Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 6 of about 292 results (0.020 seconds)Surendra Pal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT344TriDel
1. In these appeals which have been preferred against the common impugned Order-in-Appeal, the appellants have contested the imposition of penalty of Rs. 8,000/- each on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. Ld. Counsel has contended that the seized goods (camera, lenses of foreign origin) being non-notified goods, no presumption about their smuggled nature could be drawn, rather it was for the Revenue to prove that these goods had been smuggled by the appellants from Nepal to India. He has also contended that confessional statements initially recorded of the appellants, were later on retracted by them and as such without collaborative evidence, the same could not be relied upon.Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The ld. JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.3. From the record, it is evident on 17-9-2001 one bus bearing No. UP 25/9541 was intercepted by the Customs Officers of Gorakhpur on the basis of information. On thorough checking of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Doon Polymicrons Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT349TriDel
1. None for the respondents, no request for adjournment has been received from them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits.2. In this appeal which has been filed by the revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the entitlement of the respondents to claim the interest on the amount of refund to them vide order dated 18-8-2000 by the adjudicating authority.3. I have heard Id. SDR and gone through the records. The respondents had claimed interest vide their letter dated 10-5-2000, on account of delayed payment of refund claim of Rs. 98217/-. They had claimed interest as the refund claim was sanctioned on 19-6-2001 by the Order of the Tribunal, but it was not paid within three months. But their demand of interest is wholly unjustified. The perusal of the record shows that they initially filed the refund claim on 6-8-96, but it was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order dated 27-6-97 on the ground that they had failed to furnish the requisi...
Tag this Judgment!Deccan Mechanical and Chemical Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC265
2. We have heard both sides and pursued the record. The issue that arises for consideration is whether steel trestles fabricated at site by the appellants are manufactured goods, so as to attract Central Excise duty. The relevant facts are that appellants were awarded a contract by the Maharashtra Electricity Board for the installation of Ash Handling Plant for Thermal Power Station at Parli-Vaijanath. The construction involved lying of pipelines. Those pipelines were to be supported by steel trestles. Therefore, the appellant fabricated steel trestles a site for supporting the pipeline. The contention of the appellant is that the construction process involved erecting pillars and then interconnecting them so as to bring into existence steel trestles, to support the pipeline. It is being submitted that cutting, sizing, welding etc. which are carried out in the course of construction of permanent structure cannot be called manufacturing goods. The emphasis is that the goods are, by the...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Arora Vs. Deputy Cit, Special Range-29
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)8SOT158(Delhi)
There being a difference of opinion between the two members who heard this appeal, the Hon'ble President was pleased to nominate me as the Third Member under section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide his order dated 31-8-2005 to resolve the difference. Accordingly, the matter was posted for hearing both the sides on 8-5-2006. The matter has been heard and I proceed to deal with the issues before me. The points of difference referred to me are as follows: " 1. Whether on the facts and findings and in scheme of block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the learned AM is right in holding that the documents seized comprised of loose papers and entries therein do not give rise to the undisclosed income of the appellant for the block period and thereby deleting addition of Rs. 25,91,105 and Rs. 10,00,000.2. Whether on the facts and admitted findings that the loose documents on the basis of which the assessing officer made the...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. SalahuddIn Ahmed Siddiqui Vs. the Chairman, Governing Body and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR234(Delhi); 121(2005)DLT129; 2005(83)DRJ563
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By this judgment I shall dispose of both the Petitions filed by Dr. Salahuddin Ahmed Siddiqui. Prayers in the first Petition seek the issuance of a Writ, order or direction against the Respondents for complying with the unanimous decision of Respondent No. 2 dated 1.2.2001 and for bestowing upon the Petitioner all the benefits due to him consequent upon his reinstatement. In the second Petition a Writ, order or direction has been preferred for disposing of the Petitioner's Representation dated 19.3.2001 seeking the passing of an additional arbitration Award pursuant to the provision of Section 33(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in view of a compromise arrived at between the Petitioner and Respondents No. 1 and 2.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner was serving as a Reader in the Department of Economics, in Shaheed Bhagat Singh (Evening College), University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the College') but his serv...
Tag this Judgment!United Telecom Ltd. Vs. M.T.N.L. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(1)CTLJ470(Del); 123(2005)DLT577; 2005(82)DRJ705
Anil Kumar, J.1. This petition is admitted for hearing and taken up for final disposal at this stage on the request of learned counsels for the parties.2. Petitioner is one of the bidders for a tender floated by respondent No. 1 for supply of 250 K hand held subscribed terminals and 150K fixed wireless terminals based on CDMA (2000x1) technology.3. Petitioner submits that the technical bids were opened on 13.12.2004 and for package I, petitioner and respondent No. 2 qualified. Thereafter on opening the financial bids, advance purchase order dated 4.4.2005 bearing No. MTNL/20-80(337)/2004-MM/CDMA WILL TERMINALS 2000 X(400 K)/SURANA was issued to respondent No. 2 in respect of package I Type C Category I, though the bid of the petitioner was the lowest on subtracting the price of data cable from the total price quoted as the data cable was not required for package I. Petitioner's case is that in order to ascertain the lowest price, the price quoted for data cable should not have been inc...
Tag this Judgment!Baldev Singh Dhillion and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT606
A.K. Sikri, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions relief claimed is the same. All the petitioners are impugning Notification dated 23rd June, 1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short 'the Act') and declaration dated 22nd June, 1990 issued under Section 6 of Act. There is some dispute about the dates of publication of these notifications which would be taken note of at appropriate stage. What needs to be noted at this stage is that all these petitions were heard earlier by a Division Bench of this court comprising of Mahinder Narain, J. and J.B. Goel, J. Lead case was Writ No. 2556/1990. After hearing the parties the two Judges differed with each other. In their separate pronouncements dated 11th September, 1996, while Mahinder Narain, J. Held that the impugned notifications were illegal and quashed the same, according to J.B. Goel, J., there was no infirmity in the two notifications, which were perfectly legal and valid and, thereforee, writ petitions were requi...
Tag this Judgment!F.S. Virdi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT581
Rekha Sharma, J.1. It all started in the year 1970. That was the year when the petitioner before us who was working as an Assistant in the Ministry of External Affairs was posted in the office of High Commission of India at London. It was a tenure posting of three years. On completion of his tenure, he was sent a communication dated 12th March, 1974 informing him that his substitute having been selected, he should keep himself in readiness to come back to India. On receiving this communication, he rather than preparing himself for a journey homeward made a representation dated 13th March, 1974 requesting the department for extending his term in the High Commission till July, 1974 on the ground that his children were in the middle of their academic session. The request was turned down, and consequent thereto, vide office order dated 30th May, 1974 he was relieved of his duties in the High Commission with effect from 29th May, 1974. He however was not prepared to come back.2. On 30th May...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Jatav Vs. the State Nct of the Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT663
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The application for bail had been filed by the present petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was disposed of by a one line order which reads as under:-'Heard. No ground for bail at this stage dismissed.'2. While allowing or rejecting a bail application, the courts and particularly the Sessions Court must disclose some grounds so that one can discern as to whether there has been a proper application of mind or not. This fact has been stated in so many decisions of the Supreme Court and in the recent decision in the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra: AIR 2005 SCW 2215, the Supreme Court held, in para 56 of the said decision, as under:-'It is, furthermore, trite that for the purpose of considering an application for grant of bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, the order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind at least in serious cases as to who the applicant has been gr...
Tag this Judgment!Spl Siddhartha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(188)ELT18(Del)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. On 9th February, 2005, Deputy Director, Directorate General of Central Excise (Intelligence) R.K. Puram, New Delhi addressed a letter to the Manager (Purchasing and Marketing) of respondent No. 3. The letter reads as under :-'Sub: Investigation against M/s. SPL Siddhartha Ltd.-reg.In response to this office summons dated 14.9.04, documents required for investigation in respect of case booked against M/s. SPL Siddhartha Ltd. were received vide your officer letter No. E.4(15)/94/PUR.I/CE dated 23.9.04.On perusal of records it is seen that M/s. SPL Siddhartha had entered running rate contract for supply of Godown flooring material used as Dunnage vide your letter No. E.4(15)/94-PUR.I/Vol-III dated 2/3.4.2002 for a period of two years w.e.f. 18.3.2002.It also appears that M/s. SPL Sidartha Ltd. have manufactured and supplied the subject goods to FCI without payment of appropriate Central Excise duty thereon.In this regard I am directed to request that any further paym...
Tag this Judgment!