Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments

Cce Vs. Dhillon Kool Drink Beverages

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC495

1. The respondent in the present appeal M/s Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Ltd., Panipat are a manufacturer of aerated water beverages syrup which are liable to Central Excise duty. On 10.6.99 the Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the respondent and carried out stock taking of finished goods. A shortage of aerated water bottle valued around Rs. 11 lakhs and involving a duty of about Rs. 6 lakhs was found compare to the balance quantity recorded in the appellant's statutory production record (RG-I register). The respondent's Account Manager admitted the shortage and stated that "shortage have been due to peak season work load and the lapse on the part of their staff. Respondent also made a voluntary debit of duty of over Rs. 3 lakhs on the same date. The remaining amount was debited on 5.7.99. Five months after that, show cause notice was issued seeking to confirm the duty already paid and to impose penalty on the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise...

Gms Technologies Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)93TTJ(Delhi)218

1. The appeal has been directed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) dt. 8th Nov., 2003 pertaining to the block period 1st April, 1989 to 19th Nov., 1999. Though various grounds have been raised, all the grounds related to the disallowance of claim under Section 80-IA of the Act for asst. yrs. 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1997-98 included in the block period.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company mainly dealing in digital prints and photo furnishing etc.Search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) Act took place at the premises of the assessee as well as residential premises of the found and seized and notice under Section 158BC of the Act was issued. In response to such notice, the return of undisclosed income at nil was filed. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act on account of its slitting activities of photographic paper at Silvasa claimin...

ishwar Singh S/O Sh. Chhotu Ram @ Chhotey Ram Vs. Jagjit Singh S/O Sh. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC490; 110(2004)DLT90; 2004(73)DRJ271

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short the MACT) by an order dated 23rd March, 1987 in Suit No.696/1979 awarded compensation to the Appellant of Rs.87,000/- with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition for injuries suffered by him in an accident. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-, as claimed by him.2. The Appellant, a Constable with the Delhi Police, was riding a motorcycle on 20th March, 1979. At about 11.00 pm, he approached a crossing near Ganga Ram Hospital when he gave a signal with his hand indicating his intention to take a right turn. He had not even taken the right turn and he was hit by a truck driven rashly and negligently. The Appellant was dragged along with his motorcycle and suffered serious injuries, including amputation of his left leg from the middle of his thigh. According to the claim petition, the driver of the truck (Respondent No.1) ran away from the spot leaving the tr...

Narinder Kumar Kundra and anr. Vs. Anil Nijhawan and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT136; 2004(73)DRJ347

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. By way of this Revision the Order dated 27.2.2003 is assailed. The Defendant had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 essentially to bring in a Counter Claim. At this stage the case was fixed for Final Arguments. In the Order the application has been rejected because the Court felt it had not been satisfied on the question of why the Counter Claim had not been filed along with the Written Statement. The learned Trial Court had concluded that the application was highly belated and was of a 'delaying nature'. 2. It is trite to state that while allowing the amendments to pleadings a liberal approach should be adopted by the Courts. It cannot also be gainsaid that while considering an amendment the question of whether it is likely to succeed at the conclusion of the Trial, would also not be sufficient reason for rejecting it. This has been so stated in A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation, : [1966]1SCR796 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had cl...

Vijay Yadav Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT894; 2004(74)DRJ319

Vikramajeet Sen, J.1. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in WP(C) No. 3791/2000 title Common Cause (Regd. Society) v. Union of India, in which a judgment was delivered on 16.12.2002. In that case the Court was primarily concerned with stray cattle. In trying to solve that nuisance/ problem the Court had issued directions for the relocation of dairies operation in the Municipal Zone of Delhi to the outskirts of Delhi. No doubt a direction in this regard had been given. This Judgment however is of no relevance to the dispute in question. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is running a dairy from Vaishali Extension, which is essentially a residential area. If person who are using the land contrary to its permissible user will have a right to an alternative allocation, it will give a premium to the law breakers. Mr. Bajpai states that this is an unauthorised colony, or extended Lal Dora of the village. Even if this is so the present case does not f...

Mr. Ishwari Prasad Ganeriwala Vs. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004CriLJ1985; 110(2004)DLT636; 2004(75)DRJ395

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The appeal has been on Board for some time. The matter was passed over and we have waited for quite some time. It is 3.00 P.M. and no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. Since it is an old appeal, thereforee, we deem it appropriate to proceed to decide the appeal. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd February, 1990 by which the learned Single Judge held the appellant guilty of contempt of this Court and consequently ordered that the appellant be detained in the civil prison for a period of two months from the date of his arrest. The Court further directed that the warrants be issued for his arrest and detention in civil prison through proper channel. The appellant preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in C.C.P.No.1/1985 in OMP No.68/1982. 3. We have perused the impugned order and other documents on record a...

Rajni Dobhal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ606; 2005(1)SLJ166(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard for final disposal.3. The petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Sub Inspector in the Delhi Police on 1.3.1988 and was thereafter given promotions and went on deputation to the CBI, In January, 1997 Central Government Employees Welfare Organization introduced its third housing scheme in the National Capital Region - Phase-II, Noida Housing Scheme at Sector 51. The petitioner applied in pursuance to the said scheme and paid all the amounts including the final demand made.4. The dispute arose on account of the fact that respondents No. 2 and 3, which is the Housing Organization, cancelled the allotment in favor of the petitioner on 30.6.1999 on the ground that the petitioner is not an employee of the Central Government but an employee of the Delhi Police and was, thus, not eligible to apply under the scheme. The petitioner made a representation against the same and even sent a cer...

Water and Power Consultancy Services (India) Ltd. Vs. Jt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)29

ORDERS.K. Yadav, J.M.:This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a solitary ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the order of the assessing officer, who has restricted the claim of deduction under section 80-0 of the Income Tax Act, to Rs. 20,84,737 as against the claim of the assessed to the extent of Rs. 77,34,317, though the assessed has raised various grounds of appeal in this regard.2. The other ground relating to disallowance of prior period expenses to the extent of Rs. 2,19,892 was not pressed by the assessed during the course of the hearing of the appeal. Hence, this ground is rejected.3. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record. Brief facts of the case borne out from the record are that the assessed has claimed deduction under section 80-0 at Rs. 77,34,317 but the assessing officer has allowed deductions on the n...

Addi Fashions Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. All these appeals were preferred from an order dated 31-3-1998 of the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi in proceedings under section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, hereafter referred to as the Act for short, in respect of charges of contravention under section 18(2) and 18(3) read with section 68(1) of the Act; by virtue of the said order, all the notices the Firm by name M/s. Addi Fashions and its two partners, were found guilty of the charges and so the firm was imposed with penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 whereas the partners Rs. 1,25,000 each. 2. The Appeal No. 14 is by the Firm whereas the Appeal Nos. 15 and 16 are by its partners. The appellants were Noticee Nos. 1 to 3 in the adjudication proceedings. The charge against the firm was that M/s. Addi Fashions had failed to repatriate an export proceeds equal to Rs. 10,78,400 in respect of GR No. 676590 and GR No. 779280, dated 17-5-1990 without any general or special permission from the RBI and s...

Kinjal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC35

1. The issue placed for consideration by the Larger Bench is whether an assessee can exercise option not to avail exemption contained under Notification No. 8/99, dated 28-2-99 and pay normal rate of duty on some of the specified goods and claim the benefit of the notification in respect of other specified goods cleared by it.2. The appellant is manufacturing nine different electrical goods. In their classification declaration effective from 1-4-99 they opted for the benefit of Notification No. 8/99 in respect of four different goods and in relation to remaining five goods they preferred to pay duty at Tariff rate and availed Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of said five items. The Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the appellant being SSI unit had to opt Notification No. 8/99 for exemption under value based clearance of all their final products as per Para (i) of the notification or pay normal rate of duty on all goods cleared by t...