Delhi Court April 2000 Judgments

Benara Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC318

1. Appellant herein is M/s. Benara Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Agra. They are engaged in the business of manufacture of bearings and crushes. They entered into an agreement with a foreign company known as M/s New Tech Engineering Service, 226-11, Jung Rim Dong Seo Ku, Taejeon City, South Korea on 24-5-1996 for getting the technical know-how with the approval of the Reserve Bank of India evidenced by letter No.EC.CO.FITT/19/12.51.00 (B-135)96/97, dated 11-7-1996. Total consideration as per that agreement for getting this technical know-how was US $ 1,50,000. The said amount was to be paid in instalments as specified in Clause 5 of that agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, technical drawings and designs were supplied under eight airway bills.For clearing the goods sent by those airway bills authorised courier DHL Worldwide Express filed bill of entry on 1-11-1996. The airway bills showed value at US $ 15. Those consignments were not cleared by the Customs authorities because of their suspicion r...

Opto Electronics Factory Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT588TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by General Manager, Opto Electronics Factory, is whether the grinding and polishing machine imported by them is classifiable as tools under Heading 84.60 of the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act and is exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 206/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976.2. Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma, learned Advocate, submitted that Sri. No.5(v) exempts "Components, Spares, Jigs, Fixtures, Tools, Dies, Moulds and Test Equipments required for the manufacture and testing of guided weapons and their accessories"; that the impugned goods meant for manufacture of guided weapons and as such exemption is available under Notification No. 206/76-Cus. He further submitted that the Asstt.Collector rejected their claim for refund of Customs duty paid by them at the time of import, holding that tools are specifically covered in Chapter 82 of the Tariff and Heading 84.60 covers machines tools which are not mentioned in the exemption notif...

Breach Candy Hospital and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC123

1. These appeals are before us on reference by a Division Bench. The issue referred is as under.2. The dispute related to concessional assessment of Air-Conditioners received by the appellants. Notification No. 56/78, dated 1-3-1978 (as amended) granted exempted lower rates at 25% ad valorem subject to certain conditions. The concession was in respect of Air-Conditioners used in the establishments stipulated in the Schedule to the notification. Sl. No. 11 of the Schedule related to "Any hospital run by the Central Government, a State Government, a Local Authority or a Public Charitable Institution". The conditions of the notification are as under : - "(i) the Collector of Central Excise is satisfied that such air-conditioners are required for use in any of the establishments specified in the Schedule hereto annexed; (ii) the manufacturer furnishes to the Collector of Central Excise a written undertaking by the owner, or, as the case may be, the Chief Executive of the establishment in ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT915TriDel

1. The Revenue is in appeal. The dispute is with regard to 2% discount given to buyers who pay in advance. It has been submitted that this discount is given only to about 85% of the buyers who pay in advance and not to the remaining 15% buyers. It has also been stated that this discount is, strictly speaking, not a cash discount which is permissible for deduction but, a discount for advance payment. The Revenue, therefore, holds that the 2% deduction being not a cash discount, it is liable to be included in the assessable value.2. As against the aforesaid stand of the Revenue, learned Counsel representing the respondents draws our attention in particular to observations of the adjudicating authority in page 10 of the impugned order. The order states that the discount was denied to those buyers who did not make the payment before the delivery of the goods. The 2% discount was given uniformly to all dealers who effected payment before the delivery of the goods. Learned Counsel, therefor...

Constable Kafil Ahmed Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents rejecting his request for inclusion of his name in the Promotion List 'A' dated 4.1.1996, 22.3.1995 and 13.5.1991.2. The applicant, who had been enrolled as Constable in Delhi Police had been proceeded against departmentally. The penalty of forfeiture of two years approved service temporarily for one year entailing proportionate reduction in his pay was imposed on him by order dated 23.5.1989, which was upheld by the appellate authority by order dated 6.3.1990. The applicant had filed O.A.1524/90, which was disposed of by order dated 31.8.1994 (Annexure A-9). While this O.A. was pending, the applicant had moved Miscellaneous Application which was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 15.3.1991. In this order, the respondents were directed to depute the applicant for training in the Lower School Course (LSC) provisionally, subject to the outcome of O.A.I 524/90. In Tribunal's order dated 31.8.1994, it was directed a...

Kamal Pushup Gupta and ors. Vs. Delhi State Industrial Development Cor ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)315; AIR2000Delhi295

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, now fourteen in number and allottees of industrial sheds in New Okhla Industrial complex, Phase-I, New Delhi, seek a direction to the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (for short 'the DSIDC') to offer to them the same concessions which were offered by the DSIDC in the case of R. Sehgal v. DSIDC (CWP No. 3806/92), incorporated in this Court's order dated 15th September, 1993 and accept the balance amount, with interest at 10% per annum with effect from 1st April, 1989, in full and final payment due from the petitioners in terms of the said offer and also grant a rebate of 15% on the cost of each of the sheds as per the DSIDC's letter dated 27th April 1989. 3. Initially there were twenty five petitioners but subsequently, either on some of the petitioners moving applications for deletion of their names from the array of parties or on the statement of th...

M/S. Daulat Ram Public Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)651; 2000(53)DRJ573; [2000]244ITR514(Delhi)

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. In these six references, at the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal) Delhi Benches, has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following common question, in respect of the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1974-75 to 1977-78, for the opinion of this Court: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed trust was not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78.'2. The assessed is a trust, assessed in the status of association of persons. The trust came into existence on 12th December, 1956 under a deed of trust registered on 12th December, 1956. While completing assessment for the assessment year 1971-72, the Assessing Officer held that the assessed was a charitable trust and accordingly issued an exemption certific...

Jagson International Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)851

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. These applications (IAs. 3969/99 & IA. 10309/99) arise from the Award dated 24th March, 1993. 2. The first application, i.e., IA. 3969/99 is filed on behalf of respondent No. 1/H.A.L. under Section 151 CPC praying for stay of the operation of the impugned Award dated 24.3.1993. The prayer clauses in the said application read as follows:- 'a) Stay of operation of the Award dated 24.3.99 to the extent that the Award directs the Applicant to deliver the aircraft to the plaintiff in flying condition within one week of receipt of payment of Rs. One crore, and levies a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- per day upon the failure of the Applicant to do so within one week of receipt of the payment. b) Permit the Applicant to encash the cheque bearing No. 175451 dated 01.4.1999 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, for the Sum of Rs. One crore, issued by the Plaintiff in favor of the Applicant, pending disposal of the objections, and further directs the Plaintiff to take possession of ...

Narender Kumar JaIn Vs. Sham Lal Gulati

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 86(2000)DLT383; 2000(56)DRJ385

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. Admit.The petitioner has challenged an order dated 13th September, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller declining leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the respondent under the provisions of Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The case set up by the respondent was that he and his wife are aged personsand they need their married daughter, who is their only the child, to live with them to look after them in their old age. It is alleged that the petitioner is suffering from back pain and his wife is suffering from hypertension and high blood pressure.3. The learned Additional Rent Controller was of the view that the respondent was entitled to have his married daughter live with him to look after the respondent and his wife in their old age. Reliance was also placed by the learned Additional Rent Controller on certain medical certificates which were consider...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]245ITR492(Delhi)

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 to state the case and refer the following question, said to be one of law, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the rent received from factory building is to be assessed as income from business and not under the head 'Income from house property' ?'The petition pertains to the assessment year 1989-90 for which the relevant accounting period ended on March 31, 1989. In its annual accountsfor the relevant assessment year, forming part of the return of income, theassessee, a private limited company, claimed depreciation on the factorybuilding owned by it. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the income derived by theassessee by letting out the factory bui...