Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax (Additional) Vs. Industrial Finance Corpora ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]248ITR192(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), the following question has been referred 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 Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction under Section 147(b) to reopen the assessment in this case ?' 2. The factual position as indicated in the statement of the case is as follows : 3. The assessed, a statutory corporation, was set up as a Government undertaking for providing medium and long-term finance to industries. For the assessment year 1962-63, to which the present dispute relates, the accounting period ended on June 30, 1961. After the original assessment was completed on January 14, 1974 (?), proceedings for reopening of the assessment were initiated under Section 147 of the Act. Such action was questioned by the assessed on the ground that all the relevant aspect...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mecon Builders and Engineers

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]248ITR159(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN246(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), relates to the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (in short the 'Tribunal'). By its order dated June 30, 1999, in I.T.A. No. 7398 (Del) of 1992, penalty to the extent of Rs. 1,69,900 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was cancelled. 2. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows : 3. The assessed a partnership firm was engaged in execution of civil construction works. In respect of the work relatable to the VikaspuriProject, it had indicated the value of stock and work-in-progress at Rs. 3,61,132. On examination of its 11th and 12th running bills, the Assessing Officer was of the view that value of the work-in-progress was to be enhanced by Rs. 3,08,401, The assessed agreed for the enhancement of the value of the work. Accordingly, the addition was made. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated. The assessed's stand was that it...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Jagdish Prasad Sharma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated the 13th January, 1999, passed by District Forum-V in Complaint Case No. 337/98 - entitled Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. D.E.S.U. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The respondent, Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that electricity connection bearing No. 351555, was installed at his residence for domestic purpose and he was paying the bills for the consumption of electricity in respect of the abovesaid electricity connection regularly. It was stated by him that in May, 1994, a highly inflated bill was received by him for Rs. 3,825/- indicating therein the reading as 1,360 units which was not correct and he represented to the appellant. On his representation, ...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Devender Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 19.8.2000, passed by District Forum North-East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 119/98-entitled Sh. Devender Singh v. Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, averring that he was the consumer of electricity connection No. 515-1765620-IR, installed at Khasra Nos. 628/468 to 480 at village Sultanpur Majra, Delhi. It was stated in the complaint that on the basis of an inspection conducted on 19.5.1997, the supply of the complainant was disconnected on the ground of direct theft of electricity. The grievance of the respondent in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum was that he was not involved in the alleged thef...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Smt. Jharna Roy

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 13.11.1998, passed by District Forum No. I in Complaint Case No. 233094 - entitled Mrs. Jharna Roy v. Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Smt. Jharna Roy had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum averring that her late husband was allotted Quarter No. 3/4, Under Hill Road, Canal Colony, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 and after the death of her husband the complainant joined the service on grounds of compassion. It was alleged that as some of the bills for the consumption of electricity in respect of the abovesaid quarter remained un-paid, the electricity supply was disconnected by the appellant. However, on a representation made by the respondent, the electricity supply was di...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Mahindra Stillers Auto Trucks

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT91TriDel

1. The respondents are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapters 84 and 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. One of such goods is battery-operated golf cart. The party, in their classification declaration, classified the product under Tariff sub-heading 8705.00 and claimed exemption under SI. No. 196 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 4/97-C.E., dated 01.03.1997. The Department issued a show cause notice proposing to classify it under TSH. 8703.90 (which attracted duty @ 40%) and to deny the benefit of the above exemption. The respondents contested the SCN. The dispute was adjudicated by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who confirmed the classification of the product under TSH 8703.90 and denied the benefit of the Notification to the party. The aggrieved party preferred appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order. The appeal was disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) who held battery-operated golf carts to be correctly class...

C.C.E. Kanpur Vs. M/S. Standard Surfactants Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT757TriDel

1. The respondents availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.58.025/- on the original copy of the invoices Nos. 6567, 7999 and 8000 issued by M/s. VXL India Ltd. Saurastra Chemicals, Dirla Sagar, Porbandar (Gujarat). The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise Division-II, Kanpur initiated proceedings against them and vide his order dt. 28.11.99 disallowed the modvat credit of the aforestated amount to them under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He further imposed a penalty of Rs.12,000/- on them under Rule 173Q. The Asst. Commissioner in his order observed that the modvat credit of duty under Rule 57-G was admissible only on the strength of the duplicate copy of invoice; that the credit on the strength of the original copy of invoice is admissible under Rule 57-G(2)(A) only after taking the due permission of the Asst. Commissioner. The permission is granted only after the Asst. Commissioner if satisfied with the duplicate copy of invoice has been lost in transit. He has obse...

Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC318

1. This order will dispose of an application moved by the appellants under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act seeking stay of the impugned order in original passed by the Commissioner dated 18.4.2000 and waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts confirmed therein.2. The facts out of which the present application arises may briefly be stated as under: 3. The proceedings drawn were on the strength of show case notice dated 30.11.98 against the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of vegetable products falling under Chapter 15 of the Schedule to the CETA vide which they were called upon to explain as to why differential Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 72,27,073.20 be not recovered from them under Section 11-A of the Act by invoking extended period of limitation as they did not pay duty on the soap stocks manufactured by them w.e.f. 23.7.96 and penalty be also not imposed under Rule 173-Q on the allegation that during the course of manufacture of vegetabl...

Jalan Concast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT77TriDel

1. In this case, the duty demand of Rs. 1,58,43,924/- arises for the period from 01.09.1997 to 31.03.2000, on the basis of determination of ACP of the applicant's hot re-rolling steel mills as 20432.1435 MTs with monthly duty liability of Rs. 5,96,898/- with effect from 01.09.1997.2. Shri Vinay Garg, Id. Advocate submits that although the Commissioner has accepted that there has been a change in the centre to centre distance of the pinion, he has held that a decrease in the distance namely, decrease in the value of 'd', has not affected the production since the applicant uses a wobbler. Primary function of the wobbler is to convert the rigid coupling joint between pinion stand and roll stand into a flexible coupling joint. He submits that under Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 a formula has been set out for determination of annual capacity of production and according to the formula 'd' represents nominal centre distance of the pinion of the pinion s...

Jagdish Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1163; 2001CriLJ297; 88(2000)DLT131; 2000(57)DRJ372; 2001(1)JCC267

ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.8.1995 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, NDPS Act, Delhi, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Sections 15/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') and convicted him accordingly and, thereafter, by his order 25.8.1995 sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. one lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 2.12.1993 SI Roshan Lal received a secret information that one young boy will come from Bareilly Express Train in general coach who will be having a black colour bag containing poppy powder and who will get down at Shahdara Railway Station. This information was entered in D.D. register and the SHO informed the ACP (Railways) about the same on telepho...