Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

The Management of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Surinder Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT413

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 28.5.2003 whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act was dismissed.2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent was working as a conductor with the petitioner. He was on duty on 6.7.1992 on Bus No. 8994 on route Shivaji Stadium to Ghaziabad. The bus was checked by the checking staff at Mohan Nagar and it was found that 1 tickets to the traveling passenger, who had boarded the bus from ITO, were not issued despite the fact that the passengers were standing near the conductor. Blank tickets of Rs. 5.50/- and Rs. 2.85/- were got issued by the checking staff to the passengers. On further checking, 17 passengers were found in possession of city tickets of Rs. 2/- each and balance tickets of inter state tickets from Mohan Nagar to Ghaziabad. A charge-sheet was issued to the respondent and an enquiry was held against the responden...

Amco India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC311

1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal dated 18th April 2006, which upheld the order in original that rejected the refund claim of the appellant.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant imported Aluminium Foil and filed Bill of entry dated 22nd March 2005 for assessment of the duty as per the tariff rate. The said bill of entry was assessed finally and the appellant also paid the assessed duty. Subsequently it was noticed by the appellant that they are eligible for concessional rate of duty on the said imported goods vide notification No. 11/2005 - Cus dated 01/03/2005. Appellant filed a refund claim with the adjudicating authority for the excess duty paid by them claiming that the benefit of notification is not deniable to them. Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not challenged the assessment of the bill of entry and hence the assessed duty was correct. In an appeal, appellant challeng...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Yamuna Bardana Trading

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is a Restoration of Appeal application filed by the Respondent on the ground that the instant appeal was listed for hearing on 14-11-2005 and the hearing notice was received by the applicant on 14-11-2005. However, when the matter came up on 14-11-2005, the counsel fell ill and did not reach the Tribunal on this date. The appeal was taken up and an ex parte order was passed. The learned Counsel for the applicant states that the order has not made the submissions made by the Respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals). He also heavily relied upon the Apex Court judgment in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE , particularly with reference to paras 4 & 5, which are reproduced below:In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. , the same principles were applied in relation to the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was held that where a party was prevented from appearing at a hearing due to sufficient ca...

Cce Vs. Hotline Glass Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT279TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 27th May 2003 which set aside the order in original vide Modvat credit was denied to the respondent.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are that the respondent availed Modvat credit on the various capital goods received by the respondent during the setting up of their factory for manufacture of panels and picture tubes. The revenue disputed the availment of the credit and issued a show cause notice for the denial of the Modvat credit on such capital goods. Adjudicating authority denied Modvat credit and also imposed penalty. On an appeal the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal after considering the detailed chart that indicated the usage of the capital goods by the respondent in their factory. The revenue is in appeal only against a small portion of credit on the Tor steel, cement and bars and angles.3. Learned SDR submits that the bulk of credit on other capital goods is not disputed by them but ...

Shri Avtar Singh S/O Shri Ajit Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Rule 6 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 prescribes jurisdiction of the Tribunal if the cause of action wholly or partly has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench where the matter has been filed.Cause of action cannot be defined precisely but it is the grievance put forth by an employee for which redressal is required in judicial review.3. In a case of disciplinary proceedings, the cause of action would emanate from the memorandum of allegation and would culminate into the final order passed by the departmental authority when it is assailed in a judicial review for redressal before the Tribunal.4. In such view of the matter, present is a case where the applicant, who was working as Dealing Clerk, has impugned an order dated 3.6.2003 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing upon him a major penalty.Also assailed an order dated 24.1.2005 passed by the appellate authority affirming the punishment.5. Learned Counsel for applicant states that whereas on the third art...

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.S. International

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)108ITD709(Delhi)

1. The appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee arise out of the order of the CIT(Appeals), Karnal, passed on 30.07.2004. The corresponding order of assessment was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnal Circle, Karnal (hereinafter called the Assessing Officer), under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 20^thFebruary, 2004. The appeal and the cross objection were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned D.R. and the learned counsel of the assessee. Therefore, a consolidated order is passed.2. The only substantive ground taken in this appeal is that the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in ordering that Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (hereinafter called DEPB) income is covered under Section 28 of the Act and deduction Under Section 80HHC is available on such income. In the course of hearing before us, the attention of the learned D.R. was drawn towards the amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005, r...

Asstt. Cit Vs. K.S. International

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)293ITR39(Delhi)

1. The appeal of the revenue and 1 the cross-objection of the assessee arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Karnal, passed on 30-7-2004. The corresponding order of assessment was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnal Circle, Karnal (hereinafter called the assessing officer), under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 20-2-2004. The appeal and the cross objection were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned departmental Representative and learned counsel of the assessee. Therefore, a consolidated order is passed.2. The only substantive ground taken in this appeal is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in ordering that the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (hereinafter called DEPB) income is covered under Section 28 of the Act and deduction under Section 80HHC is available on such income. In the course of hearing before us, the attention of the learned departmental Representative was drawn towards the ame...

Dy. Cit, Special Range 4 Vs. Volex Finance and Industries Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. All these appeals relate to the same assessee and since they involve certain common issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a company incorporated in 1984. Its earlier name was Volex Electronics and Leasing Limited. As per the Memorandum and Articles of Association, it was engaged in the business of leasing and finance for several years. Its name was changed to Volex Finance and Industries Limited.3. In this year, though two grounds have been taken by the department, the only effective ground is that the Commissioner (Appeals), erred in treating the transaction which is essentially a financing transaction, as leasing transaction and thus allowing the claim of depreciation to the assessee. The brief facts are these. In the return, the assessee declared income by way of lease rentals at Rs. 34,35,462 against which depreciation in respect of the leased asset was claimed at Rs. 32,44,024. It was the ass...

Harvinder Motors Vs. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi85; 135(2006)DLT198

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue notice. Mr. M.S. Vinayak accepts notice on behalf of the respondent (hereafter called 'BSES'). With consent of counsel for parties, the matter was heard finally. 2. In these writ proceedings, the petitioner has impugned issuance of a show cause notice to him, and an electricity bill in the sum of Rs. 26,61,507/-; he alleges that the procedure adopted by BSES was contrary to law, and regulations.3. The petitioner's premises were inspected on 29-8-2006 by staff and officials of BSES. The report of inspection alleged that the connected load found was 64 .510 KW as against a load sanctioned for 44 KW. It is alleged that a show cause notice was issued the same day, alleging that the meter was not in order, inasmuch as plastic, and meter seals were found tampered, and that scratches were observed at the back of the CT Box. It is averred that the inspection was erroneous, as higher loads/ values were shown in the report, even though the load of equipments was less...

Mohan Singh Vs. Texmaco and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(93)DRJ264

S.N. Aggarwal, J.Crl. M.A. No. 11429/2006 (Exemption)Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.WP (Crl.) No. 2403/2006 & Crl. M (B) No. 1824/20061. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside the order dated 04.08.2005 passed by the learned ACMM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and order dated 03.10.2006 passed by Ms. Reena Singh Nag, Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.2. Notice. Mr. Rajneesh Chopra, Advocate accepts notice of this petition on behalf of respondent No. 1. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocate accepts notice of this petition on behalf of respondent No. 2.3. Arguments have been heard and this writ petition can be disposed of at admission stage itself.4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the directions given to him by the court below to vacate the company's accommodation bearing quarter No. 13, New Birla Lines, Kamla Nagar, Delhi alloted to him by virtue of his employment with the respondent company in 1971. The petitioner admittedly retired ...