Delhi Court August 2004 Judgments

Molok Boloky Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC464

1. Mrs. Molok Boloky has filed this Appeal against confiscation of diamonds seized from her possession and imposition of penalty.2. Shri C. Hari Shankar, Ld. Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants was off-loaded from an Iranian Airway flight on 13.10.2002 and the diamonds were found in a pickle jar in the checked in baggage of the Appellants; that the Commissioner, in the impugned Order, has relied on Paras 2.2, 2.31 and 4.4.15 of the EXIM Policy 2002-2007 and on Para 4.81 of the Handbook of Procedure; that the Commissioner has also mentioned about contravention by the Appellants of the Export Baggage Rules, 1978 which the Appellant has not been able to trace; that a specific submission to this effect was made before the Commissioner, with a request to make available the said Rules; that the Commissioner has confirmed the violation of the said Export Baggage Rules, 1978 without disclosing them to the Appellant. He, further, mentioned that the Commissioner has held as under: (i) Para ...

Windsor Metal Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC25

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the denial of the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.2.93 to the appellants. The benefit of this notification has been denied to them on the ground of having used the brand names "Philco", "Windsor and Wilson" on their products 'pressure cookers' belonging to another persons namely M/s Philco Metal Industries and M/s Philco Home Appliances respectively. To substantiate this ground/allegations made in the show cause notice, reliance by the department has been placed solely on the testimony of Shri M.L. Ahuja, one of the partners of the appellants firm.2. We have heard both the sides and gone through the records. From the record, it is evident that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of only pressure cookers and they are clearing the same under their own brand name 'Windsor'. There is no evidence on the record to prove if this brand name belo...

R. Bhaskar and anr. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC89

1. This is an application for the transfer of T.A. 421/2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Case') third as Punjab and Sind Bank v. Bhartiya Vyapar and Udyog and Ors. pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi to any other Debts Recovery Tribunal at Delhi. The applicants have sought transfer of the above said case from the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Delhi on the ground that the Counsel for the applicants has filed a complaint dated 4.11.2003 against the Presiding Officer of the said DRT before this Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRAT'). According to the applicants, the cause for the said complaint has arisen during hearing of the above said case and, therefore, the above said case should be transferred.2. In the complaint dated 4.11.2003 sent by the Counsel for the applicants to this DRAT it has been stated that on 4.11.2003 the Presiding Officer used the words, "Mind your language, you are a lady you should know, etc." against the Counsel for the ...

N.B.i. Industrial Finance Co. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)1SOT132(Delhi)

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT (A) dated 27-11-2001 for assessment year 1998-99."On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the several actions of the authorities below in : 1. disallowing claim of bad debts amounting to Rs. 7,48,819 while determining the taxable income; 2. treating short term capital loss on sale of shares at Rs. 66,880 while speculation loss; 3. determining book proofs at the assessed income of Rs. 8,38,898 against loss of Rs. 97,209 in terms of explanation to section 115JA(2) of the Act and charging tax on Rs. 2,51,669.5. charging interest in violation of Apex Court orders in Ranchi Club Ltd. are grossly erroneous, palpably unjust and totally illegal and must all be quashed".3. At the time of hearing of the appeal, ground No. 4 was not pressed, hence the same is dismissed.The first ground is with regard to the claim of the assessee for bad debt amounting to Rs. 7,48,819. The brief background is that the asse...

Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is a manufacturer of tyres. Two tyres were purchased by the respondent from its dealer M/s. Link Tyres for Rs. 2,200/- each on 20.1.2000. One of the tyres developed cracks after two months. The defects were pointed out to the dealer who advised him to deposit the said tyre with the branch of the appellant. In spite of several visits of the respondent to the branch office of the appellant for replacement of the tyre, the appellant did not pay any heed. On account of deficiency in service, the appellant has been directed vide impugned order 9.2.2001 to replace the defective tyre of the same type or refund the amount of Rs. 2,200/-. 2. Through this appeal said order has been challenged. The plea taken by the appellant is that the tyre deposited by the respondent was examined carefully and no defects were found in the same and the respondent was informed accordingly on 31.3.2000 but he did not care to take back his tyre. The appellant have nowhere m...

Goramal Hariram Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT190TriDel

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the classification of cleaning powder manufactured by them. On 18.11.91, appellants truck containing 165 bags of 555 brand washing powder and 25 bags containing 555 brand cleaning powder collectively valued at Rs. 72,150 was seized by the Preventive officers of the Central Excise, Noida. Those goods were seized but handed over on supurdari to Pawan Kumar, Director of the appellants company. The show cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing the classification of the cleaning powder manufactured by them under Chapter sub-heading 3402.90 of the CET.After getting the report of the Chemical Examiner, the adjudicating authority confirmed the classification under the above-said sub-heading and also the duty demand with penalty as detailed in the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed that order.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the appella...

Airlight Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC319

2. The appellant filed these appeals against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Since common issue is raised in these appeals, therefore, they are being taken up together.3. The brief facts of the case are as under. The appellant filed a refund claim on 13.12.2002 in pursuance to the Final Order passed by the Tribunal, whereby the demand and penalty imposed on the appellant were set aside. During the proceedings which were set aside by the Tribunal, the appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 4,30,326. On 16.11.99 another amount of Rs. 7,48,416 was deposited in pursuance to the stay order passed by the Tribunal for hearing of the appeal.4. After filing the refund on 13.12.2002 the appellant took credit in their Modvat account on 16.1.2003. Two show-cause notices were issued to the appellant. A show-cause notice dated 6.2.2003 was issued for rejection of the refund and the other show-cause notice was issued on 5.6.2003 for recovery of the credit which was taken suo moto...

Bajrang Lal Bansal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)1071

1. The issue arising in this appeal relates to the estimation of household expenses as well as powers of enhancement by the CIT(A) on the basis of certain material found in the course of search.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that in the course of regular assessment proceedings Under Section 143(3), it was seen that assessee had declared household expenses at Rs. 54.000. His family comprises of himself, his wife and three children-out of which two were school-going. It was also noticed that the other family members, i.e., brothers had also declared household expenses at Rs. 72,000 and Rs. 30,000. The total expenditure was thus taken at Rs. 1,56,000 which was considered to be on lower side considering the fact that the children of the assessee were going to school. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 44,000 was made.3. The said addition was challenged before the CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) took into consideration the various materials found in the course of ...

Skyland Builders P. Ltd. Vs. I.T.O.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91ITD392(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) 11, New Delhi dated 27^th December 2002 for assessment year 1999-2000 on the following grounds: 1. "That on the facts the order passed by the assessing officer/commissioner of Income Tax [Appeal], hereinafter referred as CIT[A] are bad in law and void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) hereinafter referred as CIT{A} erred in disallowing expenses incurred and reflected in the profit and loss account for the purpose of business.' 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT{A} erred in treating Mesne Profit [including interest on Mesne Profit] as revenue receipt and taxing the same as income from other sources. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT{A} erred in disallowing repair and maintenance expenses and directing allowance of repair and maintenance expenses in accordance wit...

Bansi Lal Agarwal Vs. Kewal Krishan Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(77)DRJ538; 2004(29)PTC544(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J.IA 4860-61/2004Allowed subject to all just exceptions.IA stands disposed of.IA 4859/20041. This is an application seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining all the defendants from publishing or distributing any notice, caution notices or any other publication in any newspaper as per annexures P-t collectively or in the same/similar nature thereto. This is is filed in the present suit which is for permanent injunction and damages. The suit is primarily founded on the defamatory statements alleged to have been made by the defendant by such publications in respect of which the injunction has been sought. The facts of the case are that Shakti Bhog Label is a product of the plaintiff in respect of which a Suit No. 8/2002 is pending before the learned Additional District Judge filed by the defendant against the plaintiff. The plaintiff who is the present defendant) avers in that suit that he is a since 1975 a manufacturer of food products by the well known name of Shakti B...