Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

income Tax Officer Vs. Giggles (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Del)38

ORDERR.M. Mekta, V.P.the revenue is in appeal challenging the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in cancelling a penalty of Rs. 3,40,832 imposed on the respondent- assessed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c).2. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the orders passed by the tax authorities, both in respect of the penalty proceedings as also the quantum, the latter up to the order passed by the Tribunal. Before we proceed further, we would like to mention that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been imposed with reference to two items, the first being an addition on account of unexplained investment in stock amounting to Rs. 2,55,273 and the second being a disallowance of Rs. 1,99,171 on account of commission paid to the directors of the company and its manager. It is a matter of record that both the additions have been confirmed by the Tribunal. In the aforesaid background, the relevant facts pertaining to each of the additions are as under.3. Coming ...

Vijay Vs. State (Nct)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT297

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 439, Cr.P.C. read with Section 37, NDPS Act, petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR No. 119/2003 under Sections 15/61/85, NDPS Act, P.S. Vasant Kunj. Prosecution allegations, in brief, are that petitioner was found standing near Contessa car bearing registration No. DLICF 6343 Along with his co-brother Ruppi. Ruppi had opened the dicky of the car from where 170 kgs. of poppy straw was recovered. Learned APP for the State, strongly opposing the bail application, contended that Ruppi is the co-brother of the petitioner; his disclosure statement reveals that they had jointly brought the poppy straw.2. I have considered the rival contentions. There is nothing on record to indicate that petitioner was ever in possession of the poppy straw or that he knew or had reason to believe that poppy straw was being carried in the dicky of the car, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered ...

State. Vs. Mohd. Afzal and ors.

Court: Delhi

1. Every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. The journey, in the present case, has been navigated by the Designated Judge of the Special Court constituted under Section 23 of the Prevention of Terrorists Activities Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as POTA). In the Murder Reference and the connected appeals arising out of the judgment dated 16.12.2002, we are called upon to decide the legality and validity of the trial as also the sustainability of the judgment pronounced by the Designated Judge of the Special Court, POTA. By the impugned judgment, the learned Designated Judge has held that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charge of conspiracy against accused Nos. 1 to 3, for having entered into a conspiracy with the 5 slain terrorists who had attacked Parliament House on 13.12.2001 along with Mohd. Masood Azhar, Gazi Baba @ Abu Zehadi @ Abu Seqlain and Tariq Ahmed, all Pakistani nationals (declared as proclaimed offenders), to procure...

Vazir Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT276TriDel

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Vazir Polymers Ltd. is whether the additional duty of Customs is payable by them being a unit under Kandla Special Economic Zone in respect of the goods cleared in Domestic Tariff Area, when the Duty of Excise is exempted under a Notification in respect of domestic goods.2. Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant is a unit in Kandla Special Economic Zone; that they use plastic scrap and waste for manufacture of regenerated polymers; that they have been given permission by the Development Commissioner for sale of regenerated polymer in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) and as such DTA sales are to be made on payment of Central Excise duty in accordance with the provisions of law; that under Notification No. 3/2001-C.E. duty dated 1-3-2001 plastic materials reprocessed in India out of the scrap or the waste of goods falling under specified Chapters have been exempted from payment of Central Excise duty; that accordi...

Newton Engg. and Construction Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC97

1. In these 4 appeals arising out of a common Order-in-Original No.25/2003 dated 6.1.2003, the issues involved are whether the pipes and fittings of various specifications are liable to Excise duty and whether the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE is available.2. Shri Arun Khosla, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant No.1 was awarded a contract for the fabrication of 2.121 km. pipes and fittings of various specifications made out of mild steel plates for utility i.e. piping for circulation of water from the cooling tower to the various heat exchanger; that the steel plates are cut according to the diameter of the pipe and the same are bended to make a pipe, two edges are then welded to form a spool. Similarly elbow and reducers are also fabricated from M.S. Plates. The spools are then joined by reducers as per requirement and the pipeline so formed is laid in trenches at a depth of 2 to 3 metres. He, further, submitted that as per the settled law the pipe was so fabricate...

Samsung India Electronics Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC182

1. The above captioned three appeals have been filed against the common impugned order-in-original by the appellants vide which modvat credit of the disputed amounts had been denied to appellant No. 1 with penalty and penalties have been imposed on the other two appellants as detailed therein.2. Appellant No. 1 is a company engaged in the manufacture of Colour Television Sets (in short referred as CTVs) falling under Chapter Heading 8528.90 of the CETA. They had been availing the benefit of modvat facility on the colour picture tubes (in short CPTs) which they purchased from the companies appellants 2 and 3 who are engaged in the manufacture of the same during the period in dispute (May 97 to January 99). They availed modvat credit in all of Rs. 77, 18, 690.67 on the duty paid CPTs which they bought from appellants 2 and 3. On carrying out checking of the factory premises of the company appellant No. 1 on 19.9.97, and after recording the statement of their DGM Accounts, Shri R. Shridh...

Himachal Pradesh Financial Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)BC109

1.1st respondent-Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed OA 473/98 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT) against the respondents 2 to 4 herein, (as defendants 1 to 3, hereinafter referred to as "the defendants 1 to 3"), and the appellant herein (as the 4th defendant, hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-4th defendant") for the recovery of money allegedly due to it. "That the plants and machineries hypothecated and purchased from the loan amount advanced towards the term loan and the entire stock, stored, purchased from the Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Loan Account be allowed to be taken in possession of the Bank from defendant No. 4 and in case the same is sold by defendant No. 4. Sale Value be decreed against defendant No. 4." 3. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the ex, pane final order dated 23.2.1999 holding that the respondent-Bank is entitled to recover from defendants 1 to 3 jointl...

R.P. Goyal and Co. and anr. Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)BC229

1. Respondent-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 195/2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') for the recovery of money allegedly due to it from the appellants. The 1st appellant is the proprietary concern of the 2nd appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants/defendants'). The appellants/ defendants filed their written statement to the O.A. denying the execution of certain documents relied upon by the respondent-Bank. By way of evidence the respondent-Bank has field three affidavits, namely, those of (1) Haninder Singh Kalra dated 14.3.2000, (2) Bhagwan Das Mal dated 11.3.2000, and (3) Dwarka Prasad Gupta dated 11.3.2000. On behalf of the appellants, the 2nd appellant Rajendra Prasad Goyal has filed his affidavit by way of evidence.2. The appellants/defendants filed an application dated 20.6.2001 seeking permission of the DRT to cross-examine Bhagwan Das Mal and Dwarka ...

State Bank of India Vs. Doon Valley Rice Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: IV(2004)BC71

1. This is an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, if any. But Mr. S.L. Gupta states that the appellant got certified copy on 7.4.2003 and, therefore, this appeal filed on 21.5.2003, is in time.He, therefore, states that there is no delay, and accordingly the application may be dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as not pressed.3. In view of the order passed in Miscellaneous Application 266/2003, the appeal is taken on record. The Registry to assign a suitable dumber.4. Heard, Mr. S.L. Gupta, Counsel for the appellant. The appellant has approached this Tribunal with this appeal aggrieved by the Order dated 25.3.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Chandigarh in application 6564/2002, the order passed on an application filed by the defendants for directing the applicant Bank to produce the certain documents. The appellant raised an objection that these documents are not relevant for the purpose of the O.A. inasmuc...

Badarpur Power Engineers and Workers Union Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)52; 108(2003)DLT99; (2004)IILLJ165Del; 2004(2)SLJ344(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule has been issued in the present writ petition on 5th February, 1996. 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 Order dated 5/9th January, 1995, refusing to refer the industrial dispute sought to be espoused by the petitioner for adjudication. The said order deals with two issues and reads as follows:- 'The Union had demanded representations from the National Bipartite Committee. This being a managerial function cannot constitute the basis for an Industrial dispute. Besides, the demand inter alias also pertains to recognition of the Union. It has already been decided by the Government that this cannot constitute an Industrial dispute. The Union has challenged the decision of the Ministry of Labour not to refer a similar dispute for adjudication in the Delhi High Court vide WP No.2480/93 and hence the entire matter is subjudice. It is reported that no bona fide employee ...