Delhi Court January 2004 Judgments

Wildlife Protection Society of India Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ42

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Wildlife Protection Society of India has filed the present writ petition, seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to hear and determine the applications/declarations of the traders, filed under Section 49(C) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act within such period as the Court may deem just and proper.3. Notice in the writ petition was issued on 20.9.1999. Petitioner's grievance from the beginning is that there is an inordinate delay in deciding the applications/declarations of the traders, filed under Section 49(C) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. This is resulting in the traders continuing to hold the stocks of ivory, which is otherwise prohibited. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association and others v. Union of India and others reported at 0043/1997 : AIR1997Delhi267b and G.R.Simon e...

Ajit Singh Vs. Sadhu Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi320; 110(2004)DLT125; 2004(73)DRJ99

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. In the present suit filed by the plaintiff, pleadings were exchanged by the parties and were filed in this Court. On the basis of the said pleadings, several issues were framed by this Court by Order dated 18.2.2003. The first issue, which was framed on the pleadings of the parties, is as follows:'Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of CPC?'2. After framing the said issues it, was ordered that the said issue No. 1 would be treated as a preliminary issue and the said issue was set down for arguments. Accordingly, the said issue has been argued today by the counsel appearing for the parties, during the course of which they have not only taken me through the pleadings of the parties in the present suit but also through the pleadings in the suit No. 69/1984, which was re-numbered as suit No. 63/1992 and the judgment which was rendered in the said suit by the Additional District Judge. Incidentally the Suit No. 63/1992 was also between the same p...

Pawan BhasIn Vs. M.C.D. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT179; 2004(73)DRJ333

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The Petitions be given their separate numbers corresponding to the number of Petitioners.2. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the Navjivan Cooperative House Building Society Limited (the 'Respondent Society' in these cases) is intending to carry out construction of the Community Centre in Plot No.50, Navjivan Vihar, New Delhi. The Petitioners apprehend that since the colony road is a cul-de-sac, there will be rampant parking by persons who are not residents of Plot No.45-49 or their visitors. It is further complained of that there are likely to be numerous celebrations in the Community Centre causing noise pollution and other nuisances. It is also contended that although plot No.50 had originally been designated for a community centre in the Layout Plans, another plot bearing No.130 had been permitted by the D.D.A. to be used by the Society for the purpose of the Community Centre, in lieu of plot No.50. It is not in dispute that the Office of the Society is...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Gian Chand Dhawan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)33

ORDERS.K. Yadav, J.M.:This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a solitary ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.04 lakhs on account of estimated income from house property, which was let out by the assessed to a concern, in which he had substantial interest by deliberately fixing a low rent in collusive manner.2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record.3. Brief facts borne out from the record are that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessing officer noticed that assessed owned the property in East of Kailash, New Delhi, which was let out to M/s York Exports Ltd. at Rs. 1,000 per month. This letting was only for one and a half months. No written agreement was executed between the parties and no income from this letting was disclosed by the assessed. When the assessing officer asked the assesse...

Bharat Bhushan JaIn Vs. Ito

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)888

ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.M.:This is an appeal by assessed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) relating to assessment year 1981-82. The assessed has taken various grounds of appeal relating to sustenance of addition of Rs. 1,16,830, not deciding the issue of allowing interest under section 214 and not deleting the addition on account of charging of interest under section 215 and 216 of the Act.2. The ground relating to allowing the interest under section 214 was not decided by the Commissioner (Appeals). thereforee, this issue is restored back to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the same, as the ground was taken before him. We order accordingly.3. The brief facts relating to confirming the addition of Rs. 1, 16,830, as stated in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), are that the assessed filed its return of income on 29-8-1981, declaring an income of Rs. 1,25,700. However, the original assessment was passed at income of Rs. 2,48,940. In the said order, the assessing off...

Cce Vs. U.T. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC82

1. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapters 68, 84 and 87 of the CETA Schedule and availing the Modvat credit facility under Rules 57A and 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. They stopped production of "self-propelled container pallet transporter" [SPCPT, for short] in October 1996 but continued production of other products including "High Pressure Water Jetting Pump & Accessories" [HPWJP, for short]. When they stopped production of SPCPT, they had in their Modvat account (RG 23A Part II) unutilized balance credit of Rs. 11,87,431.38 in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of that product, which credit they transferred to the Modvat account pertaining to HPWJP. In March 1998, they utilized this credit for payment of duty on HPWJP without taking permission from the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise. The department objected to such utilization of the credit which was allegedly barred by the proviso to sub-ru...

Karori Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC28

1. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original against the present appellants regarding confirmation of duty and imposition of penalty. He had, however, set aside the penalty against the partner imposed under Rule 209 A of the Rules.2. The learned Consultant has contended that except for the statement of Shekhar Aggarwal, partner of the appellants firm, there is no evidence to prove that there was shortage of inputs in the factory premises. No panchnama was prepared. He has also contended that even the statement of Shekhar Aggarwal cannot be looked into for want of signatures of any officer of the Central Excise under it and that the same was also retracted through a letter dated 2-3-2000. No independent witness was also joined at the time of verification of the goods lying in the factory of the appellants and no record was signed by the officers of the Central Exci...

Allied Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the availability of deemed modvat credit disallowed to the appellants is that the manufacturer/supplier of the goods, M/s. Dhiman Industries did not discharge the full duty liability under Rule 96ZP (3). But from the record, it is evident that M/s. Dhiman Industries Ltd. initially disputed Thais liability under the said Rules. Apart from this it is also evident from the bare perusal of the impugned order itself that M/s. Dhiman Industries had even discharged full duty for the period in dispute during which the goods were supplied by them to the appellants. Therefore, under these circumstances, the deemed credit cannot be legally disallowed to the appellants. In this view. I am fortified by the law laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vikas Pipes vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh wherein in identical case the deemed credit had been allowed which the Department ...

Foam Tex India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT261TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the learned Counsel has only contested the penalty aspect. The impugned order regarding confirmation of the duty of Rs. 1/45,1947- against the appellants, had not been contested by the Counsel.2. Regarding the imposition of penalty equal to the amount of duty detailed above, the learned Counsel has prayed for the substantial reduction on the ground that the appellants voluntarily informed the Department that they had crossed the exemption limit and duty on the clearances for the period in dispute was payable by them and that they even deposited the duty. The learned SDR, has on the other hand, reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and stated that in order to avoid their trap by the Anti-evasion Officers, the appellants suo motu came forward and deposited the duty. Therefore, the penalty amount has been rightly confirmed against them.3. But in my view, the prayer of the learned Counsel deserves t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Saggar Alloys

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT50TriDel

1. None for the respondents inspite of issuance of notice for today's hearing. Even on the last date of hearing, none appeared on their behalf and the appeal was adjourned for today. No request for adjournment has also been received from them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.2. The issue in this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) relates to the availability of Modvat credit of Rs. 30,176/- to the respondents. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents purchased the materials (MS waste and scrap) through 3 invoices from M/s. Lalit Steel Corporation. The credit had been sought to be denied to them by the Department on the ground that National Re-rollers and Fabricators from whom Lalit Steel Corporation purchased the goods, was not entitled to avail deemed credit towards the payment of duty on the goods. But there is nothing on the record to suggest that if th...