Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Arvind Chem Synthetics (P) Vs. C.C.E., Delhi-iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1.This appeal is filed against the order dated 13/14.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner(appeals), New Delhi.2. Shri D.N. Malhotra, Advocate appearing for the appellants at the very out-set refers to para 4 of the Order-in-Appeal in which it is observed that the counsel of the appellants appeared for hearing on 12.10.2000 before him and stated that it is a covered matter vide 1993(22) ETR 302 in the matter of Watts Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs.Collector of Central Excise, Kochi. They also stated that they would be making a written submission within 12 days which they failed to do so.Therefore, the appellate authority decided to proceed with the matter on the basis of the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that first of all the date of hearing was 13.10.2000 and not 12.10.2000 as mentioned in the order and secondly, a written submission was duly filed in the office of the Commissioner (appeals) on 24.10.2000 i.e., within the period undertaken before the Com...

Ram Kumar Agarwal Vs. Cce., Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts of this case are that acting on intelligence, the Officers of Central Excise Collectorate, Indore-1 intercepted a Maruti Car bearing registration No. CIF 1529 on 3.9.89. The car was being driven by one Shri Ram Kumar Agarwal - the sole occupant of the car. On search of the car, the Officers recovered 52 foreign marked gold biscuits of 10 tolas each duty wrapped with adhesive tape and newspaper. The gold biscuits were of 24 carate purity and weighed 6.065 kg. valued at Rs.18,20,000/-. The gold and the car were seized and the proceedings were initiated against the said Shri Ram Kumar Agarwal.These proceedings culminated in Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Indore-I passing the order-in-original No.1/Commr./Ind/Cus.99 dated 15.2.99 in which he ordered for absolute confiscation of the seized gold. In a separate order No.5/Cus/Ind/C. Ex/2000 dated 30.10.2000, the Commissioner has ordered for confiscation of car bearing registration No.CIf 1529 under Section 115...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S. Chaturvedi Steels, Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jhansi vide his order dated 28.11.97 disallowed the deemed modvat credit availed by the respondents amounting to Rs. 4,34,102/- under rule 57-H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner further imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the party.2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad vide his order dated 12.11.99 allowed the appeal of the party to the extent of Rs. 1,32,032.00. He also reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,000/-.In allowing the appeal of the party, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/204/98-NB dated 4.3.98 in which the issue relating to the admissibility of the deemed credit on the impugned goods is stated to be finally settled.3. The Revenue are in appeal against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri Swatantar Kumar, JDR. The respondents are not present but they have sent a communication dated 5.5.2001 in wh...

Sunrise Enterprises Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)140; 2001(59)DRJ332; 2002(1)RAJ502

ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the respondents for appointment of an Arbitrator as disputes have arisen between the parties in connection with contract NO. 58380/DGOS/OS-P-II/Proc.Sec/605 dated 11th November, 1997 for supply of 15,19,100 numbers of towel hand bleach of a particular size at the rate of Rs.31/- per towel to the four consignees indicated by the respondents in the contract. The time, being the essence of the contract, the petitioner in order to execute the contract and supply the towels in the stipulated time started the manufacturing process and in the first phase manufactured three lakhs of towels and arranged the raw material for the balance quantity. Three lakh towels were sent to three consignees named in the contract but they refused to accept the same. In the process the petitioner had suffered huge losses on account of the breach of the contract on the pa...

Uco Bank Vs. M/S G.L.C. Leather Exports and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)893; 2001(59)DRJ186

ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J. 1. The plaintiff bank has moved the present application under Order 34 read with Section 151 CPC for drawing up final decree for sale of mortgaged property commonly known as 148-149, Block-C, Village Mundhka Rajdhani Park, Rohtak Road, Delhi. Vide judgment dated 27th September, 1995, a preliminary decree was passed against the defendants under Order 34 Rule 4 CPC for recover of Rs.7,15,145/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum thereon from the date of the suite to the plaintiff bank. The defendants were to pay costs to the plaintiff bank. Accordingly, a preliminary decree for sale of mortgaged property under Order 34 Rule 4 CPC was drawn up. While passing the preliminary decree, the Court had granted six months time to pay the decretal amount and redeem the mortgage. Defendant No.4, who was the guarantor, had created an equitable mortgage of his property, as referred to above, in favor of the plaintiff bank. The preliminary decree was passed ex-parte aga...

Prem Chand Vs. M/S. S.N. Bhatia and Co. and ors

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)733; 92(2001)DLT123; 2002(63)DRJ270

ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J.1. The present execution petition has arisen out of a compromise decree dated 3rd December, 1998 recorded in Suit No.611/82 filed by the judgment debtors for specific performance and refund/repayment of Rs.3,56,500/- with interest. The decree holder, during the pendency of the suit, had given up the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell in August, 1993 and had restricted his suit only to the recovery of Rs. 3,56,500/- along with interest and costs against the defendants had agreed to refund the amount of Rs. 3,56,500/- in August, 1993, the plaintiff had restricted his suit only to the recovery of Rs3,56,500/- along with interest and costs against the defendants. Accordingly, a decree for a sum of Rs.3,56,500/- along with costs of the suit was passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants vide order dated 3rd December, 1998. The Court had also awarded interest on the principal amount of Rs.3,56,500/- at the rate of 10% per annum from t...

Bhagat Ram Bhola Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)970; 2001CriLJ3550; 92(2001)DLT255; 2001(59)DRJ166; 2001(77)ECC333

ORDERArijit Pasayat,C.J.1. These two habeas corpus petitions involve identical facts and, thereforee, are taken up for disposal together. Order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974(in short, the Act)passed by the Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi,(in short, Govt of NCT of Delhi)is under challenge in each of the petitions. The said mediums orders were passed with a view of preventing the petitioner in each case (hereinafter referred as the 'detenu' by name)from smuggling any goods. The order of detention in each case is dated 25.5.2000.Ground on which detention has been' directed and background thereof are as follows:-2. Detenu Bhagat Ram Bhola and detenu Ajay Bhola arrived at IGI Airport from Singapore via Bombay by Air India flight No.AI-III. After clearing immigration formalities, they collected their baggage from the conveyor belt and kept it one trolley. Two hand bags were kept in a...

Smt. Kiran Bagga and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)820; 92(2001)DLT267; 2001(59)DRJ221

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. (Oral)1. Petitioners, residents of Geeta Colony, have filed this writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise the unutilised strip of land and for issuance of supplementary lease deed to prevent demolition of the houses of the petitioners. A stay application has also been moved Along with the writ petition.2. Petitioners in the writ petition have referred to an earlier writ petition, which had been dismissed in which they were directed to approach the MCD Appellate Tribunal. It is also stated in the writ petition that one Mohd. Mateen has also filed a Public Interest writ petition, wherein directions have been issued buy the Division Bench for demolition of the houses of the petitioners, against which the petitioners seek stay in the present writ petition.3. When the writ petition came up for admission on 2.5.2001, petitioners were directed to give particulars of other proceedings and place documents/orders on record, before the writ petit...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Continental Device India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR227(Delhi); [2001]118TAXMAN585(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to give rebate in the tax payable to the extent of Rs. 67,785 for the amount deposited in the IDBI in lieu of surcharge in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(6) and (8) of the Finance Act, 1976, although for the assessment year 1978-79 tax was to be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act, 1978, which did not provide for such concession ?'2. The dispute, as the question itself indicates, relates to the assessment year 1978-79.3. The factual position, which is almost undisputed, is essentially as follows :For the assessment year in questi...

Free Wheels India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR877(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN745(Delhi)

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 circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 14,000 being the fine paid by the assessed in lieu of confiscation of the goods, could not be taken into account as part of the actual cost of the goods and consequently was not deductible in the computation of the business profits ?' 2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1978-79. 3. The factual position is as follows : The assessed, a company, at the relevant point of time was deriving income from production of free wheels. In the course of its business, the assessed had sold some of its raw material, the book value of which was. Rs. 2,43,515 for Rs. 2,37,431, and claimed loss of Rs. 6,620 on account of the sale of such raw material. There was a further loss on account of sale....