Delhi Court August 2005 Judgments

Kamaljit Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Del)578; [2006]150TAXMAN191(Delhi)

ORDERBy The CourtThe return, filed by the appellant-assessed, had not yet culminated into an assessment order, when the assessing officer, issued a notice under section 148, inter alia, stating that the deposits made in the banks and the properties purchased by the assessed referred to in the notice gave rise to reasons that income invested in the same had escaped assessment. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessing officer concluded the assessment proceedings and found that an income of Rs. 18,94,490 had indeed escaped assessment. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant went up in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who reduced the amount that escaped assessment to Rs. 13,82,032. In a further appeal before the Tribunal, the said amount was further reduced and the appeal disposed of by order dated 31-7-2003 with the following observation :'We have carefully considered the material on record. On perusal of the order of the assessing officer it is found that the assessed could...

JaIn Plaspack (P) Ltd., Mr. Manoj Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original regarding confirmation of duty, penalty and personal penalties as detailed therein on the appellants except with a modification of dropping the penalties under Rule 173Q against the firms.2. The appellants M/s. Jain Plaspack Pvt. Ltd. (in short referred as M/s. JPPL) and M/s. Kalika Granites & Marbles (P) Ltd. (referred herein after in short as M/s. KMGPL) were engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP Fabrics & Sacks in the premises situated adjacent to each other at Udaipur. On 10.9.97, the factory premises of M/s. KMGPL was visited by the Central Excise Officers and on the following day i.e. 11.9.97, the factory premises of M/s. JPPL was also visited by them. During the stock verification, one register and some production reports were seized from the premises of M/s. JPPL. The statement of Manoj Agrawal who was looking aft...

Bhavani Loaders and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant-assessee manufacture "Loader cum Dozzer". The process is that the appellant receives tractor, and after suitably modifying it, material handing (loader) arm is mounted on it. The power for propelling the tractor and operating the loader is drawn from the tractor engine. The appellant claimed classification under heading 8705 as special purpose motor vehicle. The revenue authorities took a view that he correct classification would be under 8429 which is for self-propelled bulldozers, angledozers, graders, levelers, scrapers, mechanical shovels, etc., The first appeal challenges that classification and consequential duty demand. The second appeal of Sh.Mukeshchandra S. Patel, Partner is directed against imposition of penalty on him.2. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the issue had come up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s Maniar & Company, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. E/2362/2003-NB (B) and this tribunal vide final order No.4332/04-B dated 2.4.2004, he...

Overseas Trading Corporation and Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected as time-barred.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants made import of copper cathodes and filed bills of entry declaring the value of the goods. the value declared by the appellant was not accepted by the Revenue and the same was enhanced and the imported goods were assessed at the enhanced value. The appellant paid duty as per assessment which was on the enhanced value and got cleared the goods. Thereafter the appellant filed appeal against the assessment order and the matter reached up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 8.12.99 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. The adjudicating authority again confirmed the demand on the basis of enhanced assessable value. On appeal filed by the appellant, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal set aside the adjudication order and acc...

K.C. Textiles Ltd. and ors. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: IV(2005)BC44

1. The respondent-Bank has filed this petition seeking to vacate the stay order granted by this Court on 31.5.2005. In the petition, it is stated that this vacate petitioner had invoked the provisions under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act, such steps undertaken by the respondent Bank herein invoking the provisions under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act was questioned by the appellant under Section 17 of the Securitization Act on various grounds. It is also stated that as provided under the scheme of the Securitization Act, in terms of Section 18, no appeal could be entertained unless the appellant deposits 50% of the amount. However, the said provision further gives a discretion to the Chairman or DRAT who can reduce it to 25%.2. The learned Counsel for the vacate petitioner Mr. Lajwinder Singh pleaded when the appeal was preferred along with the Miscellaneous Application No. 136/2005 seeking exemption from deposit under Section 18 of the Securitization Act, the tribuna...

Mohd Iqbal Vs. Deputy Secretary (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT533; 2005(83)DRJ624

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-grant of sanction by the competent authority to prosecute certain police officers.2. The cause for the petitioner to be aggrieved against the police officers arises from a registration of a case against him under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal code. The petitioner and his bother Mohd. Tasleem were both accused of the offence and the registration of the case was on the statement of one Mohd. Zakir. Mohd. Zakir and his elder brother Nasir used to go to slaughter house, Sadar Bazar and some dispute arose with the two accused. The petitioner is stated to have caught hold of Nasir from behind while the petitioner's brother stabbed Nasir in the chest. Nasir subsequently succumbed to these injuries. The charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial. Charges were framed and the prosecution examined seven witnesses. There were three eye witnesses. However, none of the prosecution witnesses identified t...

Shri Manohar Lal Malhotra Vs. Mrs. Premlata Malhotra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi1; 123(2005)DLT331; 2005(84)DRJ129

Manju Goel, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.1996 passed in Suit No. 1296/1993 by the court of Shri B.S. Mathur, Addl. District Judge whereby a decree for recovery of possession in respect of a portion of property No. 7/32, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi apart from Rs. 54,000/- on account of mesne profits and future mesne profits was passed. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit claiming to be the owners of the suit property and alleging the appellant/defendant to be a trespasser. In defense the appellant pleaded to be the co-owner of the property. He also raised objections regarding the valuation of the suit property and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. The Additional District Judge, inter alia, held that the value of the suit property is Rs. 90,000/-. The respondent/plaintiff had assessed the value of the suit property at Rs. 45,000/- only. thereforee, the respondent/plaintiff was directed to pay the deficient court fee. The issues r...

All India Confederation of the Blind Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT244; 2005(84)DRJ44; [2005(107)FLR811]; (2006)IILLJ43Del

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The claim in these proceedings is for appropriate directions to the respondents to ensure compliance with provisions of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). The grievance projected is in respect of a recruitment process for filling up 90 posts of Principal by the first respondent-Government of NCT of Delhi. The Govt. of NCT had not earmarked 3% quota in accordance with Section 33 of the Act.2. The petition was heard on 29th April 2005, when a direction was issued to the respondents not to make any appointments to the post of Principal on the basis of the advertisements in question. When the petition was taken up for hearing on 15th July 2005, it was noticed that the respondents had issued a corrigendum between 8-14 January 2005 inviting applications from all categories of disabled persons in respect of 3 posts. The last date for submission of applications was ...

Balwant Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT600; 2005(83)DRJ663

R.S. Sodhi J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 22nd July, 2004, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in C.A.No.05/04, which appeal was directed against the Order dated 10th December, 2003, whereby the learned Trial Court has held the accused guilty for offence under Section 279/304A IPC and vide subsequent Order imposed a penalty of RI for one month and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC and RI for one year and fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 304 IPC and in default to undergo further SI for 30 days for the offence under Section 279 IPC and SI for six months in default under Section 304A IPC. Vide the impugned order the learned Judge has upheld the Order of conviction of the learned Trial Court but has reduced he sentence of RI for one year to 6 months for offence under Section 304A IPC. The sentences for both offences were directed to run concurrently.2. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is not in a position to argue the matter on merits...

Abhishek Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT399TriDel

2. The demand has been made in the present case on the ground that Appellants had been erroneously refunded Additional Excise Duty (AED TTA) paid on inputs used in the production of exported items. The contention of the representative of the Company is that AED also is eligible for credit and the lower authorities are not justified in holding that credit was not due to them. The Appellant relied upon the clarification dated 9-2-2004 of the Board, i.e. F. No. 267/11/2003-CX.8 in this regard. It is also pointed out that during the pendency of the present stay application, lower authorities made recoveries by adjustment in the Appellants' rebate claims in respect of other reports. A further point was also made that the Appellant has already made debit of the amount from their RG 23A account.3. Learned Senior Departmental Representative submits that AED (TTA) is not attracted on the finished products in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules and refund is not available to the Appellant.4....