Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

Balkrishna Ramkaran Goyal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi351; 2005(1)CTLJ197(Del); 117(2005)DLT338; 2005(80)DRJ268

D.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.2. Having regard to the urgency of the matters, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these have been taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.3. The issue involved and even the parties in both these writ petitions being common, both the petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.4. Challenge in these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the legality and propriety of the decision taken by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI for short), respondent No. 2 herein, not to open the financial bids submitted by the petitioner in response to their Notice Inviting Tender (NIT for short) for short term improvements and routine maintenance of road between Kanwalias (Bhilwara) to Jojro Ka Kheda (Chittorgarh). The petitioner seeks a direction to the NHAI to open their financial bids and consider the same along with the other bids in the manner contemplated in the NIT and if found to be the...

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Acmm Through State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT351; 2005(81)DRJ746

Manju Goel, J1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.6.1994 rejecting the application of the accused/revision petitioner for dropping the proceedings. The revision petition was filed by two petitioners, viz, M/s Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Gulshan Kumar who was the Managing Director of the Company. 2. The wealth tax return of the company for the assessment year 1985-86 was due to be filed on or before 30.6.1985. The same was filed only on 27.8.1987 along with the wealth tax returns for the assessment year and 1984-85 and 1986-87. As such there was delay in filing the wealth tax return for the assessment year in question by 25 months. This constitutes an offence under Section 35B of the Wealth Tax Act. 3. The question that arises in this revision petition is whether a company can be prosecuted for an offence punishable with a minimum period of imprisonment. The offence involved in this case is under Section 35B of the Wealth Tax Act which is ex...

A. Mullick Vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The complaint of the appellant seeking compensation of Rs. 8,000/- on account of damage caused to the picture tube of T.V. on 11.7.1990, as while repairing, the screw driver of the repairing mechanic of the respondent fell upon the picture tube, was dismissed vide order dated 18.8.1998 on the basis of doubtful nature of version of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. There is no dispute that mechanic of the respondent visited the premises of the appellant for repair of T.V. set on 11.7.1990 as is demonstrated from the job card. Though the T.V. set started working but after 15 minutes, it stopped showing the picture and when the mechanic was called again, he informed that there was crack in the picture tube due to which the T.V. was not working. When the appellant pointed out that crack in the picture tube has developed because the screw driver with which he was repairing T.V. fell from his hand upon the picture tube, t...

Ministry of Railways Vs. G.L. Sanghi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is a Union of India being Ministry of Railways. Respondent is a Senior Advocate of Supreme Court. It has been directed to refund the amount of difference of fares in AC First Class and AC two-tier to the respondent with 18% p.a. interest from 30.12.1992 till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the respondent and his wife jointly and also to pay another sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation on account of deficiency in service causing immense harassment and mental agony to the respondent. 2. Feeling aggrieved of the order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. According to the appellant, its only liability was to refund the amount of difference of fares in two classes and nothing more or nothing less. 4. Facts germane for our purpose lie in narrow compass. The respondent purchased two First Class AC tickets for travel from Nagpur to New Delhi on Tamilnadu Express on 30.12.1992. They were wait-listed at...

Eco Products India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC450

2. The appellant filed these appeals against the orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Common issue involved in these appeals, therefore, are being taken up together.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of water filter. On 16-9-98 the officers of Revenue department visited the factory of the appellant and it was found that 1216 water filters lying in factory which were not entered in their statutory record. The water filters were seized by the Revenue authorities. The adjudicating authority confiscated the water filters on the ground that these were not entered in their statutory records and ordered to release the goods on payment of redemption fine and penalty was also imposed. The central excise duty was also confirmed in respect of the water filters.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of small scale exemption notification as the brand name under which the goods were cle...

Great India Machine Tools Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC185

2. Both the appeals are common impugned order, therefore, being taken up together.3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. AGH Auto Engineers are manufacturing forging of bolts, Nuts and Studs and the same were cleared after availing the small scale exemption notification to Great India Machine Tools (M/s. GMT). The demand was raised against M/s. AGH on the ground that they were manufacturing and clearing the goods with the brand name of other company i.e. M/s. GMT. The penalty was also imposed on M/s. GMT. The finished goods bearing the brand name were confiscated from the premises of M/s. GMT on the ground that these were cleared without payment of duty.4. The contention of the appellant is that M/s. AGH are manufacturing only forging and the brand name of M/s. GMT is in the dye of forging, therefore, the goods cleared by the appellant are with the brand name of M/s. GMT. The contention of the appellant is that they are only clearing the forging and not the complete nut and bolt...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Delhi Ice-cream Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the impugned products manufactured by the respondents is held to be classifiable under Heading No. 2105 of Central Excise Tariff.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the impugned product is not ice cream, therefore, is classifiable under Heading No. 2108.99 of Central Excise Tariff.4 The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturing ice cream as well as they are clearing the ice cream and desserts mix ice cream in liquid form to the various customers. This product is used in the manufacture of ice cream of softy. The contention of the Revenue is that this is not an ice cream, therefore, it cannot be classifiable under Heading 2105 of the Tariff.5. The contention of the respondent is that they are clearing this liquid in bulk quantity and that too without any brand, therefore, in alternative they are claiming the classification under Heading No.2108.99 of the C...

Oswal Woollen Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding the Deputy Commissioner's order by which he confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 62,35,912/- together with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant unit, by applying Rule 8 and 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 and rejecting the value declared by the appellants.2. We have heard both sides. There is no dispute that sales were made by the appellants both to related persons as well as independent buyers. In these circumstances, the provisions of Rule 8 and 9 are not applicable, as held by the Tribunal in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE Mumbai 2004 (163) ELT 478 and Birdi Steels Vs. CCE, Ludhiana 2005 (179) ELT 82. Therefore, duty demand and penalty are not sustainable. We accordingly set aside the same and allow the appeal....

Arb Inc. Vs. Jcit, Special Range-14

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)93ITD520(Delhi)

1. The main issue arising in this appeal relates to the applicability of the provisions of Section 44BB of Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act).2. Briefly stated the facts are these: The assessee is a foreign company having its head office in USA. During the financial year 1995-96, it had received a contract from Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) for laying of pipelines through horizontal directional drilling across the Chambal and the Yamuna river. The total contractual receipts in the year under consideration amounted to Rs. 12,98,22,970/-. By invoking the provisions of Section 44BB, the assessee offered the net income at Rs. 1,29,82,297/- by applying the presumptive rate of 10% of the total receipts. The assessee was asked to explain as to how the provisions of Section 44BB were applicable to the present case. The explanation of the assessee before the AO was (i) that the pipelines laid by the assessee was to be used for the purpose of transportation of natural gas which falls within the me...

J.B. Dadachanji Vs. Ravinder NaraIn and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR333(Delhi); (2006)6CompLJ68(Del); 117(2005)DLT244; 2005(80)DRJ162; (2005)140PLR26

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The first application, IA.9696/03 is filed by Shri O.C. Mathur, respondent No. 2 under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for appointment of substitute arbitrator in place of Dr. Justice A. S. Anand on the ground that pending arbitration proceedings do not stand terminated under Section 32 of the Act. The second and third applications, I.As.11496 and 11599 of 2003 have been filed in A.A.No.122 of 2000 and CS(OS) No. 1084-A of 2000 by the petitioner and respondent No. 1/petitioner respectively in the said suit for withdrawal of their arbitration petition and the suit.2. The arbitration petition, Arb.P.No.122 of 2000 was filed by M/s J.B.Dadachanji(in short the `JBD') under Section 11 of the Act for appointment an arbitrator for adjudication of disputes regarding validity of modification deed dated 1st January, 1997, dissolution of firms and rendition of accounts. The respondent No. 1 in this petition is Sh...