Delhi Court February 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Amar Company

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)159CTR(Del)230

ORDERArun Kumar, J.:At the instance of the revenue , the Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in allowing the deduction of Rs. 12,107 in the computation of the assessor's income for the assessment year 1973-74.'2. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1973-74 for which the previous year ended on 12-7-1972. At the relevant time section 40 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stood as under.'Sec. 40. Amounts not deductible.-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in section 30 to 39, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ''Profits and gains of business or profession'.(a)..........(b) in the case of any firm, any payment of interest, salary, bonus, remuneration paid by the firm to any partner of the firm,''Briefly th...

State Vs. Rajbir Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)645; 2000CriLJ2891; 84(2000)DLT156

Anil Dev Singh, J.1. By this judgment we propose to dispose of Murder Reference No. 2 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No. 499/99 of the appellant Rajbir Singh. 2. The facts giving rise to the murder reference and the appeal are as follows: - Deceases Samson Massey along with his wife Mrs. Dolphin Massey (PW-7) and daughter Ms. Preeti Massey (PW-5) were residing at 122-Q, Sector 4, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. Samson Massey was a tenant of one room and a kitchen in the said premises under Yad Ram, father of appellant Rajbir Singh. The order room in the house was under the occupation of Yad Ram and his family including Rajbir Singh. The appellant is alleged to have been wanting the deceased to vacate the house as he was suspecting the deceased to be having an affair with his sister. On April 29, 1997 around 9.00 p.m. when the deceased was present in the house along with his family members including Dolphin Massey and Preeti Massey, there was knock at the door. Samson Massey proceeded towards the ...

Anirudh Thareja Vs. K.K. Vedi

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 11.1.2000, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case No. 726/99, entitled Sh. Anirudh Thareja v. K.K. Vedi, President, M/s. Nutan Arya Wart Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. 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 the appellant got himself enrolled as a member of the respondent society and paid a sum of Rs. 1,15,110/- on 27.2.1997 for a flat which was to be constructed by the respondent society. It was averred by the appellant in the complaint filed by him that the respondent society had assured the appellant that the appellant would get the flat within a period of three to six months. It was alleged that the respondent society faile...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Pratap Singh Rana

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 11.6.1999, passed by the District Forum-III in Complaint Case No. 1434/98entitled Shri Pratap Singh Rana v. The Chief General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent, a subscriber in respect of telephone No. 5567999, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, alleging that the bills received by him in respect of the above mentioned telephone connection for the billing cycles 1.10.1995, 1.12.1995 and 1.2.1996 were excessive, false and inflated. It was stated that the abovesaid telephone had been disconnected illegally by the appellant. In the above said complaint, it was prayed by the respondent that the appellant be directed to restore the telephone and no...

Winsome Yarn Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT187TriDel

1. The appellant in this case has contested the findings of the ld.Commissioner in the impugned order. The ld. Commissioner had confirmed demand of duty amounting to Rs. 22,77,900/ stating that the noticee had admitted that there has been a de mand of duty as indicated in the show cause notice during the period Au gust, 1994 to October, 1995. The ld.Commissioner also held that extended period of limitation has rightly been invoked in the SCN.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant's firm is 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) exporting various types of yarn. A part of the yarn was being cleared in the domestic tariff area on payment of appropriate duty. Two disputes arose first dispute was regarding classification of the product ANTHRA falling under tariff classification under Chapter Heading 52.06 as held by the Department and 52.05 as claimed by the assessee. The second dispute was about payment of duty called as Countervailing Duty (CVD). The Department alleged that the product...

Light Publications Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC478

1. The issue involved in the appeal is whether extended period for issuing the show-cause notice for demanding duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act can be issued on 2.4.91 when a show cause notice had already been issued earlier on 18.8.89? 2. Shri A.P. Hathi, Learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured printed cartons and availed of benefit of Notification No.175/86-CE dated 1.3.86, as they were having a SSI registration certificate; that a show cause notice dated 18.8.89 was issued to them by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Baroda for demanding Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,02,183.79 for the period from 26.7.88 to 21.8.89 on the ground that the appellants were registered with DGTD with effect from 26.7.88. It was also mentioned in the said notice that after amendment of Notification No. 175/86 by Notification No. 244/87 dated 30.10.87, the benefit of waiver of registration was not available to the units registered with DGTD. They paid the di...

Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT157TriDel

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the final findings of the Designated Authority published in the Ministry of Commerce Notification dated 17th. July 1997 in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Acrylontrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) from Germany and Korea.2. By impugned order, the Designated Authority recommends imposition of definitive Anti-dumping duties on all imports of Acrylontrile Butadiene Rubber(NBR) in all its form except latex, originating in or exported from Germany and Korea RP falling under Chapter 40 at the following rates :------------------------------------------------------------------ S.No. Name of the country and exporter Amount of duty (Rs. per MT) 3. This appeal is filed by M/s. Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai as sole agent of NBR manufactured and exported by Korea Kumho Petrochemical Ltd. (KKPL), Korea R.P.4. In the appeal, the appellants have challenged the final findings among other things that Rule 7 pertaining to keep the...

Flex Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT429TriDel

1. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 86,392.00. Learned Counsel submits that the benefit of MODVAT credit on material handling equipment, Lightening Arrester and GI Steel structure was denied. He submits that the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Star Paper Mills Ltd., reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 933 (Tribunal) held that material handling equipment is entitled for the benefit of MODVAT credit. He also relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, reported in 1998 (102) E.L.T. 281 (Tribunal) 2. In respect of Lightening Arrestor, he submits that this is used to save machinery from the high flow of voltage due to lightening. In respect of GI Steel Structure, he submits that the structure is used to support the machines installed in the plant. He, therefore, prays that the application be allowed.4. In this case benefit of MODVAT cr...

Indian Refractory Makers Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT714TriDel

1. This appeal is filed against the preliminary order of the Designated Authority published in Gazette dated 12th June, 1996 in the investigation concerning imports of Dead Burnt magnesite originating from the People's Republic of China. As per the Act no appeal lies against the preliminary finding arrived at by the Designated Authority in an anti dumping investigation. Further, the Designated Authority has notified its final finding in the Gazette of Govt. of India dated 12-11-1996. Against the final findings the same appellant has preferred appeal C/42/97-AD. In these circumstances/ we hold this appeal as non-maintainable. Hence it is dismissed....

Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT625TriDel

1. These appeals arise out of final findings arrived at by the Designated Authority in the Anti-dumping investigation concerning import of Styrene Butadiene Rubber (hereinafter referred to as SBR) from Japan, Korea RP, Turkey, Taiwan, USA, Germany and France. Final findings were notified in the Gazette of India dated 2-6-1999. As per the final order anti-dumping duties were imposed on SBR of 1500 Grade, 1700 Grade and 1900 Grade at various rates.2. M/s. Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association challenged the correctness of findings arrived at by the Designated Authority in imposing anti-dumping duty by preferring Appeal C/264/99. Main argument advanced by the learned Counsel representing the appellants herein are that import of SBR of 1500 Grade, 1700 Grade and 1900 Grade has not gone to cause any material injury to the domestic industry and that no causal link between the dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry has been established.3. M/s. Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd....