Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has brought on record proof of clearance obtained from the secretarial Committee on Disputes for pursuing the appeals. Counsel has moved the stay applications. There will be an Interim Stay of recovery of the duty amounts involved, till final disposal of these applications. As regards the prayer for waiver of deposit of duty for purposes of hearing the appeals on merits, the matter has to wait for the decision of the Larger Bench in Kissan Sehkari Chinni Mills as the issue before the Larger Bench directly affects the maintainability of these appeals. The stay applications are adjourned to 14.8.2001 for hearing on the prayer for waiver of deposit....

Quantum Information Systems Ltd. Vs. Electronics Trade and Technology ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)185; 29(2001)DLT433; 2002(1)RAJ487

ORDERK.S. Gupta J. 1. Petitioner filed this petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, interalia, alleging that it is pioneer in the field of Distance Education. Respondent is a Public Section undertaking and was set up in the year 1974 by the Department of Electronics, Government of India. Respondent is engaged in the business of electronic components, equipments, information technology products, telecommunications, security systems, education and training etc. Both the parties entered into a 'Quantum-ET&T; Alliance Agreement' on 18th December 1997. Under clause (1) of this agreement, petitioner was to set up education centre to be known as 'Quantum ET&T; Centre'. Under clause (5) respondent undertook to provide 3500 sq. of built up space at 16/48, Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri after enovating, air-conditioning and installing furniture, fixtures, fittings and other utilities at a cot not exceeding Rs. 1,000/- per sq.ft according to the design approved by petit...

Rajinder Singh Sehrawat Vs. Union of Indian and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT417; 2001(59)DRJ596

ORDERM.S.A.Siddiqui, J.1. Challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the validity of the order dated 22nd April, 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal bench, Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A.No.1564/97 on a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing some adverse entries made in his Annual Confidential Report (for short 'the ACR') for the year 1995-96.2. The petitioner was appointed as Head Constable (Ministerial) on 2nd June, 1976. On 17th February, 1986, the petitioner was duly promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). His earlier for the period from 2nd June, 1976 to 1994-95 have been excellent wherein he has mostly been given 'B' grading with an occasional 'A'. However, respondent No.3, who was the Reporting Officer, made some adverse entries in the petitioner's ACR for the year 1995-96 and these entries were also endorsed by the DCP (respondent No.3). There adverse entries were communicated to ...

Ajit Singh Gill and ors. Vs. Arvind Khosla and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ769

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J. 1. This order will govern the disposal of is No.1043/97 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC by the plaintiffs and is No.9977/98 under Section 151 CPC also filed by the plaintiffs.2. Suit was filed alleging that plaintiff No.1 who has been carrying business of export of garments in the name of 'SIMRAN CREATIONS' as proprietor thereof, took the entire property bearing No.324, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi on monthly rental of Rs.12,000/- from defendant No.2 in January 1996. Said property comprises of basement; ground, first, second and third floors and was jointly owned by defendants 1 & 2 who are brother and sister. It is further alleged that approximately Rs.19,62,000/- had accumulated towards property tax against the said property and MCD, thereforee, issued notice dated 16th June, 1995 for auction of property for recovery of the dues. Defendants No.1 expressed inability to pay his share of property tax dues and he asked defendant...

Shri Sultan Singh (Since Deceased Now Represented by Mr. Jitender Kuma ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)345; 93(2001)DLT268; 2001(59)DRJ578; 2001RLR502

ORDERVikramjit Sen, J.1. It is the contention of the tenant, who has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution that the Additional Rent Controller had committed a procedural impropriety in dismissing his application under order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as CPC) for setting aside an eviction order passed on 19.2.1999 ex parte the tenant. Although it is contended that an ex parte eviction order had been passed, it is necessary to immediately mention that the Tenant, l Shri Sultan singh had been duly represented by his Advocate till such time as the latter stopped appearing in the case. In the Written Statement it had been pleaded inter alias that the petition was not maintainable as the premises in dispute was taken on rent by shri Sultan Singh and his son Jatinder Kumar who were joint tenants. The Respondent was proceeded ex parte on 22.1.1997 and he expired on 23.8.1999, that is six months after the eviction orders had been passed. ...

indag Rubber Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN736(Delhi)

In this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, orders passed by the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are assailed.2. A reference to the factual aspects in some detail would be necessary.3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1989-90. One of the points related to the grant of depreciation on amounts which became payable due to fluctuation in foreign currency. By order dated 31-1-1996, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the assessing officer to look into the claim of the assessed and allow depreciation, as per law. Pursuant to the direction given, the assessing officer examined the matter afresh and by order dated 23-9-1996 decided part of the issue.4. It has to be noted that the assessing officer had passed the order under section 154/250/143(3) dated 12-12-1997 in addition to an earlier order dated 23-9-1996. Legality of the course adopted by the assessing offi...

Air Uk Leasing Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(151)ELT510(Del)

Vijender Jain, J. 1. This is an application filed by the petitioner for release of interest which has accrued on the FDR deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by his Court on 10-4-1997. 2. On 20-1-1997, division Bench of this Court passed the order for deposit of Rs. 8 crores by the petitioner and further directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 4.50 crores to the satisfaction of Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Unit, New Delhi undertaking to pay the same in case the petition is ultimately dismissed. While passing that order the Court observed:'From the material on record, prima facie, it appears that M/s. Modiluft towards Inland Air Travel Tax for the period from March, 1996 to August, 1996, a sum of Rs. 8,65,637.00 was due including therein also a small amount for the month of November, 1995. This amount represented the Travel Tax which Modiluft had collected from the passengers. They were required to file the return and deposit the amo...

M/S. Aman Marble Industries P. Vs. Collector of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC718

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Udaipur whereby the classification list filed by the appellants for marble slabs was approved under Sub-heading 2504.21 and marble crazy was approved under sub-heading 2504.90 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and held leviable to duty as against the claim of the appellants that the goods wee not excisable items and not chargeable to duty.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein were holding a Central Excise L4 Licence for manufacture of marble slabs for which they had filed classification lists claiming classification of the goods under CET Sub-heading 2504.21. They were paying excise duty @ Rs.10.50 per square meter chargeable on marble slabs. On 20.11.90 they submitted a letter to the Assistant Collector stating therein that cutting of blocks into slabs was not a process of manufacture and, therefore, their ...

M/S. Jai Bhawani Concast (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants were issued a show cause notice dt. 24.9.98 in which it was alleged that since they had opted to avail the Scheme under sub-rule (3) of Rule 96 ZO for full and final discharge of duty liability for the manufacture of ingots of non-alloy steel under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944, therefore, they were required to pay the Central Excise duty @ Rs. 750/- PMT under Sub-rule (1) of this rule. Accordingly, they were called upon to show cause why the duty amount of Rs. 5,58,221/- for the period form September, 1997 to March, 1998 should not be recovered from them under Section 11A and why a penalty should not be imposed on them under rule 209A. On consideration of the reply of the party, the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur in his Order dt. 14.7.99 confirmed a duty of Rs. 5,58,221/- on the appellants under Section 11A.2. The present appeal is against the above order of the Commissioner.The matter is listed today for hearing the Stay Petition file...

M/S. Nirmal Fab Tax Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned in view of the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur order dated 21.3.2001 wherein the High Court has recorded as under:- "At this stage, a request is made that CEGAT be directed to condone the delay and decide the matter on merits. If the petitioner approaches the CEGAT within one month from today then we request the CEGAT to decide the matter on merits after condoing the delay, if any".2. After condoning the delay we take up the appeal itself for disposal.Shri Pradeep Jain, ld. C.A. submits that the matter in this appeal related to the inclusion of gallary for determining the annual capacity of production. In view of the above submissions with the consent of both the sides the matter is taken up for final hearing. After hearing both the sides we are remanding the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner, Central Excise to re-determine the capacity after taking note of the decision in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara ...