Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

Cit Vs. Smt. Sunita Aggarwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Del)527; [2006]284ITR20(Delhi)

The assessed sold a house situated in village Shahpur Jat for a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. The capital gain on the said sale proceeds was invested by her in the purchase and renovation of a property at 1, Ram Kishore Road, Delhi. Benefit under section 54 was claimed by the assessed qua the said investment which was declined by the assessing officer on the ground that the sale transaction of the property had been made only on paper. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance of deduction on the ground that the property purchased by the assessed in fact comprised two distinct units owned by two different persons. The Commissioner was of the view that the assessed was entitled to the benefit of deduction only to the extent of purchase of one unit. The assessing officer was, thereforee, directed to restrict the benefit under section 54 to 500 sq. yds. of land purchased by the assessed from one of the vendors. In a further appeal before the Tribunal the said view has been revers...

Vdcs Enterprises and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT385; 2005(85)DRJ420

Vijender Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed, inter-alia praying for quashing/setting aside the BIFR order dated 25.7.2003 passed in case No. 4 of 1998. The BIFR vide its impugned order has ordered for winding up of the company holding that the company is adopting dilatory tactics to enjoy undue protection under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and is not serious in reviving the company. 2. Mr. Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner has already settled with all the creditors and has made the payment in terms of the directions issued by BIFR except with the Operating Agency. In this case Operating Agency is Haryana Financial Corporation. As a matter of fact when this writ petition had come up AAIFR was not functioning and, thereforee, certain orders were passed by this Court. On 6.8.2003 this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the same was deposited. 3. In this matter ...

Syed Kaukab Raza Vs. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complaint of the appellant seeking refund of a amount of cheque of Rs. 3,06,000 on which his signatures were forged as a leaf had been removed from the cheque book was dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.6.2005 solely on the ground that the question whether the signatures on the cheque which was encashed were tallied or not cannot be investigated or inquired in summary proceedings as it required detailed evidence, including opinion of Handwriting Expert and further that the case being that of cheating through forged signatures cannot be treated as a deficiency in service. 2. On the face of it the impugned order has inherent infirmity inasmuch as it was for the banker to establish the fact that the signatures on the cheque tallied with the signatures of the appellant as it is only when signatures on cheque are found that of the account holder that the cheques are cleared and further by Section 13(1)(c) the District Forum is empowered to obtain the reports f...

Mohammed Rafique Vs. New Delhi Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The limited grievance against the impugned order dated 29.9.2005 passed by District Forum is that instead of granting full rebate of LPSC levied by the respondent in the electricity bill of Rs. 2,23,500 which was raised for the first time in the year 2001 and had included arrears from 1992 is that the District Forum has erred in giving only 50% of rebate of LPSC. 2. The grievance of the appellant on the face of it is justified as the respondent had committed grossest kind of deficiency in service in not raising the electricity bill regularly even if the meter in question remained defective or it was not replaced nor the defect was removed for such a long period of time. For no fault of the appellant, the respondent has been given a premium for its own deficiency in service, negligence, cavalier and casual attitude towards the consumers. Instead of taking such a service provider to task by imposing very heavy punitive damages and recovering the same from the s...

Ashok Kumar Vs. Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The limited grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 6.6.2005 is that the District Forum has misinterpreted its own order dated 20.2.2003 while dealing with the execution application. The complaint of the appellant was allowed with the directions to the respondent to refund the security and other charges such as interest and cost of litigation when the execution was filed, the amount deposited towards the development and services charges were not deemed as other charges mentioned in the main order on the premise that in the complaint itself no such relief was sought. After having held the respondent guilty and deficient in service, the District Forum was liable to execute the order passed by it in letter and spirit. The District Forum is hereby directed to assess the charges as per the impugned order including every kind of charges and amount received by the respondent. 2.Appeal is disposed of in above terms. 3.A copy of this order, as per ...

Artee Graphite P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that on 2.12.98 a truck carrying the insecticides were found at about 3.00 P.M.near the factory of the appellant. The driver and representative of transporter who was also with the truck produced the invoice No. 234 dated 30.11.98 and GR No. 125 dated 30.11.98. Both the persons gave a statement to the Excise officers that the goods were loaded at 2.30 P.M on 2.12.98 from the premises of the appellant. The goods were seized on the ground that the pre-dated invoice under which the earlier goods were cleared were again used for clearing the excisable goods.2. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and allowed the same on redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000/-, The contention of the appellant is that the goods were insecticides and the goods were manufactured on behalf of M/s Excel India Ltd. with their brand name. Th...

Satyender Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant has filed this application for interim stay of the impugned order made by the Commissioner holding that the ready made garments exported vide 21 shipping bills as detailed in paragraph 2 of the show cause notice which declared the FOB value of Rs. 2,14,84,638/- were liable for confiscation under Section 113 (i) of the Customs Act and imposing fine of Rs. 10 lacs on the exporters in lieu of confiscation and further declaring that the drawback of Rs. 26,23,075/- was not admissible under Section 76(l)(b) of the Customs Act and directing recovery thereof from the exporter under Rule 16 and 16A of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 with interest under Section 75A(2) of the Act and further imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lacs on M/s. Varuna Overseas under Section 114 of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lacs on Satyender Singh, Proprietor of that concern.2. Satyender Singh was the proprietor of M/s. Varuna Overseas. The shipping bills of Varuna Overseas w...

Cce Vs. Sanchita Steels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order allowed the appeal on the ground that in the case of M/s Shree Ambika Steel and M/s Lakshmi Steels, Mandi Gobindgarh, the Assistant Commissioner has dropped the demand, therefore, the imposition of penalty on the present respondent is not sustainable.2. The contention of the Revenue is that in fact the adjudicating authority in the case of M/s Shree Ambika Steel confirmed the demand vide Order-in-Original No. 163/97 dated 5.12.97 and in the case of M/s Lakshmi Steels, the demand was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No, 189/98 dated 15.3.99, therefore, the finding of the Commissioner in the impugned order are not sustainable.3. In view of this factual position the respondent has no serious objection to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh after taking into consideration the adjudication order passed in the case o...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sudesh Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These stay applications have been filed by the revenue for staying the operation of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has set aside the order of the original authority.2. We have heard the learned JDR. From the record we find that the demand is raised on the basis of the figures supplied by HP PWD who purchased the Bitumen Emulsion from the respondent. HP PWD has confirmed that the respondent had collected the amount from HP PWD for the invoice under which the goods have been received by them. The respondents have cleared 935.4 MTs. of Bitumen Emulsion in 1998-99 to HP PWD and 2208.3 MTs. during the year 1999-2000 whereas they have declared their sales as 82 MTs during 1998-99 and 1931. 3 MTs. during the year 1999-2000 in their RT-12 returns. Since the goods which were cleared to HP PWD were received by HP PWD and they have made the payment for the same, it is not necessary for the revenue to establish from the receipt of raw material on ward to clandestine c...

Supreme Marble and Granites Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC315

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant is only challenging the confiscation and consequential redemption fine in respect of machine i.e chain saw stone cutting machine. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Rajasthan Udyog cleared one machine under the challan for testing by debiting 10% of the value of the machine i.e. Rs. Three lakhs. At the time of clearance for testing M/s Rajasthan Udyog described the same as parts and components of stone cutting machine.First time the machine was cleared on 19.1.2000 and it was returned in the factory of the manufacturer on 13.8.2000 and thereafter the same machine was cleared on payment of appropriate duty to the appellant vide invoice dated 14.8.2000. The Revenue officer visited the appellant's mine on 7.12.2001, a show-cause notice was issued demanding duty from M/s Rajasthan Udyog and for confiscation of the machine in question on the ground that the earlier machi...