Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments

Naturence Research Lab (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT672TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Naturence Research Lab (P) Ltd., is whether the products manufactured by them are Ayurvedic medicament falling under subheading 3003.39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Act as claimed by them or under Chapter 33 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order.2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate, mentioned at the outset that out of 29 products involved in the appeal, the Appellants are challenging the classification, as confirmed in the impugned Order, only in respect of five products at Serial Nos. 2, 6, 19, 21 and 23; that in respect of Serial Nos. 4, 16, and 21, namely, Floral Body Gel, Natural Touch and Forest Flower, the Department has classified the products under Tariff Heading other than the Tariff Heading proposed in the show cause notice; that for example Floral Body Gel was proposed to be classified under sub-heading 3304.00 but it had been classified under sub-heading 3307.39 of the T...

Orion Conmerx Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT466TriDel

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Orion Conmerx (P) Ltd. for rectification of mistake in final order No. A/903/2002-NB(SM), dated 24-7-2002. Shri R. Pal Singh, learned Consultant, submitted that the issue involved in the appeal filed by the applicant was whether the goods manufactured by them were eligible to exemption from duty under notification; that as such the Bench of Single Member did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue involved; that it is settled by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments that lack of jurisdiction goes into the root of the problem and it can be raised at any stage of proceedings. He relied upon a number of decisions including the decision in the case of Suresh Kumar Bhikam Chand Jain v. Pandey Ajay Bhushan, (1998) 1 SCC 205. He mentioned that the second mistake which has crept into the final order relates to the confirmation of penalty imposed, on the applicants since there was no proposal in the show cause notice for imposition of penalty nor ...

L.M.L. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT703TriDel

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. LML Ltd., the issue involved is whether CD ROM containing images of drawing and designs of engineering goods is classifiable under Heading 49.06 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, as drawings for engineering purposes or alternatively under Heading 49.11 as other printed matter as claimed by them or under sub-heading 8524.39 of the Customs Tariff and 8524.90 of the Central Excise Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that the CD ROM imported by the Appellants contained drawings and designs of engineering goods and documents of title of the drawing and designs representating the right to use information and technology software; that in the case of Associated Cement Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 21 (S.C), the Apex Court has held that information, documents, drawings and designs etc., contained in the book form as manuals and al...

Manish Richariya and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC394

1. In these five appeals arising out of a common Order, all the Appellants are aggrieved with the penalties imposed on them and the confiscation of the excisable goods.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s Columbia Petro Chemicals manufacture microcrystalline wax and prepared wax: that microcrystalline wax is highly inflammable on account of which the wax cannot be stocked in congested manner: that due to paucity of space they stored some quantity of wax in the nearby store room belonging to M/s. Zenith Sales Corporation; that the Central Excise officer on 23.2.99 seized 22.525 MT of microcrystalline wax from their theory premises which were riot entered in RG I and 26.160 MT from the store room belonging to M/s. Zenith Sales Corpn.; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty in respect of excisable goods removed from the premises of M/s. Zenith Sales Corpn. and imposed penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Ex...

Shri Rajeshwar Rao Vs. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the CIT, Delhi VIII passed u/s 263 of the IT Act and has challenged the same on the ground detailed below :- "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (Delhi-VIII), New Delhi (briefly "The CIT") erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT erred in directing the Assessing Officer to follow order of CIT(A) for Assessment Year 92-93 even though view in the present Assessment Year vis-a-vis deduction u/s 80-O was taken after due application of mind. 2. That the order passed by the CIT (Delhi-VIII) is bad in law and void abilities.The assessee prays for add, after, amend or vary any of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing.2. At the time of hearing of the appeal no one was present for the assessee and the notice sent by Registered Post A/D was received back from the postal authoritie...

Dcit Vs. Shri Paul Dhillon

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal before us being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dated 16th September, 1997 on the ground reproduced below :- "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in canceling the penalty levied u/s 27(1)(c) by not appreciating the facts and circumstances as well as law." 2. At the time of hearing of the appeal no one was present for the assessee and the notice sent by registered post A/D by the Registry of this Tribunal was received back unserved with the remarks "left". There is no other address provided in the Memorandum of Appeal Filed on the record and we, in the circumstances, presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and, therefore, proceeded to hear the matter with the help of the Id. DR, who took us through the record.The facts available on the record for the decision of the present appeal are that the assessee is a Canadian citizen and was assigned to India as General Manager in Air Can...

Shri Om Prakash Bajaj Vs. Shri Chander Shekhar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IAD(Delhi)669; 102(2003)DLT746; 2003(67)DRJ674

Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. By this common order, these two civil revision petitions bearing nos. 179/01 and 591/01 will be disposed of as they are directed against orders dated 21.11.2000 and 13.2.2001 passed by an Additional Rent Controller. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Om Prakash Bajaj (hereinafter called the landlord) filed a petition for eviction of Chander Shekhar (hereinafter called the tenant) from the premises of house no. R-706, Block-R, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi under clauses (c), (e) and (h) of Section 14(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act). After recording the evidence, the Controller by order dated 16.9.1999 dismissed the petition. The landlord challenged this order in a civil revision petition no. 1062/99 before this court. The revision petition was disposed of by order dated 19.9.2000. The operative portion of the order is as under:- 'Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order to this extent. The learned Additional Rent Controller will take into co...

Suresh Chander Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)88; 2003(2)ARBLR176(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT35; 2003(67)DRJ234; 2003(1)RAJ583

S. Mukerjee, J.1. This is one of the unfortunate examples of the defendants dragging a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for a period of 20 years.2. The brief background of the facts, to the extent required for appreciating the contents involved in the present case, are that the petitioner entered into a contract with DDA for execution of the work of 'Construction of 470 Janta D.U.'s in Pocket 'L' at Dilshad Garden (Group-II) for which an agreement bearing No.400/EE/HDXIX/81-82 was duly executed between the parties. 3. The case of the petitioner is that due to various acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondents, the work could be completed only on 5.11.1986.4. The plaintiff has a pending claims and damages on account of the delay/prolongation of the work, which delay according to the plaintiff is entirely attributable to the respondent.5. The other grievance of the plaintiff is that, in terms of the agreement, the bill for the work was required t...

Shakti Pershad Vs. Ratna Pershad

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IAD(Delhi)697; 102(2003)DLT756; 2003(66)DRJ580; 2003RLR176

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. In this civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC the petitioner Shakti Pershad, who is husband, has assailed the order of an Additional District Judge dated 25.2.2001 whereby he has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Act but has allowed a similar application under Section 24 filed by the respondent wife Ms. Ratna Pershad fixing her pendentelite maintenance at Rs. 12,000/- per month besides awarding Rs. 10,000 as expenses of the proceedings in a divorce proceedings instituted by the respondent wife.2. Briefly stated the facts are that Ms. Ratna, respondent has filed a petition for a decree of divorce against the petitioner Shakti Pershad on the ground of cruelty under Clause (ia) of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act). She also filed an application for grant of her pendentilite maintenance and an amount for meeting expenses of the proceeding. In the application she alleged that she does not own...

Fateh Raj Laxmi Devi @ Vidhya Maharani and anr. Vs. Smt. Jalveen Rosha

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)120; 103(2003)DLT60; 2003(68)DRJ41

S. Mukerjee, J.1. This is a suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff No.1 through her attorney Shri Anil Sarin. 2. There is a second plaintiff which is incorporated company of which the same attorney is stated to be one of the Directors. The case set up by both the plaintiff is that the plaintiff No.1 was the original owner of property bearing No. C-10, Kailash Colony, New Delhi and that from her the plaintiff No.2 company, is stated to have agreed to purchase the property for an amount of Rs. 66 lakhs.3. Initially an amount of Rs. 6.5 lakhs was paid to plaintiff No.1 as earnest money. Thereafter approval/permission was obtained from the appropriate authority Income Tax Department, and then the entire consideration is stated to have been paid and possession also delivered to plaintiff No.2.4. Vide agreement dated 14-9-1996, executed between plaintiffs and defendant, the plaintiff No.2 in turn agreed to sell the first floor, including the servant quarter, to the defendant for a ...