Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Agra Beverages Corpn. (P) Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC600

1. Appellant, M/s.Agra Beverages Corporation Private Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters and beverages syrup under franchise from pepsi Foods Ltd. They are aggrieved by Order-in-Original No.CCE(Adj.)VSL?01/2001 dated 31.1.2001. As per that order Commissioner confirmed duty of Rs.59,68,534.40 under section 11A(1) of the Act. Same amount of penalty has also been imposed invoking the provisions contained in Section IIAC of the Act read with Rule 173Q of the Rules.Interest under Section 11AB had also been levied. Over and above this a penalty of Rs.2000/- under Rule 52A of the Rules was also imposed.2. According to the Learned Counsel representing the appellant, the manufacturer claimed a deduction of Rs.11 Lakhs and odd towards advertisement and publicity. A sum of Rs.92 Lakhs were claimed by way of Discounts to customers known as 'quantity discount'. A further sum of Rs.13,11,309 was also deductible by way of shipping service etc.These deductions claimed by the manufac...

Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. Pariwar Sewa Sansthan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]254ITR268(Delhi); [2001]118TAXMAN587(Delhi)

1. Heard. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The appeal relates to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The following question has been posed : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the benefit under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the assessed had violated the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act ?' 2. We find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short 'the CIT(A)'), decided in favor of the assessed on all aspects in the Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed the conclusions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with the following observations: 'We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and for the detailed reasons given in the impugned appellate order, t...

Shri Bhagwan Dass Gupta (Alias Agarwal) Vs. Shri Shiv Shankar Tirath Y ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT406; 2001(59)DRJ609

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The applicant/plaintiff has been carrying on his business of arranging tour programmes to various religious places all over Indian under the name the name and style of 'Shri Shiv Shankar Tirath Yatra Company' since 1981. It also got the declaration and registration of the said trade name on 26th February, 1990 under the provisions of Indian Registration Act and also git it registered as an artistic work under the provisions of Indian Copyright Act on 20th June, 1990.2. Through this application the applicant/plaintiff seeks injunction against the defendants as the latter has given an advertisement in the newspaper that 'Shri Shiv Shankar Tirath Yatra Company Private Limited' has arranged a tour programme for Char Dham Yatra. The plaintiff was shocked to come across the said advertisement and after inspecting the records of the Registrar of Companies came to know that the company under the name and style of Shri Shiv Shankar Tirath Yatra Company Private Limited wa...

Mohd. Sabir and Anil Khanna Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ529

ORDERMahmood Ali Khan, J.1. These three appeals, one filed by Mohd. Sabir and Anil Khanna jointly and the other two appeals filed individually by Lakhpat Singh and Faryad Ali are directed against an order of Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 18.9.1996 by which he has convicted these appellants for committing offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and has sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- each and in default to undergo further rigourous imprisonment for a period of 12 months. The appellants Faryad Ali and Mohammad Sabir were, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of Arms Act.2. The facts, as disclosed in the FIR and the evidence led by the prosecution, are that on 22.8.1994 at about 8.45 AM a wireless message was received from the PCR that the body of a man was lying near Gokalpur graveyard near fly over. A D.D.No. 7 Ex.PW-5/A was recorded. No police officer was present in the police station so the copy of the D.D. was im...

Abdul Hamid Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ777

ORDERMahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. An eight year old girl was ravished by her own step father, the appellant herein. The Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted him under section 376 IPC for committing offence of rape and has sentenced him to under go imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default whereof, to further under go simple imprisonment of three months. The appellant is aggrieved and has come up in appeal. 2. The verdict has been challenged by the appellant mainly on the ground that there was inordinate delay in the lodging of the FIR in respect of the occurrence; the statement of the prosecutrix, the ravished child, is not corroborated by independent witness; PW1 & PW2 are mother and grand-mother of the victim and are interested witnesses; the doctors who has examined the prosecutrix have not been examined and their report has been proved by calling the Clark from the hospital thus depriving the appellant of an opportunity of clarification in the medical reports; no injur...

Jagdish Narayan Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ93

ORDERDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. As the facts of the aforesaid two writ petitions are inter-connected and inter-related, I propose to take up both these writ petitions together and dispose of by this common judgment and order.2. The petitioner is at present working as Director (Personnel) of the Western Coal Fields Limited. While the petitioner was discharging his duties in the aforesaid capacity, a Memorandum of Charge was issued to the petitioner on 11th June, 1998. In the said Memorandum of Charge, four charges have been listed. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defense. The same was found to be unsatisfactory by the disciplinary authority and accordingly an Enquiry Officer was appointed. During the aforesaid enquiry proceeding, the petitioner denied all the allegations leveled against him and, thereforee, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to receive evidence in the said enquiry proceeding. On behalf of the disciplinary authority, three witnesses were examined and sever...

Shashi Mangla Vs. Commissioner Sales Tax and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]131STC283(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Challenge in the present writ petition is ,to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax, Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal') holding that a consolidated appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable.Dispute relates to the assessment year 1992-93.2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice :The petitioner, a dealer registered under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (in short, 'the Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, 'the Central Act'), was assessed to extra demand of tax. Appeals were filed before the prescribed first appellate authority along with applications for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of the disputed demand. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-II) (in short, 'the Deputy Commissioner') by one consolidated order directed payment of Rs. 20,500 under the Act and a sum of Rs. 1,300 under the Central Act as against extra demands raised ex parte amounting to Rs. 2,04,151 under the Act and Rs. 13,322 under th...

Smt. Santosh Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. In the present complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the case of the complainant, in brief is that the complainant being a poor, handicapped widow having minor children, had applied for an out of turn allotment of a MIG flat in the year 1986. The said request of the complainant was processed by the O.P. vide file No. F.102(405)86/OTA/NP. Thereafter on 21.6.1989, the complainant made a representation to the Lt. Governor, Delhi and the latter recommended for the allotment of a MIG flat, preferably in Rohini, Sector 7-8, on the Ground Floor, as the complainant was handicapped. In pursuance of the said order of the Lt. Governor, Delhi, the O.P. allotted a flat to the complainant in 1989, though the intimation of the same was sent to the complainant only in September, 1991. On receiving the allotment letter of O.P. dated 12.9.1991, the complainant persued the matter with the O.P. and thereafter ...

M/S. Diamond Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Diamond Steel Rolling Mill, is whether the annual production capacity is to be fixed on the basis of production of the year 1996-97 in case of changes in the machinery installed in the factory.2. Shri Sidharth Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sawanmal Shibumal Steel Rolling Mills vs.CCE, Chandigarh-1, 2000 (127) ELT 46 (Tribunal-LB). He submitted that initially the value of 'd' factor was 225 mm which was reduced to 209 mm and the Commissioner revised the annual capacity of production; that initially annual capacity production fixed was 6546.226 MT per annum which was revised to 2705.823 MT after the change in 'd' and 'w' factors; that the Commissioner, however, fixed the annual capacity of production as 4417.340 MT per annum on the basis of production during the year 1996-97 in terms of Rule 5 of Hot Rolling Steel Mill...

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S. Tiruhari (India) P. Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC943Tri(Delhi)

1. This application filed by the Revenue is for reference of the following question to High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act: "Whether the invoices issued by the registered dealer/trader in contravention of the provisions of Rule 52A(3) and 57G read with Rule 57GG are valid documents for availing modvat credit without furnishing the duplicate copy of transporter, which is the prescribed document under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944"? The appellant claims that the above question has arisen out of Final Order No.A/384-385/99-NB(S) dated 28.05.1999 passed by the Tribunal in appeal Nos.E/1439-1440/98-NB.2. I have carefully perused the final order as well as the grounds of the present applications. I have also heard ld. JDR Shri K.Panchatcharan for the applicants and ld. Advocates S/Shri G.K.Mahajan and S.C.Karma for the respondents. Ld. JDR submits that, as per the final order, the Tribunal held that Modvat credit on inputs could be validly taken on the streng...