Delhi Court June 2004 Judgments

L.T. Overseas Ltd. and ors. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and anr.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: IV(2004)BC33

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 6.2.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), dismissing the application filed by the defendants 1 to 3 (applicants herein; hereinafter referred to as the appellant-defendants'), seeking leave of the DRT to cross-examine the respondent-Bank's witness Suraj Kalra.2. The 1st respondent - Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-Bank") has filed O.A. 343/98 against the appellants (as defendants I to 3) and the 2nd respondent herein (as the 4th defendant) for (he recovery of Rs. 99,32,224.93 with interest and costs.3. The appellant-defendants have filed a written statement to the O.A.disputing their liability. The 4th defendant has also filed a written statement to the O.A.4. The appellant-defendants filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking leave of the DRT to cross-examine the respondent - Bank's witness Suraj Kalra, whose a...

Ashok Vij Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. This is a complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the complainant Shri Ashok Vij had registered himself under the 1985 Sixth Self Financing Scheme Category-II floated by the O.P. and had also deposited Rs. 10,000/- as the registration amount. However, though the complainant had opted for a flat in Vasant Kunj and Sukhdev Vihar as his first and second preference for locality the O.P. vide allotment letter dated 10/18.8.1994 had allotted a flat in favour of complainant in Dwarka Block-I, Pocket-I, Category-II, Duplex (GF+FF) for a total estimated cost of Rs. 8,30,000/-. In response thereto the complainant had paid in lumpsum four instalments of Rs. 7,28,607/- being 90% of the total cost, inclusive of the interest as calculated on the instalments. However, despite having paid 90% of the cost of the flat, the possession of the flat allotted, was not handed over to the ...

Shravasti Kisan Sahkari Chinni Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC570

1. The appellant is a sugar mill. The demand in the present case is in respect of over 9000 qntls. of sugar cleared by the appellant during November and December 1997.2. Facts of the case are that part of sugar produced by a sugar mill is to be supplied as "levy sugar". Levy sugar quantity is fixed by the Government. Levy sugar also attracts a lower rate of duty. The aforesaid clearance of sugar took place on a direction by the Directorate of Sugar to supply this quantity as additional quantity of levy sugar. It is not disputed that sugar in question was supplied as "levy sugar". The demand has been raised claiming duty at the higher rate applicable to full sale sugar merely on the ground that Directorate of Sugar vide their letter dated 13.10.88 had intimated that the difference of duty between free sale sugar levy sugar would be reimbursed by the Government of India. However, no reimbursement has taken place, since original payment of duty way at rate applicable to levy sugar and th...

Be Office Automation and Bhagwan Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These five appeals, three by Be-Office Automation and two by Bhagwan Electro Photocopier, relates to proceedings against the import of photocopier main frames by the appellants. Under the impugned order, the goods were proceeded against under three counts: one relating to import control and the other two relating to classification and valuation under the Customs Act. With regard to import control, the objection raised was that the item is a sub-assembly and not component, the point being that while components are eligible for import under the OGL, sub-assembly required license. With regard to classification, the lower authorities held that the main frame is required to be treated as a photocopier itself in terms of Rule 2(A) of Rules for the Interpretation of Tariff Schedule. On the question of valuation, the impugned orders held that the declared value is required to be enhanced and goods assessed on the basis of enhanced value.2. Today when the cases came up for hearing, the lear...

Reliance Telecom Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC291

1. The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by M/s. Reliance Telecom Ltd., is whether the appeals filed by them against two Orders-in-Original both dated 31-12-1999 were filed within the time-limit stipulated in Section 128 of the Customs Act.2. Shri Rohan Shah, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported computer hardware and filed Bills of Entry dated 21-6-1997 and 15-7-1997 classifying the goods under sub-heading 8471.49 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act; that the consignments were permitted to be cleared on their furnishing Bond under the provisions of Section 143 of the Customs Act for production of import licence or otherwise proving that licence produced was valid for clearances of the goods; that by a letter dated 9-12-2000, they wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs stating that the Bonds were pending for cancellation and requested that copies of bonds and other related documents be provided to their clearing agent; that they were forwar...

Hindustan Fibres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT579TriDel

1. It is brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the appellants that their request for permission to dispose off the assets to comply with the directions regarding pre-deposit was declined by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction.2. In the light of the above, we modify our order dated 7-10-2003 and grant exemption in pre-deposit and stay of recovery....

Victoria Creations Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT188TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Victoria Creations, is whether the benefit of Notification No. 115/75-C.E., dated 30-4-75 is available to Natural Sheep Fur Skin imported by them.2. Shri Piyush Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported 5 consignments of Natural Sheep Fur Skins claiming classification under sub-heading 4302.19 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act and under Heading 43.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that in respect of Additional duty of Customs they claimed exemption under Notification No. 115/75-C.E,, dated 30-4-75 which exempted products manufactured in Tanning industry; that both the lower authorities has denied the benefit of the Notification on the ground that they had not submitted any evidence to show that the impugned goods are products of Tanning industry. The learned Advocate submitted that the impugned goods are Tanned Hair on skin sheets processed in a tanning Industry; that as per Explanator...

World Wide Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. the Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91ITD519(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Id. Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) dated 25. 2. 1999 for the assessment year 1994-95. The Id. CIT(A)-XV has erred in deciding that the notice Under Section 143(2) was validly served within the time allowed under the Act and the same was not duly and properly served before 31.10.1995. Service of the notice by affixture on the 30.10.1995 in a due and proper manner as laid down in Rule 17 & 19 from Order V of Civil Procedure Code, Vol. II is and should be a matter of record, The notice issued on the 30.10.95 was served on the assessee's AR by Redg. AD post on 20.11.1995, again a matter of record." 3. Shri R. V. Sinha, appeared for the assessee whereas Shri Lav Saxena the Departmental Representative represented the Department.4. The facts relevant for deciding the controversy in the ground of appeal taken by the assessee are that the return was filed by the assessee on the 28.10.1994 for the assessment year 19...

Winner Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.i.T.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These cross-appeals, one by the assessee for assessment year 1998-99 and the other by the revenue for assessment year 1997-98 are directed against order of CIT(Appeals) relating to claim of liability of Rs. 88,69,000/-. The learned CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim in assessment year 1997-98 but disallowed the same in the next year. Both the parties are aggrieved and have brought the issue in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.2. The aforesaid liability of Rs. 88,69,000 was claimed in the following circumstances: The assessee received share application money amounting to Rs. 1,08,18,995 from four parties on 22.11.1994 as per details noted in para 4 of order of CIT (Appeals) for assessment year 1998-99. This money was received by way of pay orders and deposited in the company's account with Bank of America. The amount was credited on 23.11.1994. The assessee, simultaneously issued three cheques for aggregate amount of Rs. 99,42,258 dated 16.11.1994 on 22.11.1994. The aforesaid cheque...

Winner Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91ITD431(Delhi)

1. These cross-appeals, one by the assessee for asst. yr. 1998-99 and the other by the Revenue for asst. yr. 1997-98 are directed against order of CIT(A) relating to claim of liability of Rs. 88,69,000. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim in asst. yr. 1997-98 but disallowed the same in the next year. Both the parties are aggrieved and have brought the issue in appeal before the Tribunal.2. The aforesaid liability of Rs. 88,69,000 was claimed in the following circumstances: The assessee received share application money amounting to Rs. 1,08,18,995 from four parties on 22nd Nov., 1994 as per details noted in para 4 of order of CIT (A) for asst. yr. 1998-99. This money was received by way of pay orders and deposited in the company's account with Bank of America. The amount was credited on 23rd Nov., 1994. The assessee, simultaneously issued three cheques for aggregate amount of Rs. 99,42,258 dt. 16th Nov., 1994 on 22nd Nov., 1994. The aforesaid cheques were debited to the account of the...