Delhi Court August 2002 Judgments

Polyplex Corporation Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC808

1. The appellants manufacture polyester film and polyester chips falling under Chapter 39, The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Rampur, vide his order dated 22.3.2000 has denied them the modvat credit of duty of Rs. 2,79,173 availed by them during the month of June 1999 and July 1999 on the items viz. Gas Pressure Spring and Loaded Source P.M.--147 (Radio Active Source) as capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He has observed in his order that the Flat Springs are parts of dies. He has observed that in the Table annexed to Rule 57Q, the dies and moulds are mentioned at SI. No. 6; that as per SI. No. 5 of this Table, the components, spares and accessories of the goods specified against SI. Nos. 1 to 4 of the Table alone are admissible for credit and since the flat springs are part of the dies specified at SI. No. 6. hence they are not eligible to the benefit of modvat credit under this Rule. As regards the item Radio Active Sources, he has observed that this...

Ramani Ice Cream Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT223TriDel

1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common Order-in-Original, dated 30-4-2001, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had confirmed the duty and imposed penalties of various amounts as detailed in the Order itself on the appellants. The appellant No. 1 is a company engaged in the manufacture of Ice-cream falling under Chapter 21.05 of the CETA. The officers of the Preventive Branch of the Central Excise, Bhopal conducted search of their factory, office and outlying premises after getting information that they were indulging in large scale evasion of the Central Excise duty by suppression of production and clandestine removal. During investigation record of the company was also resumed, statements were recorded in detail. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued vide which duty demand of Rs. 28,12,308/- was also raised and penalties were also proposed to be imposed on the company and the other appellants. The duty demand raised was for the...

Mrs. Sheela Wanti Vs. Kuldeep Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT201

R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This order shall dispose of an application under Order 22 Rules 9 and 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the applicant Amarjit Singh with a prayer to set aside the abatement, condone the delay if any, in the filing of the application and substitute the application in place of the deceased plaintiff in Suit No. 1821/94. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated, are that the deceased plaintiff Smt. Sheela Wanti was the mother of the applicant Amarjit Singh and respondents-defendants Kuldeep Singh and Gurbachan Singh. She filed a suit for possession against the defendants alleging that the defendants were in unauthorised occupation of the first and second floor portions of property No. E-216, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and were not vacating the said portions inspire of requests and notice. The plaintiff died n 9.1.1999. On 21.1.1999 her counsel informed the Court that the plaintiff had di...

Cit Vs. Inchcape India (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN744(Delhi)

ORDERThis appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order, dated 28-5-2001, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', Delhi in IT Appeal No. 4015 (Delhi) of 1999, pertaining to the assessment year 1996-97.2. By the impugned order the Tribunal has deleted the interest levied under section 234B of the Act, on the ground that before levying the said interest, there was no application of mind on the part of the assessing officer, inasmuch as, while completing assessment he had not made any order for charging the interest. While holding so, the Tribunal has relied on the judgments of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT : [1996]217ITR72(Patna) and Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Complex v. CIT : [1996]222ITR44(Patna) , wherein it was held that notice of demand claiming interest can be issued only when there is order in the assessment order levying interest.3. In view of the fact that both the said decisions have si...

Anil BhasIn Vs. Vijay Kumar BhasIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ174

S. Mukerjee, J.is NO. 8243/2001 1. An interesting question has arisen regarding the interplay of the provisions of the Sections 2(a), 3(a) and 4(a) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 by whichSections 81 & 82 in Chapter IX of the Indian Trusts Act 1982, were deleted in the year 1988, while side by side with the enacting of the Benami Act.2. This application (I.A. No. 8243/2001) has been preferred by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave toamend the plaint, by incorporating inter-alia, the following prayers:-1. Plaintiff wishes to add sub-para to the existing para 3, which is as under: 'Plaintiff respectfully submits that Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin had purchased certain immovable properties either in her name or in others' name including the defendant No. 3. The properties purchased by her in other's names were held in trust as trustee. The same were held in fiduciary capacity and for the sole benefit of Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin. The sam...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Inchcape India (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Del)212

ORDER1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), is directed against the order dt. 28th May, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', Delhi (for short the 'Tribunal'), in ITA No. 4015/Del/99, pertaining to the asst. yr. 1996-97.By the impugned order the Tribunal has deleted the interest levied under Section 234B of the Act, on the ground that before levying the said interest, there was no application of mind on the part of the AO, inasmuch as, while completing assessment he had not made any order for charging the interest. While holding so, the Tribunal has relied on the judgments of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT : [1996]217ITR72(Patna) and Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Complex v. CIT & Ors. : [1996]222ITR44(Patna) , wherein it was held that notice of demand claiming interest can be issued only when there is order in the assessment order levying interest.2. In view of the fact that both the said decisions have since ...

S.P. Bhatnagar Vs. Sterling Holiday Resorts (i) Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1 .The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 23.4.2002, passed by District Forum-II, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 608/2002 entitled Shri S.P. Bhatnagar v. M/s. Sterling Holiday Resorts (I) Ltd. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that as the subject matter of the complaint, filed by the appellant, under Section 12 of the Act, was purchase of a time share in immovable property, the same was not a consumer dispute, the appellant was not a Consumer. On the basis of the above findings the complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned District Forum. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. 3. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone ...

Pitambar Coated Paper Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC62

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 17-1-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had ordered them to credit Rs. 97,30,152/- to the account of the Government under Section 11D(3) of the Central Excise Act.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board falling under heading 48 of the CETA. On scrutiny of their record, it revealed that they by availing the benefit of exemption notification No. 6/2000-CE. dated 1-3-2000 (S.No, 77), cleared the goods at Nil rate of duty. During the period March 2000, the said paper was exempted upto 210 MT, while during the period 2000-2001 the aggregate quantity of 3500 MT was exempted. The price list furnished by the appellants showed that the price of their product was inclusive of excise duty and they continued to charge the same price during the exemption as well as duty payment period from their buyers. They c...

Centre For Women'S Development Vs. Deputy Director Of Income-Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)257ITR60(Delhi)

1. By this second stay application, the asses-see seeks a further stay against recovery of tax amounting to Rs. 40,45,368.2. The assessee is a charitable institution registered under Section 12A as well as under Section 35(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(22) which had been rejected by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, assessable income was computed at Rs. 67,30,980. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even the claim of the assessee under Section 11 was not entertained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the ground that it was not placed before the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for stay of outstanding demand of Rs. 40,45,368. The stay application was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated January 23, 2002, staying recovery of outstanding demand till June 30, 2002, subject ...

Ex. Constable Vinod Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secreta ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003(96)FLR621]

Anil Dev Sing, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 995/2002 dated April 15, 2002. By that order the Tribunal declined to quash the order dismissing the petitioner from service. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows:-2. The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the Delhi Police on October 21, 1986. On December 12, 1995 an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the ground of indulging in corrupt activities. The allegations against the petitioner are that while posted in 'E' Block, Security Lines, he received an illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/- in the year 1993 and Rs. 5,000/- in the year 1994 for securing an appointment for one Shri Surinder Singh in the M.C.D. as a teacher. Again in the year 1994 he received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as illegal gratification from one Khacheru Sharma for getting his son appointed as Constable in the Delhi Police. In the light of the allegation...