Delhi Court February 2000 Judgments

Amar Nath Agarwal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(Del)551

ORDERPhool Singh, J.M.:These two appeals of different assessees, relating to the same group, involving lock assessment period 1-4-1986 to 10-10-1996, were heard together and are being disposed of by a composite order for the sake of convenience.2. First we take the appeal of Amarnath Aggarwal. At the very beginning it may be pointed out that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the group of Satish Aggarwal on 10-10-1995. So far as case the Amarnath Aggarwal in IT(SS) 294/Del/1997 is concerned notice under section 158BC was served on the assessed on 20-4-1997. Notice under section 142(1) was also issued and served along with questionnaire dated 19-9-1997. The following is the complete assessment order in the case of Amarnath Aggarwal.'2. The assessed has filed his return of income in Form No. 2-B on 6th Oct., 1997. Notice under section 143(2) was served on the assessed on 7th Oct., 1997, Proof of having filed return of income for ...

White Lily Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(Del)59

ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.The appeals have been filed against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Cir-20 dated 29-12-1997 under section 158BA of the Act. The block period covered under the assessment relates to 1-4-1986 to 1-11-1996 in both the cases. As the issue in both the appeals are common the appeals are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The appellants are companies incorporated under the Companies Act. The search and seizure operation under section 132 took place on the business premises of the assessed on 1-11-1996. Order under section 158BA was passed by the assessing officer on 29-12-1997. The order was served on the appellants on 2-1-1998. As per provisions of section 253(1)(b) of the Act the first appeal before us should have been filed on or before 1-2-1998. However, the same were filed on 22-5-1998 late by 109 days. By application both the appellants have requested us for condensation of delay in filing the appeals. It was argued by the learned coun...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. R.K. Bhatt

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal bearing No. 489/97, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arises out of the order of District Forum No. 4, passed in Complaint Case No. 179/96 entitled Sh. Rajinder Kumar Bhatt v. The General Manager, Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and Anr. 2. The brief facts of this appeal are that the respondent is the owner and in occupation of a MIG Flat No. 536, Pocket B, East Loni Road, Delhi since 19th March, 1993. The respondent applied for an electricity connection in the above said premises on 11th June, 1993 and also deposited Rs. 720/- as security charges for the electric meter as well as completed the other necessary formalities required for the sanction of an electricity connection. The same was sanctioned by the appellant on 14th June, 1993, but when the staff of the appellant carried out inspection at the site it was noticed that the flat in question had been book...

Cce Vs. Industrial Cables Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC514

1. The Revenue has filed the above application under Section 35-G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for reference of the following question of law purported to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final order No.310/98-NB dated 4.5.98: Whether Rule 57I as it stood prior to amendment effected on 6.10.88 is independent of Section 11A and can be invoked for recovery of Modvat credit taken wrongly, without any limitation from the date of credit or whether it is subject to the provisions of limitation prescribed under Section 11A.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Electric wires and cables falling under CET sub-heading 8544.00 and availing Modvat credit on certain inputs for the manufacture of their final product. During the period 7.4.86 to 12.4.86, they had availed of credit of Rs. 2,78,660.20 P on certain items without filing any declaration for them under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The demand was therefore, raised for re...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ambika Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT145TriDel

1. In this appeal, the issue involved is regarding the availability of benefit of the Notification No. 160/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 to the respondents in respect of the parts of the transformer of which they are the manufacturers. The benefit of this notification was allowed to them by the Assistant Collector, and the Collector had also confirmed that order of the Asstt. Collector on the ground that the parts of the Transformers are not excluded from the purview of the said notification. The Revenue has challenged this order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents, although the notice for today's hearing was sent to them. The notice has been received back with the postal remarks 'COMPANY CLOSED'. The matter being old one, we are proceeding to deal with the same on merits after hearing Shri V.M. Udhoji, JDR.3. The learned JDR has assailed the order of the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that the parts of the transformers being...

Precise Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT684TriDel

1. For reasons recorded below, we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs. 11,63,937.98 p. and stay its recovery and proceed to dispose of the appeals themselves, with the consent of both the sides.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessees manufacture 'Dabur Raughan-E-Badam Shireen' classifiable under GET sub-heading 3003.30. They claimed exemption from duty in terms of Notification No.75/94 dated 29-3-1994 on the ground that the product was a Unani medicine covered by the Notification. The Assistant Collector held that the item was liable to duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem as P & P medicines under GET sub-heading 3003.10. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees on the ground that they did not produce a certificate from the appropriate Drug Authorities, in accordance with CBEC Circular dated 3-4-1996 which clarified that the benefit of exemption under SI. No. 3 of the Notification No. 75/94-CE should not be d...

Markfed Vanaspati and Allied Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT474TriDel

1. These are four appeals. Appeal Nos. E/32/90-C and E/299/90-C are filed by the parties and remaining two appeals are filed by the department involving common issue and, accordingly, they are taken together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. These matters have come on board on several times awaiting decision of the Larger Bench on the issue involved herein.3. The point to be considered in these appeals is as to whether spent earth is liable to excise duty or not. It was brought to our notice that decision of the Larger Bench is out as per Order Nos.102-105/99-C, dated 12-11-1999 in the case of M/s. Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Industries and Ors., reported in 2000 (36) RLT 170. In that case, it was clearly held that spent earth is not liable to excise duty. Further it was observed that appeals involving question of excisability of spent earth shall now be posted by the Registry before the concerned Bench for final disposal.4. Shri K. Srivastava appearing for the Reve...

Durga Prasad Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)569; 2000(53)DRJ687

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 20th May, 1992 passed by Dr. A. Vravalli, Joint Secretary (Law) and Mr. Surendra Mishra, Joint Secretary (Mines). Revisional Authority constituted under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 (for short the Act) and Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules'), by which the revisional authority set aside the order dated 30th November,1988, passed by State of Haryana (Respondent No. 2) granting lease to Durga Prasad (Petitioner) for a period of ten years; and the orders dated 24th January, 1989 and 7th February, 1989 passed by State of Haryana (Respondent No. 2) rejecting mining lease applications of the respondents No. 3 and 4 and remanding the matter back to Government for reconsideration of the mining lease applications of the petitioner as well as, of respondents 3 and 4, along with other applicants, in accordance with law...

Famous Construction Vs. National Projects Construction Corporation Lim ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)581; AIR2000Delhi404; 2000(53)DRJ330

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. A contract for 'production of spalls of size 300 M.M. including drilling, blasting etc. at approved quarry site, Dam site at Pambla' had been executed between the parties at Ernakulam, Kerala. Disputes that had arisen between the parties were referred to the Sole Arbitration of Shri Alfred Daniel, who entered upon the Reference and thereafter published his Award dated 22.2.1996. Objections have been filed against the Award on behalf of Respondents. A Preliminary Objections, to the effect that the Courts at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction has been raised, in reply to which the Petitioner has submitted that 'by virtue of Section 20(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure the Respondents Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its principal office at New Delhi. It is further submitted that in respect of any cause of action arisen at any place where it has also subordinate office, The Respondent corporation can be deemed to carry on business at such p...

Arora Provision Store Vs. Jiya Rani and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 85(2000)DLT348

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The appellant, in a second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has challenged the correctness of the order dated 6th September, 1985 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No. 679 of 1984. 2. Even though the respondents had filed an eviction petition against the appellant on several grounds, what now survives for determination is the ground available to the respondents under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. The same reads as under: '14. Protection of tenant against eviction - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more...