Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Satya NaraIn Chandok

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT331TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the confiscation of the seized goods (silk yarn) and imposition of penalty on the respondent.2. None has come on behalf of the respondent. No request for adjournment has been received from him. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned SDR.3. The learned SDR has contended that the seized goods were of foreign origin being of Chinese Silk Yarn recovered from the premises of the respondent, therefore, the same were liable to be confiscated as the respondent had failed to prove his legal possession in respect thereof.The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside.4. In our view, this contention of the SDR is not liable to be accepted. From the record, we find that the respondents claimed to have purchased the goods (Chinese Silk Yarn) from M/s. Anmol Trading Company and M/s. SB Textiles, Vara...

Triveni Glass Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT203TriDel

1. The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by M/s. Triveni Glass Ltd., is whether the cost of secondary packing is to be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by them.2. Shri V.N. Shukla, learned Advocate, fairly mentioned that the issue regarding inclusion of cost of secondary packing in the assessable value of sheet glass manufactured by them has been decided by the Allahabad High Court against the appellants as reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 313 (All). He submitted that as per the Board's Circular F. No.6/24/74-CX-1., dated 18-8-1975, glass and glassware are capable of being sold without packing and packing in such a case need not be held as a process incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of the final product; that the Board, therefore, decided that in the case of glass and glassware, inclusion of packing charges may not be insisted upon in determining the assessable value. He, therefore, contended that in view of this Circular, which has since not b...

Kesar Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT66TriDel

1. When the matter came up today for consideration of stay application, it was observed that the appeal itself may be disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit, I proceed to consider the appeal.2. The dispute in the present case is about eligibility for Modvat credit of asbestos packing and slat. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the eligibility of asbestos packing remains settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case reported in [2004 (178) E.L.T. 275 (T) = 2004 (62) RLT 764].With regard to slat, it is being pointed out that since it is a part of cane carrier which is a machine used in the sugar industry, all its parts, irrespective of classification will be eligible for Modvat credit. Learned Counsel pointed out that this position has been clarified by the Board Circular No. 276/110/96-TRU, dated 2-12-1996.3. A perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal and the clarification of the B...

income Tax Officer Vs. G.B. Morrision Travels (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)117

1. This appeal by the Revenue for financial year 2001-02 is directed against order of the CIT(A) cancelling penalty of Rs. 1,79,342 imposed under Section 271C of the IT Act.2. The assessee-company is carrying on business as a travel agent for different airlines. The company is member of IATA. During the period under reference, the assessee deducted tax at source on commission of Rs. 49,25,931 paid to sub-agents. However, the AO found that in the P&L a/c, commission and discount were shown under the head "Handling charges" at Rs. 7,14,37,140. The AO accordingly issued show-cause notice to the assessee for short deduction of tax at source. The AO also imposed interest/penalty under Section 201(1)/201(1A). The matter for imposition of penalty under Section 271C for shortfall in deduction of tax was referred to the Jt. CIT. After considering reply of the assessee, the Jt. CIT as per the impugned order, held that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source from discount paid by the...

J.P. Thakur Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT653; 2005(80)DRJ675

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this is a fit case in which anticipatory bail ought to be granted. He submitted that there was a Subzi Mandi at Shahadara which in view of the setting up of the Delhi Metro Network was required to be shifted to Ghazipur. Accordingly, fresh licenses were required to be issued to the persons entitled for the subzi mandi at Ghazipur. It is alleged that there were certain irregularities with regard to the grant of these licenses for Ghazipur. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was involved in this conspiracy for granting licenses to persons who were not entitled to and denying those who were entitled as also granting licenses after the resolution passed in the meeting of the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board which was held on 24.5.2000 which had clearly barred the grant of fresh licenses. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this resolution would only take effect...

Delhi Development Authority, Through Its Vice Chairman Vs. Associated ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT633; 2005(80)DRJ734

Vijender Jain, J. 1. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage. The impugned order has been challenged by Mr.Sapra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the application for appointment of an arbitrator was pursuant to Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. thereforee, time for appointment of an arbitrator within thirty days of the demand does not get automatically forfeited after expiry of thirty days. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Datar Switchgear Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd. and anr. JT 2000 (Suppl. 2) SC 226.'In the present case, the respondent made the appointment before the appellant filed the application under Section 11 but the said appointment was made beyond 30 days. Question is whether in a case falling under Section 11(6), the opposite party cannot appoint an Arbitrator after the expiry of 30 days from the date of demand. So far as cases falling under Section 11(6) are conce...

P.L. Khatala Vs. K.C. Malhotra and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT117

Acts/Rules/Orders: Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Section 151 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2; Constitution of India - Article 227OrderC.K. Mahajan, J.1. The respondents raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition. It is contended that the impugned order is appealable and the remedy by way of a petition under Article 227 is misconceived.2. I have heard Counsel for the parties at some length on the preliminary objection. In the present case while granting the injunction the Trial Court did not discuss the requirement of a prima facie case and irreparable injury and it would be reasonable to hold that the order was passed under Section 151, CPC. The impugned Order being not a final order to my mind is not appealable and the present petition would be maintainable.3. By way of the present petition the petitioner assails the Order of the Civil Judge dated 24th December, 2004. While issuing notice in the suit and the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and S...

Mrs. Monica Gogia Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2006)BC260; 2005CriLJ3198; 2005(81)DRJ545

Manju Goel, J.1. These are six petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for dropping/quashing the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981 (in short 'N.I. Act'). The complaints under Section 138 N.I. Act have been filed by Shri Neeraj Gupta, proprietor of Colts Contec. The principal accused in these complaints is M/s. Gogia International Securities Ltd., respondent No. 3 herein. Accused No. 2-Mr. Satish Gogia (respondent No. 4 herein) is said to be the Managing Director and Principal Officer while the petitioner, Ms. Monica Gogia-accused No. 3 in the complaint, is shown to be the person responsible for the business of the principal accused M/s. Gogia International Securities Ltd. Six complaints have been filed under the same provisions over different cheques issued by accused No. 1. The ground on which the proceedings and the complaint are sought to be quashed are common in all the petitions. thereforee, by this judgment all these six petitions will be disposed ...

Everest Enterprises Vs. Airports Authority of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR314(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioner was allotted an annual rate contract for repair and maintenance of civil works at Lucknow Airport for the year 2003-2004. Clause 57 of the general conditions of contract applicable to the said works envisages adjudication of the disputes between the parties by way of arbitration. Disputes having arisen, the petitioner appears to have addressed letters dated 19th May, 2004 and 31st May, 2004 to the Regional Executive Director, Airports Authority of India and Executive Director, Airports Authority of India respectively, seeking a reference of the same to arbitration in terms of Clause 57 (supra). The receipt of the said letters by the authority concerned notwithstanding, no arbitrator was nominated for adjudication of the matters in controversy forcing the petitioner to file the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Mr. Chandwani has, in response to the notice issued to the Airports Authority of India, appeared...

B.K. Tyres Vs. Capt. Bharat Nagar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Main grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 11.10.2004 passed by the District Forum, whereby it has been directed to pay Rs. 2,000/-, on account of cost of the tyre purchased by the respondent and Rs. 1,100/- on account of difference in the exchange price, with interest @ 10% p.a., is that without being served through registered post it was proceeded ex parte and suffered the impugned order. 2. Be that as it may, the facts as culled out from the impugned order show that the respondent wanted wider tyres for his car and got 5 tyres of the car replaced with MRF Zigma VT tyres from the appellant by paying the price difference of Rs. 5,500/-. However, on the very next day when the complainant left his house in his car one of the tyres burst. The crack in the tyre of the car was found to be to the extent of 3 inches. When the complainant brought this fact to the notice of the appellant vide letter dated 15.6.2003, the respondent replied that t...