Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments

Federation of Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. Uni ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ497

1. These writ petitions can be disposed of in view of the statement made by Shri Narain Diwarkar, Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It has been contended by him that a comprehensive Bill which will replace the present Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 is likely to come into force within a period of four to six months. The draft Bill will be submitted for the consideration of the Cabinet of the Delhi Government shortly. With regard to the challenge to the amended Rule 34A. Mr. Diwarkar states that necessary clarification shall be made and it shall be provided that a person in order to become member of the Cooperative Society must be eligible to become a member in terms of the by-laws of that particular society.2. Mr. Diwarkar has further stated that the hardship on account of amendment of Rule 36 A with regard to the levy of interest in case of non-payment by the members of their dues and the rate of interest of be charged shall also be looked into and necessary clarification and ...

Rajesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)IILLJ102Del

ORDERM.K. Sharma, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed by petitioners praying for a direction to the respondents to close the conciliation proceedings pending before the respondent No. 3 and refer the same for adjudication to the Court. It is alleged in the petition that majority of the petitioners were employed to work for respondent No. 1-2 through the contractor who is Respondent No. 4 and the said petitioners were performing the duties of cleaning and sweeping. It is contended that no license was, however, obtained to engage the contract workers from the concerned authorities. The petitioners have filed a statement of claim before the respondent No. 3 seeking for their regularisation of services. It is, however, stated that although the aforesaid statement of account is filed, no proceedings has been initiated by respondent No. 3. The petitioners in the Writ Petition have sought for the relief referring the claims to the appropriate Court and also seek for an order to maintain status ...

Durga Engineering Works and Others Vs. North Delhi Power 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 6.11.2002, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. C-564/2002 entitled Shri Durga Engineering Works and Ors. v. Delhi Vidyut Board/N.NW.D.D.C. Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellants had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act against the respondent. In the complaint, filed by the appellants, while alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, it was prayed that the respondent be directed to withdraw the FAE cases to refund the amount already paid by the appellants; to revise bills w.e.f. July, 1999 and to pay compensation for disconnection of electricity between the period from 25.1.2001 to 9.10.2001. 3. The learned District Forum vide impugned order ...

Lml Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT375TriDel

1. The issue involved in all these appeals filed by M/S. LML Ltd. is whether refund of Central Excise duty is available to them under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufactures two-wheelers and parts thereof; that some of the two-wheelers removed by them, on payment of duty, are received back under Rule 173L for re-processing; that after reprocessing carried out by them, the goods were transferred to RG I account for clearance on payment of duty or for export under Bond; that they had filed refund claims in respect of Central Excise duty; that the Revenue has rejected their refund claims on the ground that the scooters after reprocessing were exported under bond and as no duty was paid, they were not eligible for refund of duty; that some of the refund claims have also been rejected on the ground that D-3 intimation was filed late by them; that refund claim has also been rejected on the ground of limit...

Mahabir Steel Tubes Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT490TriDel

1. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Rules by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order-in-appeal dated 19-3-2002.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are SSI unit engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Tubes. They are availing Modvat facility and paying duty on monthly basis in terms of Rule 173-G(1) of the Rules. However, during the scrutiny of their RT-12 return for the quarter ending 30-9-2000 to 31-3-2001, it revealed that they had utilised the Cenvat credit accumulated daring the first fortnight of the month towards payment of duty relating to the preceding month. They availed and utilised the credit of Rs. 6,04,993/- during the period September, 2000 to March, 2001 which was not due to them and as such, there was a short payment of duty of this amount by them. They also did not follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 173AB and Rule 173G and thereby rendered...

Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT121TriDel

1. The appellants, M/s. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd., is a Central Public Sector company with manufacturing units at several places i.e.Haridwar, Hyderabad, Trichy, Jhansi, Bangalore, Ranipet, Bhopal etc.Under the impugned order, duty demand of about Rs. 2 crores has been confirmed on the Bhopal Unit. Penalty of equal amount as the duty demand under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act; another penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, and demand for interest on the duty amount under Section 11AB of the same Act have also been imposed in respect of the goods manufactured in the Bhopal Unit and supplied to other units of the appellants' company during the period April, 1995 to March, 1999. At the time of original clearance of the goods, they had been subjected to Central Excise Duty. The impugned order has held that the goods had been under valued at the time of their clearance resulting in short levy. The duty demand has been raised invoking the extended p...

Paras Fab International Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT549TriDel

1. In view of our findings recorded below we stay the recovery of the central excise duty demanded from, and penalty imposed on M/s. Paras Fab International and take up the Appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. The issues involved in this Appeal is whether the provisions of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 are applicable to the appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU).3. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants have obtained the permission from Development Commissioner, Noida Export Processing Zone and the Deputy Commissioner of Customs under Para 9.9(b) of the Export-Import Policy for making sales in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) on the payment of applicable duties and taxes; that they had cleared to M/s Janta Textiles goods in DTA under Rule 13(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules read with Notification No.47/94-CE. (N.T.), dated 22-9-94 on the basis of CT-2 Certificate issued to Janta Textiles for procurement o...

C.P. Textile Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee has come in appeal against the order of CIT(A) IX, New Delhi in appeal No. 251/94-95 dated 2.1.98. Basically the appeal is against the action of CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs. 48,462/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. During the course of asstt. proceedings for asstt. year 1992-93 the assessee was asked to prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of two of its cash credition namely Shri Taj Bhan and Smt. Kamlesh Kumari from whom unsecured loans of Rs. 1,65,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- respectively were allegedly taken by the assessee. While part of the loan transactions were accepted as genuine the assessee could not explain the genuineness of loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- taken from Sh. Tej Bhan and Smt. Kamlesh Kumari respectively. The assessee offered these unexplained portion of cash credits for taxation vide its letter dated 22.1.94.2. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO against which the assessee is now in appeal be...

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

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)78TTJ(Delhi)744

1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) on various grounds which ara as under: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of the AO determining an income of Rs. 68,14,564 comprising the following amounts : Surplus of project advance received over expenditure (29,61,412-17,86,321) 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's finding that the appellant was not entitled to exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the IT authorities levied tax on what could not be termed as income or was otherwise exempt under provisions of the IT Act, viz., Section 10(22) or alternatively under Section 11 of the said Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO as well as CIT(A) failed to consider the grant of exemption under Section 11 of the Act, alternatively and in d...

Gurunanak Enterprises and Bhagya Rekha Enterprises Vs. the Commissione ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)193; (2003)180CTR(Del)203; 103(2003)DLT185; [2003]259ITR637(Delhi)

D.K.Jain, J.1. Two orders, both dated 27 August 2001, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 17(1), New Delhi, under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) ordering special audit of the accounts of the petitioners are under challenge in these two writ petitions.2. Since the orders are in identical terms, passed in the cases of two group concerns, for the sake of convenience, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, we shall treat the facts of CWP No.7883/01 as illustrative. 3. The petitioner, a proprietory concern, is the sole selling agent for and on behalf of an organising agent authorised by the State Government to conduct the lottery business. It sells lottery tickets on consignment basis to the stockists in different States of India. Assessments for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1998-99 were completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. From January 1997 to December 1999, residential and business premises of...