Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments

Super Polyplast (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT682TriDel

1. M/s. Super Polyplast (P) Limited have filed an appeal against confirmation of demand amounting to Rs. 55,40,108/- alleged to be the duty on PVC pipes clandestinely removed during the period from 1-3-1994 to 31-12-1995, disallowance of Modvat credit of Rs. 6,83,096/- taken on the inputs not properly accounted for, confiscation of PVC pipes valued at Rs. 11,72,011/- and also confiscation of raw materials valued at Rs. 11,99,720/-, and imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs.2. S/Shri J.K. Agarwal, Managing Director, T.R. Jain, Authorised Signatory and K.K. Gupta, Clerk have filed these three appeals against imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each.3. The facts of the case in brief are that M/s. Super Polyplast (P) Limited are engaged in the manufacture of Rigid PVC pipes. They were taking Modvat credit on the inputs like PVC resin, calcium carbonate and chemicals. The Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the appellants on 2-1-1996. The records were not available in the factor...

Suraj Bhan, Dy. Director Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ391CAT

1. Sh. Suraj Bhan has filed this O.A. against the penalty of reduction in pay by three stages in the time scale of pay imposed upon him with immediate effect with a further direction that he would earn his first increment in the reduced stage after one year vide order dated 13.11.96 (Annexure A). He was, at the time, a Sales Tax Officer incharge of Ward No. 46 (Old). He has also challenged the order dated 13.12.96 (Annexure AA) by which his pay has been fixed in accordance with the punishment order aforesaid. By bringing an amendment to the O.A., he has also challenged the order dated 10.2.98 passed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi, in the Review Petition filed by the applicant in January, 1997. The main grounds taken are that the Lt. Governor's order inflicting punishment on the applicant is perverse and is based on no evidence.The respondents have controverted the issues raised by the applicant.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. We now proce...

Haldiram Foods Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) VIII, New Delhi, and relates to the asst. yr. 1994-95.2. The solitary issue raised in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 22,00,000 by resorting to the provisions of Section 69B of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) being part of the amount of investment not fully disclosed in the books of accounts. The assessee-company was incorporated on 29th Oct., 1993. The authorized capital of the company as per the balance sheet as on 31st March, 1994 (paper book page No. 76) was Rs. "5,00,00,000. The issued, subscribed and paid-up capital was Rs. 40,12,700. Details of shareholders were furnished at p. 25 of the paper book. Broadly the capital was contributed as under:4. Three companies 20,50,000 ---------- 4. The assessee-company purchased a plot of land measuring 32 canals 18 marlas situated at Village Kher Ki Daula, Tehsil. Sohna, Distt.Gurgaon, Haryana. This land was purchased from S/Shri Om Prakash ...

Haldiram Foods Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VIII, New Delhi, and relates to the assessment year 1994-95.2. The solitary issue raised in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 22,00,000 by resorting to the provisions of Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) being part of the amount of investment not fully disclosed in the books of account. The assessee-company was incorporated on 29-10-1993. The authorised capital of the company as per the balance sheet as on 31-3-1994 (paper book page No. 76) was Rs. 5,00,00,000. The issued, subscribed and paid up capital was Rs. 40,12,700. Details of shareholders were furnished at page 25 of the paper book. Broadly the capital was contributed as under :--1. Shri Manohar Lal Agarwal Rs. 9,50,200 and his family members4. Three companies Rs. 20,50,000 ----------------- 4. The assessee-company purchased a plot of land measuring 32 canals 18 marlas situated at ...

Sheesh Kaur Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)101; 87(2000)DLT845; 2000(55)DRJ561

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. The land of the petitioner measuring 44 Bighas and 10 bids was in Vilage Budhella was acquired by the respondent on 28.12.1968. The name of the petitioner was recommended for allotment of 400 sq. yds. plot in West Zone. Petitioner was requested to send her consent so that her name could be included in the draw of lots for allotment of plot admeasuring 252 sq. mtrs. in Chaukhandi. She was asked to deposit Rs. 5000/- as earnest money, which she deposited on 17.5.1988. A decision (which is at page 28 of the paper book) was taken by the respondent inter alia, deciding that Chaukhandi residential scheme being an undeveloped area, the allottees would be allowed change to some other areas in West Zone. The same is reproduced below : '116 plots by way of alternative plots were allotted in this pocket. Out of this, 81 persons have already got the change. The remaining are also requesting for the change. We have to examine these cases one by one and should not unnecessar...

Suresh Chand JaIn Vs. Siri Chand JaIn and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ631

ORDERVikarma jit Sen, J.1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for the grant of a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from transferring, alienating, parting with or disposing off or collecting rent or in any way interfering with the property bearing Nos. 2739 to 2745, Sushila Mohan Marg, Naya Bazar, Delhi. When the matter came up for hearing an ex parte order was passed on 14.6.2000. Written Statement on behalf of Defendants has since been filed. Mr. Dinesh Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Defendants has pressed that the Defendant No.1 is of advanced age and that the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 be disposed off immediately. Accordingly the matter was heard at considerable length. 2. The contention on behalf of Defendants is that the property in suit is the sole property of Defendant No.1, who is the father of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2. The Plaintiff has shifted to Delhi whereas Defendant No.1 and his other son continue to reside and tr...

B.K. Khanna and Co. (P) Ltd. (M/S.) Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Del)259

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. In compliance with the directions given by this Court by Order dated 30th March, 1978 in ITC No. 15/75, following question has been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 256(2) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) by the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (in short the Tribunal), 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 30,000/- paid to the two Directors B.K. Khanna and K.N. Khanna is not an allowable deduction?' Factual position in nut shell is as follows. 2. assessed is a Private Limited company. It is a closely held company and its four Directors are close relatives. For the assessment year 1966-67 relevant to the previous year ending on 31.8.1965, claim was made in respect of alleged payment of Rs. 30,000/- to two of its Directors, namely K.N. Khanna and B.K. Khanna. The payment was purportedly made for agreeing not to carry on any further busines...

M/S. Calcom Electronics Ltd. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(57)DRJ544

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Petitioner is a dealer registered under the Delhi Salestax Act 1975 (in short the 'Act') and the Central Salestax Act, 1956 (in short the 'Central Act'). Penalty was levied on it for late filing of returns for the month of February 1996 under the aforesaid Acts. Such imposition was affirmed by Additional Commissioner of Salestax III (Revision). Such levy is challenged in this petition. 2. Brief reference to the factual aspects would be necessary for adjudication of the issues involved. An application was filed under Rule 48 of the Delhi Salestax Rules, 1975 (for short the 'Rules') before the Commissioner of Salestax, Delhi (in short the 'Commissioner') praying for extension of time to pay the tax due for the month of February 1996. Prayer was made for grant of time till 31st March 1996. Commissioner granted extension of time for payment of tax by order dated 22nd March 1996 up to 25th March 1996. Order passed by the Commissioner reads as follows: 'They may p...

Punjab Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2000Delhi445; 2000(3)ARBLR408(Delhi)

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This suit, filed by the plaintiff against the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Works & Housing claims permanent injunction directing the defendantUnion of India not to prevent the plaintiff from taking supplies of dross metal and to deliver the same to the plaintiff in pursuance of Contract dated 5.1.79 and in the alternative seeks a direction to the defendant to pay damages of Rs.1,11,400/ and also seeks the release of security deposit by the plaintiff for Rs.20,000/.2. On 6th October, 1978 the Govt. of India Press, New Delhi was seeking to dispose of about 200 quintals of metal dross. Accordingly, an advertisement was published on 7th October, 1978. The relevant portion of the said advertisement reads as follows: 'The General Manager Govt. of India Press, Minto Road, New Delhi, for and on behalf of the President of India invites sealed tenders in the prescribed form obtainable from his office free of cost for the purchase of Lino, Mono, Metal dros...

A.K. Goenka Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ596

R.S. Sodhi J. 1. Admit.2. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, dated May 29, 2000, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, upon an application moved by the petitioner herein refused to drop proceedings initiated against him by his earlier order summoning' him to face trial upon a complaint made by the respondent.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not given a notice, as required under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not the person in charge of the affairs of the company at the time when the offence was committed. This, learned counsel states on the strength that the petitioner was in custody in Tihar Jail with effect from February 2, 1998, to May 4, 1998. He, thereforee, contends that a notice under Section 138(b) of the Act is mandatory upon the director who is b...