Delhi Court May 2004 Judgments

Kathuria Public School Vs. Director of Education and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT703

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. This writ petition raises an important issue about the effect of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in TMA Pat Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., : AIR2003SC355 on the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules').2. The factual matrix in the present case is limited. The respondent No. 2 was a Post Graduate Teacher with the petitioner school and was appointed as a Vice-Principal for a period of one year vide an order dated 4.3.2002 but allegedly on account of unsatisfactory performance was reverted bade However, that is not the issue which arises in the present petition since subsequently disciplinary proceedings were started against respondent No. 2 on the ground that the respondent No. 2 had failed to follow the code of conduct for teacher as contained in the said Act and the Rules, spec...

Addl. Cit Vs. Vestas Rrb India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]92ITD2(Delhi)

ORDERB.R. Jain, A.M.This appeal by the revenue against the order dated 297-2000 of learned CIT (A)-XIV, New Delhi raises the following grounds :'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in holding that no disallowance could be made under section 43B in respect of late deposit of employers contribution to PF and simultaneously no addition could be made under section 2(24)(x) in respect of late deposit of employees contribution to PF although such deposits are required to be made within the due date as per the provisions of section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in holding that the due date for deposit of PF is 20th (including 5 days grace period) of the following month in which salary is actually paid to the employees instead of 15th of the following month for which such salary is payable.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of t...

Cce Vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC435

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice.3. The Revenue filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable in respect of goods captively utilised by the manufacturer. The Commissioner relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Alcatel Modi Networks Systems v. CCE, 4. The contention of the Revenue is that this issue is now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. and Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the principles of unjust enrichment are applicable even in the case of captive consumption.5. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order allowed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable in the case of captive consumption of the goods. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v...

Nestle India Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The main issue raised in these appeals is the classification of two items manufactured by the appellant in their factory at Moga, Punjab.These items are "Nescafe 3-in-1" and "Nescafe Pre-Mix". the appellants claimed classification under sub-heading 21.08 of the Central Excise Tariff. The impugned order rejected that claim and confirmed classification under heading 2101.10. The present appeal challenges that order of classification. The heading in question read as under: 21.01 Extracts essences and concentrates, of coffee or tea, and preparations with a basis of these products pr with a basis of coffee or tea; roasted chicory and other roasted coffee substitutes, and extracts, essences and concentrates thereof. 2101.10 Extracts, essences and concentrates, of coffee, and preparations with a basis of these extracts, essences or concentrates or with a basis of coffee.2. The impugned Order-in-Appeal has noted that heading 21.01 specifically covers coffee products while 21.08 is a residu...

Engineering Innovative Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC97

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of Sheet Metal Components which are liable to Central Excise duty on advalorum basis. The tooling required for manufacture of components was either received free from the components buyers or the components buyers paid for them separately.The appellant did not include the value attributable to the cost of tooling while determining the assessable value of the components.Therefore, duty demand was raised in respect of the price attributable to the tools in the value of the components. The demand was made invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act which allow issue of show cause notice during extended period. The lower authorities confirmed the demand. When the matter came up earlier before this Tribunal, the Tribunal remanded the case for consideration of the submission relating to limitation. On re-consideration of the case the lower authorities have held that the extended period was attracted inasmuch as the fact of free supply of ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. U.T. Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT168TriDel

1. The appeal is accompanied by a condonation of delay application. The delay involved is 45 days. We have heard both sides on the condonation of delay application, stay application and appeal.2. Revenue's appeal is about penalty. It is being contended that penalty was mandatory and Commissioner made an error in setting aside penalty on the ground that "two views were possible" on the question of valuation. A perusal of the records makes it clear that the difference in price between supplies made to the market (M/s. TAFE, Madras) and clearances made to appellants Hosur unit is on account of the fact that the transfers to the Hosur-unit were of semi-finished items which required further processing, while the sales to buyers is of fully finished items. Thus, there was a valid explanation for difference in prices. Penal provisions cannot be invoked in such a cases.3. The appeal of the Revenue, therefore, has no merit. It is rejected after condoning the delay....

P.S. Cars (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)92TTJ(Delhi)71

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of CIT(A), dt.14th June, 2000 for financial year 1995-96. The only ground raised in the appeal is against the penalty of Rs. 54,950 levied under Section 201 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act).2. The assessee-company bad filed its annual return of rent for the financial year under consideration showing an amount of Rs. 97,225 deducted at source. On perusal of the lease agreement filed by the assessee, it was noticed that it had paid a sum of Rs. 2,22,000 to the lessor as interest-free deposit. The ITO (TDS) was of the view that the said deposit was nothing but rent paid in advance by the assessee. In this connection, the ITO referred to Clause 4 of the lease agreement.It was explained by the assessee that the security deposit was adjustable against rent only at the end of the lease period for which 3 months' notice was required to be given for vacating the premises. The ITO considered this to be an afterthought and levied the impugned...

Vivek Ispat Udyog Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Delhi)1090

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 16th Oct., 2002.2. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, the learned counsel, appeared for the assessee, whereas Shri S.K. Gupta, the senior Departmental Representative represented the Department.3. The ground No. 1 taken in this appeal challenges the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961. Before the learned CIT(A), it appears that the assessee has not challenged the issuance of notice under Section 148. As the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated upon this issue, this ground has not emanated from the order of the CIT(A). Before us also, this ground was not pressed. In view of the above, this ground is rejected as not pressed.4. The second ground challenges the sustenance of the addition of Rs. 39,100 being the remuneration paid to Shri Pawan Kumar Paharia, the partner of the assessee-firm. The assessee-firm had declared the income of Rs. 14,660. The AO noticed that the firm had paid remuneratio...

Ravi Datt S/O Shri Chuni Lal Vs. Chuni Lal S/O Late Shri Giani Ram

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi405; 2004(75)DRJ39

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 9th July, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Suit No. S-31/2000. By the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed an application filed by the Appellant under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC.2. The Respondent is the owner of house bearing No.F-125, Village Lado Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. This house was built upon a portion of land which devolved upon the Respondent after the death of his father and as per a family settlement. 3. The Appellant, who is the Respondent's son, was earlier living in another house owned by the Respondent but on his asking, the Respondent permitted him to occupy a portion of the house built upon the aforesaid land. Obviously, this was because of the close relationship between the parties.4. It appears that after the Appellant occupied a portion of the suit premises, the relationship between the parties began to sour with the result that the Responde...

Joginder Malhotra Vs. A.i.i.M.S. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT836; 2004(75)DRJ282; 2005(1)SLJ247(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer (C) under the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) vide memo dated 17.12.1982. Appointment was on a purely temporary basis for a period of three months. Appointment continued. On 24.11.1986, services of the petitioner were regularised.2. Petitioner claims that for the purposes of seniority and computation of wages, increments and step up in the grade, benefit of service rendered by the petitioner since 1982 be granted to him. 3. As per the respondent petitioner's appointment vide memo dated 17.12.1982 was ad-hoc and de-hors the rules. Initial appointment was for three months but it was continued. Process of regular selection was commenced and finally, as per the said process of selection, petitioner was regularly appointed on 24.11.1986. As per the respondent ad-hoc appointment de-hors the rules cannot be treated as regular service, it cannot be treated as service which has to be counted for the purpose of...