Delhi Court November 2004 Judgments

Marinelines Ship Breakers (P) Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT81TriDel

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Marinelines Ship Breakers (P) Ltd. is whether the weight of 'CONSTANT' is to be included in LDT of the vessel imported by them.2. Shri A. D. Maru, learned Advocate submitted that M/s. Demo International Ltd. entered into a Memorandum of Agreement dated 7-10-2002 with the Appellants for sale of the vessel M V Bute having LDT 6528.54 LT for breaking purposes; that the price entered in the Memorandum of Agreement was US $ 946,638.30 at the rate of US $ 145/- per LT CIF; that the Revenue has added the value of US $ 49,952.50 of 'CONSTANT' of 344,50 LDT and confirmed the demand of duty against the appellants. Learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Appellants are liable to pay the duty on the transaction value in terms of Rule 3(1), 4(1) and Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules; that thus enhancement of the transactional value is against the law; that in any way, the CONSTANT is nothing but sea water, kept in double bottom tank and ...

Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal which has been filed against the impugned order by the appellants issue relates to denial of modvat credit on the capital goods.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The capital goods were imported by M/s. Frito Lay India and endorsement in the bill of entry was made in favour of the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of Potato Chips, Namkeen and worked as a job worker for M/s. Frito Lay India during the period in question i.e. 1.9.98 to 31.3.99. The modvat credit has been denied to the appellants on capital goods on the ground of being not owner of the goods. But on this ground, credit cannot be denied in view of the law laid down in Sharda Motors Industries Ltd. v.CCE, ChennaiHis Automotives Ltd. v. CCE Chennai 2004 (163) ELT 116 wherein it has been observed that ownership of goods is no criteria for denying the modvat credit in view of Board Circular No. 2638/89-CX dated 1.3.99.3. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set asi...

Shri Ram Scientific and Vs. Additional Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)93ITD223(Delhi)

1. These are three appeals by the assessee. The appeal for asst. yr.1996-97 is against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 9th Aug., 2001.The appeals for asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 are against the combined order of the learned C1T(A), dt. 7th May, 2002. Since most of the issues involved in all the three appeals are common, we find it convenient to dispose of all the appeals by this consolidated order.2. The first common grievance of the assessee in all the three appeals is against the denial of exemption under Section 10(21) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act).3. The assessee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and is engaged in the field of industrial research in applied sciences. It had returned 'nil' income for asst.yr. 1996-97. In the course of assessment proceedings for asst. yr.1996-97, the AO noted that the assessee was approved by the prescribed authority in the category of 'institution' for the purpose of Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The AO fur...

Ajit Singh Vs. Madan Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT421; 2005(79)DRJ674; (2005)140PLR18

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.4.1990 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Suit No. 565/1979 whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award in the sum of Rs. 79,000/- with cost together with simple interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till passing of order in favor of the appellant while granting one month's time failing which the awarded amount shall carry an interest of 12 per cent per annum.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Tribunal, are as follows :''On 29.8.1979 in the morning at about 9.30 a.m., the deceased Dalip Singh aged about 25 years was going on a motorcycle from his residence Gita Colony towards Faridabad on Mathura Road with Ajit Singh injured sitting as a pillion rider who were both brothers. It is stated that the motorcycle No. WBN 6692 was driven by Dalip Singh in a normal speed on their left hand side and in the meantime one truck No.DLL 1578 driven by respondent No. 1 Madan La...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Jamil Ahmed

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR69(Delhi); 115(2004)DLT372

Anil Kumar, J.1. A number of petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of Arbitrator and for reference of disputes were disposed of by judgment dated 6th November, 2000 by the learned single Judge. However while disposing of the petition it was held that since after filing of these petitions Arbitration Act, 1940 had been repealed and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had been enacted and since the parties had agreed that any statutory modification to Arbitration Act, 1940 will apply to the arbitration proceedings, thereforee Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply. It was held that Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will be applicable and the Arbitrator will have the power to decide on his own jurisdiction It was held that the question as to whether any dispute raised by the claimant would be subject-matter of Arbitration or not and `excepted matter' and whether the claimants shall be entitled to interest are also the...

Orient Longman Limited Vs. Inderjeet Anand and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(30)PTC11(Del)

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated May 7, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Suit No. 196/2003 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. The suit was filed by the appellant as against the respondents herein alleging violation of the copyright of the appellant in respect of the book 'GUL MOHAR Graded English Course Reader 1'. It was alleged in the plaint by the appellant that he said appellant owned the copyright of the book `Gul Mohar Graded English Course Reader 1' and had the exclusive right to publish the work in accordance with section 14(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957.2. The aforesaid suit, however, was proceeded ex parte as the respondents/defendants failed to contest the suit after filing the written statement. The appellant/plaintiff led ex parte evidence on completion of which the learned trial court dismissed t he suit holding t...

Vidya and anr. Vs. Madan Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)ACC154; 116(2005)DLT197; 2005(79)DRJ527

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents in spite of service. This is an old case and can brook no further delay. I thereforee, proceed to dispose it of.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.4.1990 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Suit No. 565/1979 whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award in the sum of Rs. 79,000/- with cost and simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the passing of order in favor of the petitioner while granting one month's time failing which the award shall carry an interest of 12% per annum.3. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are as follows:-''.... on 29.8.1979 in the morning at about 9.30 a.m., the deceased Dalip Singh aged about 25 years was going on a motorcycle from his residence Gita Colony towards Faridabad on Mathura Road with Ajit Singh injured sitting as a pillion rider who were both brothers. It is stated that the motorcycle No. WBN ...

Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology Vs. Guru Goving Singh Indrapr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT290

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The issue involved in the present Letters Patent Appeal, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 27.09.2004 in WP 14451/04, is regarding the entitlement of the private unaided educational institutional to fill ''drop out'' seats after second counseling. The appellant unsuccessfully assailed the conditions imposed by the second respondent that after second counseling, such vacant seats cannot be filled.2. The appellant, a society registered under the Society Registration Act is a private unaided college imparting education in different courses. The present litigation concerns admission to the first year B. Tech course. The appellant is affiliated to the first respondent (hereafter called 'University') which was established under Act 9 of 1998 by the Delhi Legislature.3. Admission to courses in different institutions of the University is regulated in terms of the programmes published in the form of Information Bulletin by the University and as per the ...

Radhika Narang and ors. Vs. Karun Raj Narang and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT440; I(2005)DMC40; 2005(79)DRJ274

H.R. Malhotra, J.1. This is a suit for maintenance and separate residence under Section 9 of the CPC read with Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. This suit has been filed by the wife against her husband and her father-in-law. Husband has been arrayed as defendant No. 1 whereas father-in-law has been shown as defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 made an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit against him was barred as it did not disclose cause of action against him at all. Instead of dealing with this application, this Court passed an order dated 10th December, 2003 framing the following issue:'Whether plaint does not disclose a cause of action against defendant No. 2 and whether defendant No. 2 is liable to be struck off from the array of parties? OPD'2. Since parties did not wish to lead any evidence on this issue, it being a legal issue, thereforee, this Court proceeded to hear arguments on this issue.3. I have...

Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Dr. Inder Chand Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)504

1. On facts, the Tribunal has noted that the assessed had two equity shares of the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. which were acquired in the year 1961 for Rs. 14,400. These shares were unquoted. As per the policy of the Government, a member of the stock exchange was not allowed to hold more than one equity share. The assessed, in view of this, transferred one share in January, 1991 for a consideration of Rs. 2,60,000 to one Mr. Yogen Khosla. The Revenue urges that the Tribunal has committed grave error in not accepting the value at Rs. 13 lakhs and in not considering the difference as being subject to gift-tax. AO has indicated as under :'If sensex of DSE (it is for Delhi Stock Exchange) in 1991 and 1992 and the volume of trade is taken into consideration, a fair idea can be had about the value of the DSE ticket (ticket/shares/membership are the words used). On this basis, my predecessors had worked out the value as on March, 1991 at Rs. 34.50 lakhs. This shows that intrinsic va...