Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

Perfect Springs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC283

1. In these two appeals filed by M/s. Perfect Spring Pvt. Ltd. and M/S.Precision Engineering Works arising out if two orders-in-appeal, the common issue involved is whether they are liable to pay Central Excise duty at the tariff rate after withdrawing the option to pay the Central Excise duty under Notification No. 9/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000.2. Shri Rajesh Chibber, learned Advocate submitted that both the Appellants manufacture springs and avail of Modvat credit; that they filed a declaration in April, 2000 wherein they claimed benefit of Notification No. 9/2000; that however with effect from 1-7-2000 they filed another declaration wherein they claimed full rate of duty under the Central Excise Tariff and opted out of the Notification No. 9/2000; that the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty at the tariff rate also for the period from April to June, 2000 on the ground that they have contravened conditions specified in Para 2(i) of the notification which prohibited fro...

Rajesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT315TriDel

1. Having examined the records and heard both the sides, I am of the view that the appeals require to be finally disposed of at this stage.Accordingly, 1 allow the present applications and proceed to deal with the appeals.2. The appeals are against imposition, by the Commissioner of Customs, of penalties on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act as per Order-in-Original No. 19/2003, dated 31-3-2003. The impugned order was passed in adjudication of a show cause notice issued to these appellants & others on 4-12-2002. The show cause notice was sent at the village address of the appellants despite the fact that the appellants were at that time in jail in connection with criminal cases launched against them by the customs authorities. No copy of the show cause notice was even attempted to be served on any of these appellants in jail even though their being in jail was a fact well known to the customs authorities. One of the main grounds raised in these appeals is that a r...

Brij Lal Goyal, Prop. Gemini Vs. Acit [Alongwith Ita No.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. In these appeals, common issue of imposition of penalty u/s 271b for failure of the assessee to get its accounts audited as required u/s 44AB of the Act, which stands confirmed by the Id. CIT(A), is in dispute. For the sake of convenience, all the three appeals are disposed of by a common order.2. The main order confirming the penalty of Rs. 31,825/- in the case of Shri Brij Lal Goayl is for assessment year 1995-96. The other order for assessment year 1993-94 confirming penalty of Rs. 27,890/- is in the case of the smae assessee and the third order confirming penalty of Rs. 36,837/- in the case of Shri I.S. Goyal for assessment year 1995-96 which are both on identical facts and circumstances wherein the ld. CIT (A) followed his decision of assessment year 1995-96 given in the case of Shri Brij Lal Goyal.3. Both the assessees were searched on 4.10.94 by an action u/s 132 of the Act. The assessee was maintaining books of accounts in the regular course of business. The turnover disclo...

Sardar Kashmir Singh and ors. Vs. Shri Gurmukh Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2003)ACC706; 2004ACJ2099; 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)318; 107(2003)DLT616

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. ADMIT.2. The matter being short, with the consent of the parties, the same has been heard and disposed of by this order.3. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of one Shri Sukhvinder Singh, son of appellants 1 and 2 and father of appellant No.3 in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.4. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was admittedly getting a salary of Rs.48,000/- per annum, as is apparent from his income tax returns filed by him for the previous year, and at the time of deciding the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased, the tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased. There is force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. The Supreme Court has now in a judgment reported as Sarla Dixit Vs . Balwant Yadav : (1993)IILLJ664S...

Continental Construction Ltd., Vs. State Bank of India, Overseas Branc ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi121; II(2004)BC348; [2005]125CompCas380(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT266; [2004]51SCL103(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioners have prayed for setting aside orders dated 13th and 16th January, 2003 passed by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Delhi in RC No. 97/2001 and RC No. 245/2001.2. Two appeals, being Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 1/2003 and 2/2003 were filed against the aforementioned orders, of which Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2/2003 was filed by the Petitioners. These appeals were decided by the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II (for short the Tribunal) on 21st February 2003. The Petitioners have challenged the correctness of the order dated 21st February 2003 also. 3. Since the orders passed by the Recovery Officer were the subject matter of appeals decided by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal on 21st February 2003, essentially, the challenge of the Petitioners is to the correctness of the appellate order dated 21st February 2003, the two orders dated 13th and 16th January 2003 passed by the Recovery Officer having merged w...

Monica Sharma Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 108(2003)DLT572; I(2004)DMC11; 2004(73)DRJ391

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 439 read with Section 482, Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 313/2002, under Sections 498A, 302, 34, IPC, P.S. Shahdara, Delhi.2. Petitioner's first application for bail was declined vide detail order dated 21.8.2002 passed by this Court. Learned Counsel submits that there is a change in the circumstances during the last one year inasmuch as Chemical examination report has now been received. It is submitted that as per the CFSL report, the Exhibits 1 and 2 on the analysis (one cream coloured brassier and one light blue coloured cloth piece of suit Ex. 2 scalp hair of the deceased) did not give any positive test of kerosene oil.3. Learned Counsel argued that CFSL report belies the statement of the younger sister, Kumari Neeta who claims to be an eye-witness of the occurrence; that this report also belies the second dying declaration before the SDM and supports the earlier dying declaration to the effect th...

M.C.D. Vs. K.B. Dass and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ705; 2004(2)SLJ376(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing.3. This writ petition challenges the impugned Award 31st October, 2001 by which the Tribunal held that the claimant/respondent No. 1 herein is covered under the category of artisan, falling under FR 56(b) and could have been retired only on attaining the age of 60 years on 31st October, 1995. The retirement of the respondent No. 1 was held to be illegal and two years emoluments were consequently granted to the respondent No. 1 with effect from 1st November, 1993 till 31st October, 1995.4. Mr. Ghose, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has very fairly submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered, against him by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Ors. v. Adwait Charan Mohanty, : [1995]1SCR614 wherein it has been held that every employee who is not a class IV employee cann...

Raj Kumar Bhargava Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)378; [2004]265ITR46(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the legality of the order dated March 30, 1993, passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), directing preemptive purchase of the ground floor of the house bearing No. D-203, defense Colony, New Delhi.2. The background facts, relevant for the purpose of dealing with the present petition, are as follows :On December 22, 1992, the petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the aforenoted property for a total consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs with respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the vendor'). As per the agreement, the vendor was paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 by way of earnest money and the balance amount of Rs. 18,50,000 was to be paid at the time of registration of the conveyance deed with the Registrar of Assurances, New Delhi. A statement in Form No. 37-1 under rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, along with an agreement to sell was filed with the appro...

Smt. Renu Bali Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 108(2003)DLT392

ORDERSub: Regularisation of delays in respect of the Flats allotted in South Delhi under the SFSUnder the present delegation of powers, delays in making payments of first 4 Installments as well as payment of 5th and final Installment are regularised as per following delegation of powers:Director (H)-I - up to 3 monthsCommr. (Housing) - up to 1 YearPrincipal Commr. - From 1 Year to 11/2 YearV.C. - Full pwers2. With the approval of L.G. a decision was taken that the current price for South Delhi flats will be worked out by adding a surcharge of 20% from the price worked out as per old format. The approval of L.G. to this decision was granted on 12.7.1996.3. There are presently cases in the Housing Department where there have been delays in the making of the payments of the flats allocated/allotted in South Delhi under S.F.S. Before the aforesaid revision took place, delays of one year or so were being regularised with usual charges, i.e., on payment of 18% interest per annum and restorat...

Nissho Iwai Corporation Vs. Mauria Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi397; 110(2004)DLT620; 2004(74)DRJ41

R.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13th February, 2002, thereby disposing of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent and an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC filed by the defendant-appellant.2. The relevant facts which may be noticed for deciding this appeal are that Mauria Udyog Pvt.Ltd., respondent No.1 herein (briefly referred to as the `Indian Company') has entered into an agreement with M/s.Nissho Iwai Corporation Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, the appellant (briefly referred to as the `Japanese Company') for the supply of 10,000 MT of 'Hot Rolled Steel Sheets in Coil' of the specifications detailed in the proforma invoice bearing No.2430-NW dated 25th April, 2001 @ US$ 262.50 per MT, CFR, Bombay. The mode of payment of the price of goods was through irrevocable, un-confirmed, non-restricted Letters of Credit payable at sight. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the Indian Company open...