Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Dlf Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce., Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the Order-in-original dated 30.3.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut imposing penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on them under rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules.2. The proceedings were initiated against the present appellants and M/s. Aqauta Sugar & Chemicals on the strength of show cause notice issued by C.E. Commissionerate-II Meerut In that show cause notice the Company M/s. Agauta Sugar & Chemicals were called upon the pay duty on the T.G. Sets manufactured and installed in their factory premises while the penalty on the present appellants was also proposed to be imposed under rule 209A for having abetted that Company in the manufacture, installation and clandestine removal of those T.G. Sets.After getting their reply, the Commissioner confirmed the duty demand as indicated in the show cause notice on M/s. Agauta Sugar & Chemicals and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under rule 209A of the R...

M/S. Vinko Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order of adjudication passed by the Commissioner of Customs dt.13.9.2000 vide which he had denied the benefit of Notfn. No.203/92-Cus. d. 19.5.92, to them for having availed the modvat credit on the imported inputs and confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 7,60,203.96 along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on them.2. The sole ground on which the impugned order has been challenged before us by the ld. Counsel is that the show cause notice dt. 30.3.98, on the strength of which proceedings were initiated was never received by the appellants and their request vide letter dt. 1.9.2000 for furnishing the details of the value based advance licence under which they imported the inputs had not been considered at all, by the Commissioner.3. Shri M.M. Dubey, JDR on the other hand has argued that it is quite evident from the appellants' letter dt. 1.9.2000 that they were aware of the proceedings but deliberately stay...

M/S. Jyoti Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC826

1. Issue to be considered in all these appeals are the same. So, we consider it advantageous to dispose of all the appeals by a common order.2. M/s. Jyoti Overseas Ltd., appellant in appeal Nos. E/2037-2048/97 question the correctness of adjudication order No. 161-172/Commr/CEX/97 dated 16-7-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Cental Excise, Indore.M/s. Jagdish Silk Mills are aggrieved by adjudication order No.35/CE/CHD II dated 4-1-99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, the adjudicating authority. The above mentioned appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton fabrics. The fabrics manufactured were heavily and thickly woven with multiple warp/weft/yarns. They cleared those goods without paying any duty on the belief that they fall under Chapter 52 of the Cental Excise Tariff Act and so not liable to duty. Department took up the stand that the goods manufactured are classifiable under Heading 59.09 or 59.11 of the Cental Excise Tariff Act. Thereupon, show ...

American Express Bank Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the assesses against the order dt. 7th Dec., 1992, of Dy. CIT(A), Ranger-I, New Delhi. It pertains to the asst. yr. 1990-91. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us : "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Dy. CIT(A) is not justified ; 1. On not considering that under Section 201 of the Act, the ITO is not empowered to adjust the income calculated by the employer and, therefore, the order passed by ITO is in excess of his powers and, therefore, bad in law. 2. Without prejudice to the foregoing, in not upholding that the valuation of perquisite in respect of domestic servants should be done according to the Circular No 122, dt. 19th Oct., 1973, issued by the CBDT. As such, the perquisite value should not be the actual reimbursement of servant wages but Rs. 60 per month and consequent deletion of interest charged under Section 201(1 A) of the Act." 2. The authorised representative of the assessee Mrs. Preeti Goyal submitted...

M/S. Bharat Rasayan Ltd Vs. M/S. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)785; 91(2001)DLT623; 2001(63)DRJ115; 2002(1)RAJ417

ORDERK.S. Gupta.J. 1. This petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 was filed by petitioner company alleging that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Technical grade pesticides an their intermediates. In pursuance of Tender Notice No.HIL/CO/1/96 dated 1st February 1996 issued by the respondent in local daily newspapers for purchase of Fenvalerate Technical and CypermethrineeTechnical, the petitioner submitted its quotations/ offers Along with earnest money deposits etc with the respondent vide letter Nos. BRL: 96:4538 and 39, both dated 20th February 1996. Tenders were opened on 23rd February 1996 and petitioner company was declared successful tenderer. Respondent thereafter entered into negotiations with petitioner. Petitioner company gave its revised offers vide letter Nos.BRL: 96: 4823 and 24, both dated 21st March 1996. After further negotiations, petitioner vide its letter dated 12th April 1996 offered to extend interest free...

M/S. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)625; 92(2001)DLT217; 2001(59)DRJ129

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code' only) is directed against an order dated 2.2.2001 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi declining the request of the complainant/petitioner to make over the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registration of FIR and investigations in accordance with law.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner company had filed a complaint under Section 380, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC against two accused and some unknown persons alleging that in the course of the business, some blank cheques signed by a Director of the Company used to be kept in the office for withdrawal of money for urgent needs. Accused No. 1 and 2 were employees of the company. After they had left the employme...

Municiapal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ajay Kumar Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)311; 92(2001)DLT173; 2001(59)DRJ366

ORDERD.K. Jain, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court, as applicable to the High Court of Delhi, is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd October, 1998 whereby the appellant Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short 'the MCD') has been directed to appoint the respondent as Junior Engineer (Civil) from the date he was entitled to with all benefits, within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. 2. To appreciate and adjudicate on the controversy involved, it would be necessary to briefly notice the material facts.Pursuant to the requisition, name of the respondent was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of the Junior Engineer (Civil). There was no written examination for selection but the following criteria for selection was evolved:'FOR DIPLOMA HOLDERS WITH TWO YEARS MINIMUM EXPERIENCE (AFTER DECLARATION OF RESULT OF THE DIPLOMA EXAMINATION up to 08.03.1996 I.E. LAST DATE FOR SPONSORING THE N...

Acqua Minerals Limited Vs. Mr. Pramod Borse and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi463; 93(2001)DLT203

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Through this suit the plaintiff has sought as decree fro permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their partners from using the mark BISLERI and/or BISLARI.com as part of their domain name or in any other manner whatsoever as for nay products, goods or services so as to result in passing off, an infringement of copyright and directing them to transfer the domain name BISLERI.com to the plaintiff.2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that it is the registered proprietor of the trade mark BISLERI and is registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred t oas 'the Act') bearing No. 260716 dated 20th November,1969 and is also the owner of the copyright in the BISLERI word and the unique manner in which it is written. Its mark BISLERI is extremely well known in the indian market and was one of the first marks introduced for bottled mineral water in India. The BISLERI water is distributed in over 500 towns and cities of India ...

American Express Bank Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(Del)599

ORDERSmt. Diva Singh, J.M.This is an appeal filed by the assessed against the order dated 7-12-1992, of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Range-I, New Delhi. It pertains to the assessment year 1990-91. The assessed has raised the following grounds before us :'On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified :1. On not considering that under section 201 of the Act, the Income Tax Officer is not empowered to adjust the income calculated by the employer and, thereforee, the order passed by Income Tax Officer is in excess of his powers and, thereforee, bad in law.2. Without prejudice to the foregoing, in not upholding that the valuation of perquisite in respect of domestic servants should be done according to the Circular No 122, dated 19-10-1973, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. As such, the perquisite value should not be the actual reimbursement of servant wages but Rs. 60 per month and consequent deletion of interest charged...

Pawan Duggal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)657; 2001CriLJ3918; 92(2001)DLT262; 2001(59)DRJ645

R.C. Chopra, J. 1. The petitioner who is facing trial under Sections 302/307/212/201 read with Sections 120B and 34 IPC as well as Section 25/27 of the Arms Act has come to this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code' only) challenging the orders dated 12.1.2001 passed by the learned Trial Judge rejecting his application under Section 91 of the Code. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. I have gone through the records. 3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner vide his application dated 6th December, 2000 requested the Trial Court to require the (X) to produce in Court the original Along with a copy of the inspection, form/report No. 582 dated 7.11.1999 submitted by PW Subhash Chander SI of Crime Team in regard to the inspection of the Arms/Ammunition and other articles found at the place of occurrence, produce in the Cou...