Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 13 of about 254 results (0.021 seconds)A.M. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT718TriDel
Central Excise Officers visited the appellants' premises on 24-9-1997 and found a shortage of 12 tractor rims and also 143 crane rims vis-a-vis the recorded balance in RG-1 register. The proceedings of the visiting officers were witnessed by one of the partners of the appellants firm, viz. Vijay Kumar, who admitted the shortage as found by the officers. The Central Excise duty on 12 tractor rims and that on the 143 crane rims found short, amounting to Rs. 324/- and Rs. 30,888/- respectively, were paid on the same day by way of appropriate debits in the appellants RG-23A Part II. The Department proposed to confirm such duty and to impose penalty on the appellants on the ground of alleged contravention of Central Excise Rules. They alleged that the goods found short had been removed clandestinely without payment of Central Excise duty and without following Central Excise procedure as laid down by the relevant Rules. The appellants contested the allegations of the Department contained in...
Tag this Judgment!Kanshi Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)495; 86(2000)DLT609; 2000(54)DRJ112
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR No. 248/96 under Sections 147/149/323/354/506 IPC registered at the Police Station Tughlak Road. 2. Petitioner is the President of the Bahujan Samaj Party (for short the BSP). In 1996, the Govt. had provided security cover to the petitioner and he was placed in 'Z' category. Petitioner's official residence had a security picket at its entrance. On 25.10.96, Ms. Mayawati (since discharged) and other BSP leader's had assembled at the petitioner's residence to deliberate on the issue of Government formation in Uttar Pradesh. On that day, some 50/60 journalists, hoping to get a quote or a photograph of these leaders, had positioned themselves in front of the petitioner's residence. Petitioner's security personnel asked the media persons to leave the area and a heated verbal exchanged ensued. The petitioner then emerged from the house. As per...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Vs. the Presiding Officer, Mact and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000ACJ1210; AIR2001Delhi49; 86(2000)DLT137; 2000(55)DRJ34; (2000)126PLR22
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, an old man of 60 years and a resident of Bihar, suffered a tragedy in the loss of his son, Gopal, aged 22 years, in a road accident on 13.7.1999. Petitioner filed a claim for grant of compensation under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 16.8.1999, while being personally present. Shri S.L. Bhayana, learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, declined to issue summons and this led the petitioner to file the present petition in October 1999. A learned Single Judge of this Court ordered 'Rule' to be issued. 2. Petitioner moved CM.221/2000, seeking interim directions so that, at least, the petition could be registered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma, Delhi. Notice of the application was directed to be issued to Shri U. Hazarika, Standing Counsel, Union of India and Shri S.K. Kaul, Senior Advocate. 3. Let me notice the factual matrix of this case: (i) Petitioner filed the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Cla...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Cit Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)739; 2000(54)DRJ380
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. These two references under Sections 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are closely inter-linked and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the assessed and the Revenue felt aggrieved by the order of Income-tax Appellate aggrieved by the order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Delhi Bench 'A', Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') and moved for reference. The following questions have been referred for opinion of this Court:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment made on Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. in respect of the income for the assessment year 1972-73 as a successor of M/s. Bharat General Insurance Corpn. Ltd. was bad in law?' (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 2,85,838/- being the amount of management compensation, was includible in the total income of th...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Photo Studio Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)705; 86(2000)DLT1; [2001]122STC279(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. Disallowance of claim of deduction under Section 4(2)(V) of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 ( in short 'the Act') in respect of sales to registered dealers as made by the Sales Tax Officer, Ward 61, Bikri Bhawan, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the assessing officer, is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. Petitioner, a dealer registered under the Act, claimed deduction in respect of sales stated to have been made to registered dealers. Fifty four declaration forms in Form ST-I were furnished in support of the claim. Assessing officer rejected the claim on the ground that the purchasing dealers who had issued those forms had indicated different figures in respect of the transactions covered by the forms. On the aforesaid ground, the assessment for the year 1983-84 was completed raising extra demand of Rs. 10,60,185/- additionally which is required to be dealt with under Section 50 of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deeksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]246ITR485(Delhi)
1. In this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, 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, in respect of assessment year 1986-87, for the opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law to hold that the sum of Rs. 55,45,658 received by the assessee-company as its share of shop deposits is not an income, which has been assessed by the Assessing Officer on protective basis ?'2. inspire of service of notice no one appears for the respondent. We have accordingly heard learned counsel for the Revenue.3. Keeping in view the fact that a similar issue was the subject-matter of ITC No. 149 of 1992, pertaining to the immediately preceding assessment year, i.e., 1985-86, and a reference was called for in that case, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Del)2; [2000]244ITR631(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.These two references under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), are closely interlinked and are disposed of by this common judgment.Both the assessed and the revenue felt aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), and moved for reference. The following questions have been referred for opinion of this court :'(i) Whether. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment made on Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. in respect of the income for the assessment year 1972-73 as a successor of Bharat General Insurance Corporation Ltd. was bad in law (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 2,85,838 being the amount of management compensation, was includible in the total income of the insurance company for the assessment year 1972-73 unde...
Tag this Judgment!Compack Labs Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT187TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Compack Labs the matter relates to the eligibility of the Notification No. 339/86-C.E., dated 11-6-1986 under Sl. No. 23 of the Table annexed to that notification.2. We have heard Shri A.R. Madho Rao, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Satnam Singh, SDR for respondent-Revenue. We have gone through the records. The facts are not disputed. As explained by the learned Advocate the classification list effective from 1-4-1992 was approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 17-6-1992 extending the benefit of notification 339/86-C.E. to the products in question. This approval of the classification list was challenged by the department before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who noted that the matter was covered by the Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Trio Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Union of India. 1992 (57) E.L.T. 249 (Cal.) and that the assessee, the respondents before him did not question the applicability of that decision to th...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Tekcom (i) Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT746TriDel
1. Northern Bench (DB) had passed Stay Order No. S/480-92/99-NB (DB), dated 11-11-1999, pending the above appeals directing M/s. R.K. Tekcom (India) Limited (one of the present applicants) to deposit certain amounts of duty within eight weeks. There was also a direction to one, Shri K.C. Agarwal and one Shri B.L. Gujar (two other applicants) to deposit certain amounts within the same period.2. The present application No. E/Misc./718/99-NB (D) was filed on 11-11-1999 itself for recalling the above stay order. Application No.E/Misc./755/99-NB (D) was filed on 28-12-1999 for a modification of the stay order on the grounds stated in the application.3. We have heard Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate for the applicants and Shri M.M. Dubey, learned JDR for the respondent. Ld. JDR has raised a preliminary objection against entertaining these applications. He has submitted that the applications are in the nature of a request for review of the stay order and cannot be considered for want of...
Tag this Judgment!G.T.C. Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT502TriDel
1. This is a stay petition filed by M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. praying for stay of operation of Order-in-Appeal dated 16-11-1999 and Order-in-Original dated 16-4-1998 and for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 69,22,874.48. The appellants also had claimed a refund of Rs. 1,19,33,023.47 which had also been rejected as per the impugned order.2. Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the applicant, Shri M. Chandra Sekharan, along with advocates Shri K.K. Gupta and Manish Pushkaran, submitted that the BIFR had by order dated 27-3-2000 passed a direction on the appellant company, the Operating Agency and other agencies who were before the BIFR in case Nos. 17/97 in relation to the appellant company, to hold discussion and to arrive at a settlement. The matter was still pending before the BIFR and therefore the requirement of pre-deposit of the adjudged amount may be waived and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. Apart from this, ld. Counsel also ...
Tag this Judgment!