Delhi Court April 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 7 of about 143 results (0.020 seconds)Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]112TAXMAN363(Delhi)
ORDERBy this petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') the revenue seeks a direction to the 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 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'?'2. The petition pertains to the assessment year 1989-90 for which the relevant accounting period ended on 31-3-1989. In its annual accounts for the relevant assessment year, forming part of the return of income, the assessee, a private limited company, claimed depreciation on the factory building owned by it. However, during the course of the assessment proceedings the assessing officer was of the view that the income derived by the assessed by letting out the factory building was to be as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. National Steel Ind.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT520TriDel
1. These COD applications and appeals are filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. These appeals are against Order-in-Appeal dated 19-5-1999 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal in which he has allowed the appeal of M/s. National Steel Industries Ltd., Dhar (M.P.) against the Order-in-Original dated 30-9-1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore-I. The adjudicating authority in his order had confirmed a demand of Rs. 7,00,150/- and had imposed a penalty of Rs. 70,000/-on the respondents for allegedly taking inadmissible Modvat credit under Rule 57Q on certain goods.2. In the COD application of the Revenue it is stated that the Order-in-Appeal dated 18/21-5-99 was received in the Commissionerate Office on 24-5-99. The appeal against this was to be filed latest by 23-8-99. The appeal has been filed on 9-12-99. Thus there is a delay of 100 days in filing the appeal. The grounds of delay are stated to be that on 22-10-99 they received a communica...
Tag this Judgment!Daylight Plastic Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT592TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-original, dated 27-7-1992 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Judicial), Bombay I vide which he ordered requantification of the duty and also imposed penalty of various amounts on the appellants. 3. The appellants are manufacturer of excisable goods, namely diffuser covers, regulator covers, plates, louvres, shackle cover, roof light domes, lense holders for weighing scale machines, gift articles like coasters, desk calendars, pen stands etc. On a surprise visit to the factory premises, an irregularity was detected in their claim for Modvat. It also revealed that some of the manufactured items were not even declared by them and no classification list alongwith the effective rate of duty was even filed. They were served with show cause notice. But they contested the correctness of that show cause notice and denied their liability to pay the duty. However, the Collector did not agree with their contention and throug...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Cipra Plastics and Allied
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT813TriDel
1. In this appeal the issue involved is regarding the availability of benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 to the respondents in respect of the unbranded goods manufactured by them.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plastic jars falling under TH 8509 of the CETA bearing the brand name "Rallimix" of non-SSI unit and are clearing the same on payment of full rate of duty ad valorem. They are, however, also manufacturing other goods like plastic caps, plastic rings, plastic lids, plastic jar-base etc.without any brand name. The Assistant Collector denied them the benefit of the exemption Notification referred to above in respect of these unbranded goods on the ground that these were used in the branded goods i.e. "Rallimix" through the order-in-original dated 16-12-93 and confirmed the duty demand on them. But this order of the Assistant Collector was challenged in appeal by the respondents before the Collector (Appeals) who had reversed the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Head Constable (Dri.) Kali Ram Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)597; 86(2000)DLT163; 2000(54)DRJ228
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the judgment and orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 24th December, 1997 in R.A. No. 294 of 1997 in O.A. No. 1473 of 1992 whereby the Tribunal dismissed his application after giving a reasoned order. 2. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that he impugned the disciplinary proceeding held against him under Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 in which the impugned order dated 12th August, 1971 had been passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service, was bad on the ground that Mr. Puran Singh, Inspector, who had conducted the inquiry against the petitioner, had submitted his findings on 4th May, 1991 holding him guilty of the charges of willful absence from duty, was arbitrary and that the petitioner had not been given a reasonable opportunity to defend his c...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Police Vs. Ex. Constable Karan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)583; 2000(53)DRJ627
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved of the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (for short 'the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 2117 of 1998 dated 8th April, 1999, whereby the Tribunal, following the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Bakshish Singh, 1998 (7) J.T. 142 quashed the order of the disciplinary authority, as upheld by the appellate authority and the revisional authority, with the direction to reinstate respondent No. 1 forthwith within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order as also pay 50 per cent of the permissible pay and allowances for intervening period. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1, a constable in Delhi Police was served with the charge-sheet to the effect that he absented himself from duty without seeking prior permission. A departmental inquiry was initiated which found him guilty of the charges whereupon the disciplinary authority, by order dated 24th Septembe...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Pal Singh Hav. (Retd.) Vs. U.O.i and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ114
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner had joined Army in 1963. In 1967, he joined defense Security Corps. He was promoted to the rank of Havildar on 1.7.1981. It may be mentioned at this stage that the officers in defense Security Corps work on tenure basis which is extended from time to time. The petitioner was given extensions as Havildar and last extension was expiring on 31.5.1988. Petitioner became entitled to be considered for promotion to the rank of Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) and he was considered for promotion to this post in 1986 and 1987 but was not found fit for promotion due to lacking in ACRs. Thereafter on 12.2.1987, petitioner submitted option of unwillingness for extension of service wherein he had stated that he was not willing to extend his service on empire of extended period of service w.e.f. 31.5.1988. On 18.3.1988 petitioner even proceeded on leave pending discharge from service as Havaldar which was to become effective from 31.5.1988. 2. However, in normal cou...
Tag this Judgment!Allahabad Bank Vs. Anil Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)647; 2000(3)ARBLR360(Delhi)
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a suit on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank praying for passing a decree of Rs. 5,30,156/- along with pendente liter/future interest and also for passing a preliminary decree of sale in respect of the mortgaged property under Order XXXIV of CPC. The defendants were duly served but did not enter appearance and by the Order of this Court dated 12.11.1998, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte. 2. The plaintiff-Bank is body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies Act 5, 1970. The plaint is duly signed and verified by Shri Krishna Kumar Kanshal, Manager and Principal Officer of the plaintiff-Bank. who is authorised to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank. 3. It is averred in the plaint that the defendant No.1 as principal borrower, approached the plaintiff-Bank for financial assistance in the form of Term Loan Facility in the sum of Rs.2,53,272/- vide loan applica-tion dated 07.09.1988 (Ex. PW-1/1) for purchasing a truck. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Police Vs. Ex. Constable Shakroo Khan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)794; 86(2000)DLT179; 2000(54)DRJ714
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 24th May, 1999 in O.A. No.2016 of 1998, whereby the Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 8th April, 1999, in O.A. No.2117 of 1998, Karan Singh and others v. Union of India, has disposed of the O.A. in terms thereof and set aside the dismissal of respondent No.1 while directing him to be reinstated with 50 per cent back wages. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1, a constable in Delhi Police, was dealt with under the provisions of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules 1980 vide Order No.2923-37/HAP-North dated 10th June, 1994 on the allegation that he absented himself from duty unauthorisedly for the following period: S.No Period of Absence. 1. 12.8.87 to 23.9.87 2. Absent for 24 days w.e.f. 18.12.97. 3. 16.6.88 to 27.10.88 (149 days) 4. 12.3.90 to 13.7.90 5. 3.8.90 to 29.5.91 6. 18.9.9...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Constable Maan Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)710; 86(2000)DLT484; 2000(54)DRJ930
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 13th May, 1998 in O.A. No. 99 of 1993 wherein he had challenged the issuance of charge-sheet dated 11th November, 1991 and the disciplinary authority's order dated 13th March, 1992 dismissing him from the police service as also challenges the appellate authority's order dated 18th September, 1992 rejecting his appeal. 2. The case before the Tribunal was that the petitioner was departmentally proceeded against on the charge that he proceeded to avail three days' medical rest with effect from 31st January, 1990 and was due back on 2nd February, 1990 when he again produced another certificate for seven days further medical rest and proceeded to avail of the same with effect from 9th February, 1990. He was due back on 16th February, 1990 but did not resume duties, as such was marked absent on 17th February, ...
Tag this Judgment!