Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

Annapoorna Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN542(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.In this writ petition the petitioner has inter alia, challenged order dated 15-12-1986 passed by the Appropriate Authority under subsection (1) of section 269UD of Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Although the petitioner has also challenged virus of some Income Tax Rules as well as provisions of Income Tax Act, that challenge was not pressed before us and the challenge was confined to the validity of the aforesaid order only.2. One M/s. Ramesh Apartments (Delhi) Private Ltd. vide agreement 7-3-1986 agreed to sell the petitioner residential apartment bearing Private No. 4 on the first floor in Block of 9, Prithvi Road, New Delhi-110 001. Total consideration fixed was Rs. 11,36,000 which payment was made by the petitioner to the aforesaid seller on the date of execution of the agreement. Possession was also handed over on the same day and the petitioner became entitled to use and occupy the said apartment without any restriction as provided under clause ...

Be Office Automation (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT543TriDel

1. After hearing these appeals for some time, we find that there is a conflict in the view expressed in two decisions of this Tribunal, namely Bhagwan Electro Photocopiers v. CC reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T.66 (T) = 1999 (31) RLT 375 and JVM Cargo v. CC, New Delhi reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 74. The issue relates to interpretation of the definition of the terms 'components' and 'parts' as given in the Import Export Policy for the relevant period.2. The decision of JVM Cargo was distinguished in the decision in Bhagwan Electro Photocopier (supra) for the reason that the attention of the Bench was not drawn to the clear distinction between 'components/parts' on the one hand and sub-assemblies on the other. In Bhagwan Electro Photocopier, the Bench has taken the view that the definition of the term 'components' under Para 7(10) of the Import and Export Policy and 'sub-assemblies' are not mutually exclusive. After going through the definition of the term 'components' under Import Export...

imtiyaz Iqbal Pothiawala Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT369TriDel

1. This is a miscellaneous application by the Revenue praying for transfer of appeals filed by M/s. Imtiyaz Iqbal Pothiwala & Ors. to West Zonal Bench of the Tribunal in Mumbai on the ground that the appellant is the permanent resident of Mumbai; that the goods were seized from his vehicle in Mumbai and he, along with other persons, were also arrested in Mumbai; that two more persons have preferred appeal at Delhi; that Economic propriety also demands that the officers are not to make to travel to New Delhi with the case records, which are voluminous in nature. We also heard Shri Farook Razak, learned Advocate.2. As per the Tribunal's Public Notice No. 4/2001, dated 4-10-2001, it is permissible to file appeals at Delhi or seek transfer of pending appeals to Delhi in all matters arising in zones other than North Zone.In view of this, we reject misc. application, filed by the Revenue. The matters are posted for regular hearing on 21-11-2003....

Avon Udyog and Mohan Lal Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC30

1. These are two applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty and penalty as under:(i) M/s. Avon Udyog -- Rs. 30,76,940 duty -- Rs. 6 lakh penalty 2. Shri O.P. Agarwal, learned Consultant, submitted that the applicants are engaged in cold rolling of S.S. Pattas/Pattis and were working under Special Procedure of Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZA of Central Excise Rules, 1944 earlier and now under Notification No.34/2001-CE dated 28.6 2001; that the duty has been demanded and penalties have been imposed on the ground that they had installed another cold rolling machine, in respect of which, the duty was not paid in advance as required. As a consequence of which, they have been precluded from the facility granted under the said Notification and Central Excise duty has been demanded on ad valoram basis. He, further, submitted that the 2nd machine was not installed in April 2002; that they had purchased old and used machines in Feb. 2002; that the foundation was done ...

Ashish JaIn and anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)BC264

1. Respondent-Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent - Bank') filed O.A. 936/95 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT) against (1) M/s.Tex Tube India, (2) Mr. Prem Chand Jain, and (3) Mrs. Manju Saxena. The final order dated 8.7.79 was passed against the above said defendants to pay jointly and severally Rs. 16,74,495.48 with interest and costs.In the O.A., the respondent - Bank alleged that the 2nd defendant-Prem Chand Jain was the sole proprietor of the 1st defendant-concern, while the 3rd defendant-Mrs. Manju Saxena is a guarantor, who also created an equittable mortgage over the proprieties mentioned in the O.A. to secure the repayment of the amounts advanced to defendants 1 and 2. The final order also directs that the respondent-Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property for realising its dues.2. The appellants, who are not the defendants but the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant-Prem Chand Ja...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. R.K. Mishra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(2)SLJ384(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J. 1. This writ petition by the Union of India is directed against order, dated 2 August 2001, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in OA No.2582/2000. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has quashed the order, dated 24 August 2000, passed by the President, in his capacity as the disciplinary authority, imposing a penalty of 10% cut in the pension, otherwise admissible to the respondent for a period of two years.2. In nutshell, the background facts, relevant for the present purpose are as follows:On the basis of some allegations, contained in the statement of imputations of misconduct and misbehavior, vide memo dated 9 September 1994, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the respondent under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which lays down the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Upon consideration of the Explanationn submitted by the respondent the disciplinary authority came to the conclusi...

Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)237; 108(2003)DLT383

A.K. Sikri, J.1. In this 'Public Interest Litigation' the petitioner is questioning the conferment of prestigious President's Police Medal for gallantry on the respondent No. 4, an I.P.S. Officer.2. Admittedly, an encounter took place in District Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh between Varanasi Police and a group of hardcore criminals on 4th/5th March, 2001. In this encounter a hardcore wanted criminal Preetam Singh was killed. There was a casualty of person in uniform as well, since one Sub-Inspector Ajay Singh was also killed in the exchange of fire. Some other Police Officials received serious injuries. Again indisputably, this Police team was led by the respondent No. 4. After this episode, Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi recommended the names of three Police Officers including the respondent No. 4 for President's Police Medal for gallantry and ultimately Notification dated 18.10.2002 of the President's Secretariat was published in the Gazette of India declaring Award of Police M...

Sanyog Chits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central District Consumer Redressal Forum a ...

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 7.10.2002, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1370/2000 entitled M/s. Sanyog Chits Pvt. Ltd. v. The New India Assurance Company Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring therein that the appellant had purchased a Maruti Car, bearing registration No. DNB-6485 from one Shri Shyam Khimani, r/o K-101 F, Sheikh Sarai-II, New Delhi on 18.2.1996. It was stated that the above said vehicle, so purchased by the appellant, was duly transferred by the concerned Transport Authority in the name of the appellant on 26.2.1996. The above said vehicle, as per the case of the ap...

Delphi Automotive Systems Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC651

1. The common issue involved in these two appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-original No. 14/2001, dated 19-12-2001 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, is whether M/s. Dalphi Automotive Systems Ltd., Appellant Company, are manufacturing complete car air conditioner or parts thereof only.2. Sh. K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant Company, besides manufacturing auto parts, manufacture parts required for the manufacture of air-conditioning machines to be fitted in the cars; that apart from parts of air-conditioning system, they also supply compressor; that the parts are mainly supplied to M/s. Daewoo Motors India Ltd. and M/s. General Motor India Ltd.; that buyers also procure many parts from other sources and then use all these parts in a particular car, which makes the air-conditioner functional; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order applying Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules has held that the goods supplied by appellants from their f...

Anju Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC381

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots falling under S.H. 7206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The period of dispute in this case is April to September 1999. The appellants had a furnace of 3 M.T. capacity during the said period. During a part of the said period, i.e. 10.4.99 to 16.6.99, they had also an additional furnace of 1 M.T. capacity. In respect of the 3 M.T. capacity furnace, they had filed declaration dated 15.9.97 w.e.f.1.9.97and, in respect of the additional furnace, they filed declaration dated 15.4.99. Under the provisions of Rule 96 ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, the appellants were liable to pay duty @ Rs. 5 lakhs p.m. in respect of the 3 M.T. capacity furnace. The total duty liability in respect of this furnace for the period of dispute (6 months) was accordingly Rs. 30-lakhs. On a pro rata basis, the total duty liability in respect of the 1 M.T. c...