Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments

Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT173TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 3-9-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Addl. Commissioner.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may briefly be stated as under - On 19-7-2000 at around 12.30 hrs. Officers of the Customs Varanasi conducted raid at the house of the appellant and recovered 20 gaddas Chinese Tussar Silk Yarn, 2 gaddas foreign origin silk yarn and 9 pieces of Chinese Silk Yarn Fabrics from a room adjacent to a room on the outer periphery of his house. On conducting search of the residential premises of the appellant, Rs. 1,98,000/- from an almirah and Rs. 42,000/- from a suitcase, a cash-memo dated 18-11-1999 issued by a firm, namely, M/s. Ajit Kumar, Vishal Kumar, a piece of bansi paper, a paper chit containing some details of weight and amount and one/two rupees Nepali currency, were recovered, which were taken into possession through a Panchnama...

S.K. Sajdeh and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC57

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 18.6.2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-original of the adjudicating authority disallowing modvat credit of Rs. 1,51,283 with penalty of Rs. 15,000 for the period March 99.2. The modvat credit of the above-said amount has been denied to the appellants only on the ground that it has been availed on the endorsed bill of entry which was in the name of importer M/s. Taxool Corporation Ltd. 4. The perusal of the record shows that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of shoddy yarn and synthetic waste is their inputs.They availed modvat credit of the disputed amount on the strength of bill of entry dated 13.1.99. The record also shows that when this bill of entry was presented/filed by the importer M/s. Taxoel Corporation Ltd, the name of the present appellants was declared in the declaration for availing the modvat credit. It also remains undisputed that the...

Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT537TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Madhumilan Syntex Ltd., the issues involved are whether the machineries and equipments manufactured at site are eligible to excise duty and whether the Appellants are manufacturers of those machineries and equipments.2.1 Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants in 1991-92, for the purpose of setting up of a Solvent Extraction Plant, entered into contracts with various independent contractors for the fabrication, erection and commissioning of the various plants and equipments; that they supplied the raw materials and other items necessary for the manufacture of these machineries and equipments and the contractors undertook installation and commissioning of these machineries; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order, has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty holding that the machinery and parts manufactured by them are goods and dutiable. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the items in question, o...

S. Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)565; 2003(1)ARBLR665(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT502; 2003(70)DRJ667

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is an application moved by the Decree Holder for enforcement of the award. The limited grievance of the Decree Holder is with respect to the interest as according to the Decree Holder , Judgment Debtor has not paid full payment towards interest as per provisions of section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Perusal of the award shows that the Arbitrator passed an award of Rs.5,21,886/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 24.8.1990 to 11.5.1997 as pre-suit interest and at the same rate from 12.5.1997 to 8.4.1998 towards pendente lite interest and from 8.4.1998 to the date of payment or decree whichever is earlier as future interest. Through this application, the Decree Holder is seeking payment of future interest till the date of payment.3. Decree Holder is entitled to future interest in terms of provisions of section 31(7)(b) of the Act which provides as under:-' A sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall, unless the award otherw...

R.P. Saxena Vs. Niepa and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)737; 108(2003)DLT331; 2004(3)SLJ446(Delhi)

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Petitioner was serving as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture. On 30.11.1979, he was appointed as Registrar on deputation by respondent No.1. In 1984, options were invited from employees who were serving on deputation with respondent No.1 for permanent absorption in the respondent/Institute. Petitioner exercised the option to be absorbed in the respondent/Institute and in public interest he was absorbed on permanent basis by the respondent. The Government of India conveyed the sanction of permanent absorption of the petitioner with the respondent No.1. It was stated in the letter sanctioning absorption that the detailed terms and conditions of permanent absorption of respondent No.1 would be issued separately. Prior to his permanent absorption, the respondent No.1/Institute issued an office note stating, inter alia, that the petitioner serving as Registrar on deputation w.e.f. 30.11.1979 was placed in the scale of Rs.1500-60-1800, which scale was revised ...

Jindal Aromatic Vs. South Coast Spices Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 106(2003)DLT708; 2003(3)RAJ560

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. We had concluded the hearing in the matter on 17th February, 2003. It was indicated to the Counsel for the parties that should they wish, written synopsis along with further list of authorities, if any relied upon, other than the authorities cited during oral arguments, should be filed on or before 21st February, 2003. On 21st February, 2003, mention was made on behalf of the respondent that due to personal reasons, Counsel for the respondent was unable to file the written synopsis. Time was sought and was granted up to 26th February, 2003 to do the needful. Counsel for the appellant has submitted a further list of authorities relied upon. Neither any written synopsis have been filed by the respondent nor any further list of authorities has been filed. We are consequently proceeding ahead with our judgment.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 30th July, 2001 allowing LA. No. 6727/96 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Section 8 of the Arbitr...

Shashi Kiran and ors. Vs. the Registrar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ376

1. CM 1778/2003 in CW 3993/972. It is an application filed by the petitioner as well as by the respondents 4 to 8. It has been contended by the parties that the matter has been settled inter se between the parties in terms of the order passed by this Court on 28.11.2002, and the Registrar is also in the process of fixing dates for implementing the agreement. Counsel for the parties further say that they do not press prayer (a) of the application, as the Registrar has already initiated action in terms of the agreement which has been filed Along with the application as Annexure-A. thereforee, it is contended that in terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties, Respondents 2 & 3 be directed to allow the operation of bank accounts in terms of agreement dated 13.1.2003, marked as Annexure-A.3. As the parties have amicably settled their disputes in terms of the agreement marked as Annexure 'A', a direction is issued to Respondents 2 and 3 to allow the operation of bank accounts in ...

Director General of Income Tax Vs. A.A.i.F.R. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Del)663

ORDER1. This writ petition by the Director General of Income-tax (Admn.), New Delhi, is directed against the order dt. 17th Nov., 2000, passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (for short 'the AAIFR'), dismissing petitioner's appeal against the order passed by the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (for short 'the BIFR') on 9th July, 1999, in Case No. 60/99, declaring M/s Amitabh Bachchan Corpn. Ltd., respondent No. 3 herein, as a sick industrial Company.2. The main grievance of the petitioner before the AIFR was that the BIFR has held the demand created by the IT Department against respondent No. 3 as a contingent liability, without affording an opportunity of being heard, with the result that the IT Department will not be in a position to recover its dues because these will not be treated a's part of the liabilities of the Company.3. We have heard Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, learned senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, and Dr. Debi Pal, lear...

Director General of Income Tax Vs. A.A.i.F.R.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN251(Delhi)

ORDERThis writ petition by the Director General of Income Tax (Admn.), New Delhi is directed against the order dated 17-11-2000, passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'the AAIFR), dismissing petitioner's appeal against the order passed by the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'the BIFR') on 9-7-1999 in Case No. 60/99, declaring M/s. Amitabh Bachchan Corpn. Ltd., respondent No. 3 herein, as a sick industrial company.2. The main grievance of the petitioner before the AAIFR was that the BIFR has held the demand created by the Income Tax Department against respondent No. 3 as a contingent liability, without affording an opportunity of being heard, with the result that the Income Tax Department will not be in a position to recover its dues because these will not be treated as part of the liabilities of the company.3. We have heard Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, learned senior standing counsel for...

Ms. Manorama Vij Vs. Swatantra Land and Finance Pvt. 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 26.9.2002, passed by District Forum-VI, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. OC/866/2002 entitled Ms. Manorma Vij v. M/s. Swatantra Land and Finance Pvt. Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Ms. Manorama Vij, had filed a complaint before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Act, averring therein that the appellant had booked a plot, measuring 200 sq. yds., at Indraprasth Colony, Faridabad, with the respondent on 24th March, 1963, at the rate of Rs. 17/- per sq. yd. It was stated that after booking the plot, as per the terms and conditions, the appellant had paid the total consideration including external sewer charges in respect of the above said property. It was stated that the respondent, afte...