police Station, Seema puri, under Sections 363/366/376 IPC whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 366 IPC and sentenced him to RI for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine a further RI for two months.2. Brief facts, as placed by the prosecution, are that on 23.1.1996 Smt. Kalawati, wife of Lal Singh lodged a report with Police Post GTB Hospital that her two daughters, namely, Sapna and Lata, were missing. On the basis of this report an FIR No. 100/96, Police Station, Seema Puri was registered. The complainant on 22.2.1996 informed the police that she suspected Azul for having allured and taken away her daughters as Azul was also missing from that date. During investigation, Lata was recovered along with Siddiq Hussain...

Controller of Estate Duty Vs. P.N. Luthra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)544; [2001]250ITR316(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (in short the 'Act'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in directing the valuation of the property at 151, Golf Links, New Delhi, in accordance with Section 36(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, read with rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, when the death of Shri J. C. Luthra occurred on September 12, 1979, whereas Sub-section (3) of Section 36 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was brought on the statute book with effect from March 1, 1981 ?'2. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed in spite of service.3. In CWT v. Sharvan Kuinar Swamp and Sons : 1995ECR425(SC) , it was held that rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, partakes of the character of a rule of evidence. It deems the market va...

Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR691(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the payment of guarantee commission of Rs. 78,935 to Shri Devi Chand Sawhney was (not ?) allowable as a deduction in computing the assessor's taxable income ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not allowing interest of Rs. 56,186 paid on arrears of cane purchase tax as a revenue expenditure ?' 2. The factual position, as indicated in the statement of the case, is as follows :The dispute relates to the assessment year 1971-72. The assessee, a limited company, was at the relevant point of time carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. The a...

Mahaveer Hat Manufacturing Co. Vs. Deputy D.O.R. (Water)

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 10.11.2000, passed by District Forum-I, in Complaint Case No. 186/2000-entitled M/s. Mahaveer Hat Manufacturer Company v. Deputy D.O.R. (Water). 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that water meter No. 19595, installed at its premises, was out of order for many years and when the same was not repaired the appellant requested the respondent to remove the same vide letter dated 8.4.1999. The grievance of the appellant, in the complaint, filed before the District Forum, was that though, the water meter installed in its premises was not working, yet the respondent sent a bill for Rs. 11,072/-. It was prayed by the appellant that the respondent...

Aditya Trading Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT868TriDel

1. The applicant Company was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. one lakh and Shri Mahabir Prasad Goenka was directed to deposit Rs. 50,000/-.The applicants have complied with this order even before the date fixed for compliance and have moved the present application for direction under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules for restraining the Department from auctioning the goods seized in this case.2. On hearing the ld. Counsel, we find that the application is premature since the applicants have not received any notice or communication that their goods are going to be auctioned. We therefore, dismiss the application as premature....

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Neoluxe India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT298TriDel

1. Appeal No. E/5854/92-C is an appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original No. 53/91, dated 11-7-1991. The duty demand arose on account of a different classification of the goods proposed by the Revenue in the show cause notice. The classification proposed in the notice was under Tariff Item 15A(2). The Collector dropped the proceedings holding that the goods were not liable to be classified under Tariff Item 15A(2). While dropping the proceedings, he also held that recovery of duty under different heading from that which was proposed in the notice is not permissible in the light of the decision of CEGAT in CCE v. Bright Brothers [1991 (52) E.L.T. 385]. The appeal has been filed by the Revenue against this order. The order of the Tribunal in Bright Brothers case had been taken up before the Supreme Court in appeal. During hearing of the case today before us, ld.Counsel representing the respondents submitted that the Supreme Court has affirmed the Tribunal decision in Bright...

Lml Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC614

1. Order-in-Original No. CCE(ADJ)VLS/9/2000 dated 15/16-3-2000 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi is the subject matter of the appeal filed by the assessee and cross objection of the Revenue.2. The issues in dispute were whether the share borne by the dealers in the advertisement of the scooters manufactured by LML Ltd. was to be added to the price of the scooters while assessing them to duty and whether any duty was payable in regard to reimbursements made by LML Ltd. to dealers for the free after sale services rendered by them. The case of the Revenue with regard to the cost of servicing was that the dealers of the scooters (who actually rendered the services to the customers) were being reimbursed less than the amount reimbursable according to the rate fixed by the appellants. The appellant had fixed varying rates of service charges for cities and towns where the dealers were located.3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants have submitted that there is no lega...

M/S. Vijay Plastics Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Vijay Plastics, Ghaziabad, the matter relates to the modvat credit in respect of the rejected returned plastic containers which after being received in the manufacturer's factory were re-melted and re-made into fresh plastic containers and cleared on payment of appropriate excise duty. On receipt, the assessee had taken modvat credit, which was sought to be denied on the ground that instead of following the procedures under Rule 173 H or 173 L of the Central Excise Rules, the assessee had taken modvat credit on their own goods on their own returned invoices.2. Shri Rajesh Chhiber, Advocate submits that there was no doubt that the returned goods were their own inputs and modvat credit was rightly available to them. He relied upon the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut Vs. Tin Manufacturing Co. = 2000 (119) ELT 290 (Tribunal-LB) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II Vs. Bhushan Steel and Strips L...

M/S. Wilwayfort India Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT592TriDel

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. He has not gone into the merits of the case.2. Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate submits that the factory of the appellants is closed and they did not get a copy of the Interim Order as well as the Final Order and subsequently, final order dismissing their appeal for non-compliance was served through the jurisdictional officers of Central Excise to the appellants. He submits that the appellants are not in position to make the payment and prays for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit. He also submits that with great difficulties, the appellants can deposit at the most of Rs.30,000/- if so directed.3. After carefully going through the records, I find that the ld.Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has not gone into the merits of the case. The disputed amount is Rs.1,38,702/-.4. After hearing Shri S.C. Pushkarna, JDR and going through the facts on record, I direct the appellants to depo...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S. Mata Engg. Works and Bajrang

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue in which the issue involved is regarding the availment of modvat credit on the strength of the invoices which were not pre-printed with the Sl.Nos. Both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority have taken a view that the invoices were numbered with the help of rubber stamp and were issued by the Public Sector Undertaking, M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd.(SAIL).2. Shri A.K. Jain, SDR submitted that the Tribunal is taking a consistent view that even the procedural infringement could not be ignored for the purposes of the revenue and that in the present case, admittedly, the invoices were not having pre-printed serial numbers. He submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not properly appreciated the requirements and prays for allowing the Revenue's appeals.3. Shri P.N. Awasthi, Advocate submits that the goods were purchased from the Public Sector Undertaking. The invoices were duly numbered with rubber stamping and both ...