Delhi Court April 2002 Judgments

Shree Ramanuj Prints Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC297

2. The pre-deposit of penalty amount is waived and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits with the consent of both the sides.3. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 26.11.2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner imposing penalty on the appellants but had reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 12,00,000 to Rs. 10,00,000.4. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the processing of man made fabrics. They are working under the Capacity Based Compound Levy Scheme, as contained in Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules. They were required to pay excise duty of Rs. 6 lacs before 15th April, 1999 for the month of April, 1999 and similarly, by 15.5.1999 for the amount of May, 99. They, however, failed to pay the amount of these duties by the prescribed dates but paid in instalments after due dates. Therefore, penalty under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 96ZQ of the Rules had...

Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC371

The appellants are manufacturers of plain paper photocopier. They import photocopier machines in CKD condition, and clear the same in assembled condition on payment of appropriate duty of excise. They also import toners (CET Heading 37.07) and clear the same along with the photocopiers. While doing so, they include the value of toner in the assessable value of the photocopier and duty of excise is paid accordingly. The department, by two show cause notices proposed to deny Modvat credit of the CVD paid on the toners cleared along with photocopiers during June, 1998 --June, 1999. The proposal was contested on various grounds. One of the grounds was that toner was an accessory of photocopier and hence eligible for Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57B(1)(vi). The jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, who adjudicated the dispute, found toner to be an accessory of photocopier but disallowed the Modvat credit on the basis of a finding that toner was not a part of photocopier and ...

Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ123CAT

(a) to hold DPC/review DPC for the year 1990-91 taking into account cadre strength/vacancies of DANIPS (ACP) sanctioned for Delhi Police and consider the applicant in the DPC for the year 1994 and regularise the applicant in the post of ACP in Delhi Police from 16.11.1990. (b) to hold year-wise DPC/review DPC for the year 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 as per the cadre strength/sanctioned vacancies of ACP for DANIPS in the Delhi Police; (c) to hold DPC for the year 1999 and 2000 as per the cadre strength given in order dated 28.6.2000 (Annexure A-5) and consider the applicant for regularisation to the post of ACP. (d) to grant the applicant all consequential benefits arising out of regularisation of his service as ACP (e) to quash and set aside the order of DPC proceedings putting the applicant's promotion under sealed cover. (f) pass any other order/direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and necessary in the present facts and circumstances: and 2. Heard Mr. Harvir Singh, Ld. Co...

Tara V. Ganju and anr. Vs. Basant and Co. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)839; 2002(64)DRJ792

S. Mukerjee, J.1. A dispute regarding amendment of pleadings has consumed about five years time, and it is in this significant context that the matter in issue in this appeal needs to be examined in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts.2. It is well settled that the description to allow amendment of pleadings in a case which is still at the initial stages (inasmuch as even the arguments on the confirmation or otherwise of the injunction, have not yet been heard), is to be quite liberally exercised, except for those amendments which go to set up a totally new or different case, or which amount to an attempt to resile from admissions already made or amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.3. The Single Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 08.09.2000, has disallowed a large number of amendments as proposed by the appellant/plaintiff. During the hearing of this appeal, the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted a list of proposed amendments i...

Plaza Garments Vs. Textile Apparels

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)288; 2003(1)ARBLR172(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT957; 2002(62)DRJ773

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on behalf of respondent no.1 seeking rejection of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 on the ground the unless and until arbitration clause is invoked, the application under Section 9 is not maintainable. Provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 strictly pertain to the suits where the plaints are filed. The plaint can be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action or where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is wrong insufficiently stamped or the suit is barred by any law.2. By no stretch of imagination the application under Section 9 of of the Act can be placed at the pedestal of a suit or even substantive proceedings and as such the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are not at all applicable.3. Moreover the objection raised in the application as to its maintainability, is also of no substance as according to the respondent without giving notice to the respondent the petitioner cannot...

Manohar Singh Sahny and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)272; 2002(65)DRJ317

Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the award dated 21.10.1987, Respondent-Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') has preferred objections to the award.2. Ms. Ansuya Salwan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Objector-DDA, has contended that the award of the arbitrator is bad as the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,555/= towards a claim of Rs. 2 lacs for payment under Clause 10-C of the Agreement under Claim 'D'. Next objection of the learned counsel for the Objection-DDA is with regard to amount withheld by the objector on account of part rates i.e. under Claim no. F-3 for which the arbitrator has allowed a claim for Rs. 4,70,550/=. Learned counsel for the Objector-DDA has also contended that payment of a sum of Rs. 50,192/= under Claim No. F-4 i.e. Extra/substituted items not paid was not proper as this item of work was not ordered by the respondent and contractor has done the same on his own sweet will. She further contended that the award under Claim F-4 Item No....

Shri Abraham Joseph Vs. Shri Subodh Kumar Bahl and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ465; 2002(3)RAJ612

R.C. Jain, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 24th January, 2001, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, thereby dismissing tow applications under Section 8 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act) made on behalf of the petitioner-defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 2 seeking a reference of the dispute to arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts leading to the present petition are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed the suit for rendition of accounts and recovery of outstanding dues in respect of a partnership executed between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 vide a partnership deed dated 1st July, 1976 which came to an end on 30th September, 1997 by efflux of time and, thereafter, became partnership at will. The defendant did not rendered the account to the plaintiff despite s...

Great Arts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]257ITR639(Delhi)

S. Mukerjee, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of notice dated March 27, 1976, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), proposing to reassess the income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1967-68, on the ground that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act.2. The petitioner has also challenged a communication dated October 29, 1979, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle-XIV, vide which the said officer had conveyed that the reasons leading to the initiation of reassessment proceedings, were not required to be communicated by relying on the Supreme Court decision reported as S. Narayanappa v. CIT : [1967]63ITR219(SC) .3. After show-cause notice was issued in the writ petition, the respondents filed a counter-affidavit to which has been annexed, as annexure A, the state-ment of reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer, Company Ci...

T.N. Kapoor Vs. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.P. Saberwal, Member: 1. This appeal under Section 5 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order dated 22.2.1997 passed by West District Forum (Janakpuri Forum) in Complaint Case No. 356/199 in case entitled T.N. Kapoor v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., whereby complaint filed by the appellant was held to be not maintainable and was accordingly dismissed. 2. The appellant had filed a complaint under Section 2 of the Act before the District Forum. It was stated that his brother Shri S.K. Kapoor had taken Mediclaim Insurance Policy vide Policy No. 4831170101994 w.e.f. 24.4.1993 to 23.4.1994 and the same was renewed w.e.f. 24.4.1994 to 23.4.1995. That the insured fell sick due to jaundice and was under treatment. It is further stated that insured again fell sick in April, 1999 and was got admitted in the Khera Hospital on 14.4.94 where he remained admitted till 20.5.1994 and on this date, he unfortunately expired. That the compla...

Commissioner of C. Ex., Vs. Bilt Rite Packaging (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT479TriDel

1. This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the decision of the adjudicating and first appellate authorities allowing Modvat credit on inputs to the respondents to the extent of Rs. 2,94,450/-. Out of this total credit taken by the assessee during the period November, 1993 to February, 1994, a credit of Rs. 1,51,365.02 was taken on inputs received under cover of invoices, in piecemeal, from the depot of the input-manufacturer viz. Indian Petro Chemical Corporation Ltd. (for short, IPCL). The total quantity of the inputs so received was covered by a gate pass issued by the manufacturer, which was retained with appropriate endorsements in the depot and finally delivered to the assessee along with the last lot of inputs. The credit taken on such inputs and allowed by the authorities below has been questioned by the appellant on the ground that a gate pass with more than two endorsements was not a valid duty-paying document for the purpose of availment of Mod-vat credit during the materi...