Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments

Pragnesh Desai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(109)AWC899; 2004(73)DRJ84

D.K. Jain, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is to the legality and validity of order dated 23 October 2003, passed by the Government of India, against the petitioner under Section 5 of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') and to his continued judicial custody. 2. The factual background, on which the foundation of this judicial action is laid, is as follows:The petitioner, though of Indian origin being born in India, is a naturalized citizen of the United States of America and is a permanent resident of that country. On or about 7 February 2003 the petitioner and his fiancee, namely, Leona Swiderski, flew to India. Upon arrival at Bombay, they got separated at the airport. The petitioner claims to have lodged a missing report at the police station on the same day. On or about 8 February 2003, the police found the body of Leona Swiderski lying by the side of the road at Ahmedabad national highway No. 8, near Varsova ...

Shri Avtar Singh Vs. Smt. Sarla Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT148; 2004(73)DRJ355

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The question that arises in this Revision is whether the Trial Court was in error in dismissing the Plaintiffs Suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, having arrived at the conclusion that the Plaintiff/Revisionist had 'bitterly failed to prove his possession conclusively by any reliable evidence on record.' This Section reads thus-'Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property:- (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that maybe set up in such suit.(2) No suit under this section shall be brought- (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or(b) against the Government. (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.(4) Nothing in...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Autometer Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)547

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi, has referred three questions at the instance of Revenue for the asst. yr. 1982-83 arising out of the same assessment, but two different reference applications are there as there was an appeal and a cross-appeal. In IT Ref. No. 201 of 1991, the following two questions are referred :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 14,500 incurred in connection with the issue of bonus shares was allowable as revenue expenditure.2. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the perquisites of the director-employees of the company had to be considered in accordance with the proviso to Section 40(C) of the IT Act and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 40A(5) of the Act.'While in IT Ref. No. 202 of 1991, the following question is referred:'Whether, on the facts and in t...

S. Baljit Singh Vs. International Airport Authority of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ645

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the plaintiffs are the residents of village Bharthal, Tehsil Mehrauli. They have sought the injunction against the defendant No. 1 International Airport Authority of India for restraining them from raising construction on the wall on of the plaintiffs farm house resulting in the closure of the access to the 120 feet wide road to Bijwasan.2. The stand taken by defendant No. 1 is that the said access is their private property and, thereforee, the plaintiff have no locus standi to seek declaration or injunction against them. Now, it is admitted by Counsel for the defendant that the defendant made a statement in the Writ Petition No. 2013/99 and in another two writ petitions that the suit land was proposed to be sold to DDA for the purpose of the extension of the National Highway and, thereforee, the question of construction of the wall on the plaintiffs farm houses does not arise.3. In view of this subsequent devel...

Bhupendra Iron Rolling Mills Pvt. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC539

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the Commissioner allowed change of parameters of the Rolling mill with effect from 30.7.99.3. The contention of the appellants is that annual capacity of their rolling mill was fixed by the Commissioner of CE. vide order dated 29.6.98 under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act. The appellants vide letter dated 6.10.98 made request to the Commissioner of Central Excise regarding change of parameters of their rolling mill with effect from 26.10.98. As the Commissioner has not responded to the letter, the appellants again wrote to the Commissioner vide letter dated 31.12.98 informing the reduction in the parameters of their mill with effect from 26.10.98 and made request to verify the change in parameters of the mill. As the Commissioner has not replied to their request, vide letter dated 24.7.99 the appellants again made a request for re-determination of their annual capacity on the bas...

Bengal Saws and Steel Products Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC468

1. This appeal is against denial of Modvat credits totalling to Rs. 26,85,832. Out of this total credit, credit of Rs. 24,39,841 was taken during the period from 3.4.94 to 4.6.94 on input (HR strips) on the strength of endorsed invoices. Credit of Rs. 1,18,155.80 was taken during 24.7.94 to 8.11.94 on the strength of invoices which were not pre-authenticated. Another credit of Rs. 47,704.14 was taken during 17.11.94 to 24.3.95 on the basis of original copies of invoices. The remaining credit of Rs. 80,131.27 was taken during 20.1.95 to 17.2.95 on the basis of invoices not bearing signature of input-supplier and pre-printed Serial Number. All these credits were disallowed by the lower authority as per the impugned order which was passed in adjudication of show-cause notice issued on 2.4.96. A penalty of equal amount was also imposed on the appellants under Rule 173-Q(1)(bb) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Heard both the sides. The learned Counsel for the appellants submi...

Cce Vs. Epic Food Products (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When this case arose yesterday before this Bench, there was no representation for the respondents despite notice. The DR claimed that the issue involved in this appeal of the Revenue stood covered, in the appellant's favour, by a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal, but she could not give the citation. Hence the matter was posted to this day.2. Today, Id. DR reiterates the grounds of this appeal and relies on the following Larger Bench decisions of the Tribunal :- (i) CCE, Rajkot Vs. Ashok Iron & Steel Fabricators [2002 (140) ELT 277 (Tri.-LB)]Raghuvar (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi 3. The Larger Bench decision first above mentioned has been cited in support of the appellant's case in relation to Modvat credit of Rs. 7035/- allowed by the lower appellate authority to the respondents in respect of the inputs contained in finished goods lying in stock as on 1.3.2001. The second decision of the Larger Bench has been cited in support of the appellant's case in relation to Modvat cred...

Varanasi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Examined the records and heard both the sides. The appellants had pre-deposited on amount of Rs. 3,60,150/- with the department under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for the purpose of Appeal No.E/856/97-D as per direction of this Tribunal. That appeal was finally disposed of in their favour as per Final Order dated 5.11.99.subsequently, the party applied for refund of the amount. In that application they also claimed interest on the amount. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, however, ordered appropriation of the pre-deposit amount towards a demand of duty of over Rs. 5 lakhs which was subject matter of an appeal then pending with the commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the decision of the Assistant Commissioner, the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), but the latter dismissed it. Hence the present appeal.2. It has been submitted by Id. counsel for the appellants that there is no provision for set-off of pre-deposit against demand of duty. It has...

Monitex Dye Prints Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are manufacturers of processed man made fabrics coming under chapter 54 & 55 of the Central Excise Tariff. Challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 13.5.02.2. Two issues are raised in this appeal. One relates to fixation of annual capacity including the galleries alongwith 4.4 chambers. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of this tribunal in Sangam Processors reported in 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-59-CESTAT-DEL-SB affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme court as reported in 2002 (146) ELT 254. We, therefore, hold that to the extent the annual capacity is fixed including the galleries cannot be sustained.3. The other dispute relates to calculation of the average value of Rs. 30 per sg. m. based on the value of clearances during the preceding financial years. The appellant has taken into consideration only the value of the clearances for domestic consumption. The authorities below took the view that the valu...

G.D. Misherdhatu Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT97TriDel

1. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereunder the appeal of the appellants against the order imposing penalty was rejected.2. Briefly stated the appellants were held liable to pay duty of Rs. 68,216/- in respect of 15.15 MTs of S.S ingots, which were found short in the physical stocks when compared to the balance recorded in books of accounts. The appellants paid the duty on 18-12-98 - 23-12-98. The show cause notice issued on 4-1-99 sought confirmation of the said duty under Section 11A and also proposed imposition of penalty. In adjudication, the duty already paid was confirmed. In addition penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed under Rule 173Q, though the show cause notice proposed penalty under Section 11AC as well.3. Heard both sides. It is pleaded by the appellants that since the suppression and evasion has been involved the show cause notice ought to have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner and not the Superintendent. So far as this groun...