Delhi Court August 2003 Judgments

Apex Traders Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellants M/s . Apex Traders, in the instant appeal, are challenging the correctness of the impugned Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad, whereby Order-in-original 63/98 dated 26.5.98 passed by the Assistant Commissioner has been set aside.2. The issue for consideration before the Assistant Commissioner was the quantum of deduction to be permitted on account of excise duty, sales tax and freight for the purposes of arriving at the assessable value of aerated water, manufactured and cleared by them. In the said order, the Assistant Commissioner also decided that abatement claimed by the party from sale price on the rentals on containers (ROC) was permissible in terms of findings contained in the Order-in-original No.34/ComMr. /97 dated 17.6.97 in the case of M/s . Coolade Beverages Ltd., which in turn was based on Supreme Court's decision in the case of CCE v. Indian Oxygen Limited.3. It was pleaded before the Assistant Commissioner that deductions on ac...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Surindra Steel Traders

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT996TriDel

1. No representation for the respondents in spite of notice. This case was adjourned on an earlier occasion at the instance of the respondents. This time, there is no request for any adjournment either.I have examined the records and heard ld. SDR. A party viz. M/s.Sandeep Steel & Agro Industries ("M/s. Sandeep", for short) had taken Modvat credit on a quantity of 33.020 MTs of their raw material on the basis of an invoice dated 26-7-2000 issued by M/s. Surindra Steel Traders (the present respondents). The credit was taken on 26-7-2000 itself. This fact was found out by officers of Central Excise who visited their factory on that date. The officers further noticed that the raw material covered by the invoice had not reached the factory and the Modvat credit had been taken without receipt of the input. This mistake was admitted by M/s. Sandeep who forthwith reversed the credit.Nevertheless, a show cause notice was issued to M/s. Sandeep as well as to the present respondents, propos...

Samcor Glass Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)94ITD202(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee arises from the order dt. 24th June, 2002, of the learned CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi, by raising following grounds of appeal: "1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and position in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the finding of the AO that it is the payee (i.e., Corning Inc.) and not the appellant (payer) who is entitled to claim the refund of excess tax which has been deducted by the payer. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the payer's right to appeal under Section 248 of IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') ceases once the TDS certificate has been issued. 3. That the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law, void ab initio." 2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant is a joint venture company of Corning Incorporated USA (hereinafter referred to as "Corning"). The AO directed the appellant to deduct tax at source at 30 per cent on the payment of fee for technical services by rejecting application for deduct...

Pritam Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)106; 106(2003)DLT689; 2004(76)DRJ500; 2003RLR508

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th May, 2001 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in RCA No. 16/2001, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 5th February, 2001, dismissing the suit. The Appellate Court in its judgment framed issues, namely, Issue No. 1 - whether the plaintiff is having 50% share in the suit premises? Issue No. 2 - Whether the plaintiff has violated the terms and condition of the allotment? and Issue No. 3 - whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of notice under Section 53-B of the DD Act. The Appellate Court returned a finding that no valid notice had been given. 2. The appellant had approached the First Appellate Court on grounds inter alias that -: '......the Learned Trial Court erroneously found that issue No. 2 and 3 against the plaintiffs/appellants. It has been contended that the Learned Trial Court had ignored the fact that the suit ...

M.G.F. (India) Ltd. Vs. Sh. Rajinder Singhal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)160; 2003(3)ARBLR162(Delhi); 106(2003)DLT422; 2003(70)DRJ439; 2003(3)RAJ414

H.R. Malhotra, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 seeking reference of disputes to the Arbitrator as named in the Lease Agreement dated 11th December,1991. The facts as emerged in the petition are that the petitioner company purchased one Ashok Leyland Diesel engine at the instance of respondent No. 1 from M/s Sudhir Engineering Company on 2nd November,1991 for a consideration of Rs. 3,64,000. 2. The said equipment i.e. Ashok Leyland Diesel Engine complete with 125 KVA alternator and all standard accessories were leased out to respondent No.1 and in consideration thereof a lease agreement dated 11.12.1991 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 stood as guarantor for respondent No.1. The said equipment was given to the respondent No.1 for a period of three years starting from 11.12.1991. 3. Respondent No.1 was to make payment of lease rentals at the rate of Rs. 12,600/- per month for 35 months besides payment o...

N.K. Sharma Vs. K.G. Arya

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)158; AIR2004Delhi25; III(2003)BC587; 106(2003)DLT670

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th April, 2003, of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in RCA No. 7/2002, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal arising out the judgment and decree dated 5th October, 2002, passed by the learned Civil Judge decreeing the suit while not allowing the appellant to lead evidence as defense had not been entered upon by the appellant within ten day of the receipt of notice under Order 27 Rule 3 CPC RSA 125/2003 2. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional District Judge are as follows :' the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery ors Rs.46,000/- under Order 37 CPC. That the plaintiff and the defendant had business in other dealings for the last more than 10 years. The appellant/defendant issued a cheque in his own hand writing dated 31.5.2000 for Rs.40,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, East Patel Nagar Branch, New Delhi in favor of the plaintiff. While issuing the aforesaid ...

Shri P.P. Garg and Shri Devendra Saroop Vs. New Delhi Municipal Counci ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)29; 106(2003)DLT694; 2004(72)DRJ175

Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners on the ground that petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 24.9.1987 and petitioner No. 2 was promoted on 10.2.1986 to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) and both were posted at Auto Workshop of the respondent/NDMC. It is the case of the petitioners that NDMC Workshop Employees Association filed a CWP No. 1/90 in the Supreme Court of India for grant of Shiv Shankar scales and the said petition was decided on 17th March, 1993. In this petition, petitioners have prayed that their pay scales be fixed on the basis of Shiv Shankar Committee Report. 3. Mr. Amit Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent/NDMC has contended that the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) in the NDMC was on the strength of Civil Engineering Department of the NDMC and, thereforee, the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of Shiv Shankar pay scales while working ...

Mohd. Idrish and Sons Vs. Shri Chagga Ali and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC722; 2003VIAD(Delhi)490; 2003(71)DRJ147

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the appellants against the order dated 3.2.1989, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Delhi whereby the application of the appellants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order directing the appellants to pay compensation to respondent no. 1 was rejected. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are : Respondent No. 1 claiming himself to be an employee of the appellant firm as well as of respondent No. 2 firm filed an application before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, claiming compensation for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by him during the course of employment with the said firms. In the application, respondent No. 1 had not specified as to with which of the two firms was he employed and while working with which of the two firms he was allegedly injured. While Mohd. Idrish claims to be the sole proprietor of the appellant firm, respondent No. 2 firm is sta...

ideal Enterprises Vs. Desu (Mcd) Thr. Its Gm

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)323; 2003(3)ARBLR305(Delhi); 106(2003)DLT565; 2004(72)DRJ99; 2003(4)RAJ717

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. On an application being filed by the appellant under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Court of the Additional District Judge directed the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator to settle disputes between the parties within one month and make an award within four months. After the parties had appeared before the Arbitrator and had submitted their claims, the arbitrator by his order dated 26.7.1988 observed that neither the application moved before the Court nor the order of the Additional District Judge refer to any dispute between the parties, which could be decided by him. The Arbitrator, thereforee, directed the appellant to approach the appropriate Court or the authorities concerned as per the arbitration agreement to get the matter referred to arbitration on specific disputes. Respondent was also directed to adopt proper course of action for recovery of its alleged damages, if any. On this order being passed the appellant filed an application under Se...

Charanjit Singh Nischal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)422; 106(2003)DLT691; 2004(72)DRJ172

Vijender Jain, J.-Rule. 1. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed as a TGT on 20.8.1953. In view of coming into force Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957, the services of the petitioner was placed at the disposal of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Education was the subject governed under the aegis of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster on 6.4.1967. Thereafter, it seems that the petitioner was promoted to the post of School Inspector on 12.1968. In 1970 all Middle and Higher Secondary Schools under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were transferred to the Delhi Administration. However, petitioner continued with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and performed his duties as Inspector of Schools. Petitioner was retired on 23.8.1979 after completing the age of 58 years. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been retired at the age of 58 years as the petitioner's age of retirement w...