Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Dda Vs. M.L. Aggarwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT572; 2006(87)DRJ693

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2003. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The petitioner applied for allotment of a plot in Rohini Residential Scheme and he was issued an allotment letter dated 29.11.1983 against which he deposited the amount of the said plot. 5. The question in this case is that whether the petitioner was disentitled from getting the allotment in view of the fact that his wife had already been allotted a plot. 6. In this connection Rule 17 of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 states:-General restriction to allotment for residential purposes-- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, no plot of Nazul land shall be allotted for residential purposes, to an individual othe...

Management of Sunder Lal JaIn Hospital Vs. Sunder Lal JaIn Hospital Ka ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT450; [2006(109)FLR1023]; (2006)IIILLJ92Del; 2007(1)SLJ271(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.10.2001.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. It appears that the writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal) is a union of employees of the Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. It had filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Officer dated 1.2.2000 for a direction to the respondent to comply with the provisions of Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the said order of the Labour Officer dated 1.2.2000 certain workmen of the hospital were declared as protected workmen for the year 1999-2000 but the Vice-President Mohd Shakir, petitioner No. 2, its General Secretary and Karam Singh, petitioner No. 3 were not declared protected workmen for the year 1999-2000. The petitio...

Cit Vs. Taylor Instrument Co. (i) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN92(Delhi)

ORDERBy a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(l) of the Income Tax Act as it then stood, as many as five questions were referred by the Tribunal to us. Out of these five questions, two questions were referred at the instance of the revenue while three other questions were referred at the instance of the assessed. Three questions referred at the instance of the assessed in ITR Nos. 538-539/ 1983 were answered by us by our dated 11 -8-2005. Question No. 1, out of those questions was as under :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that perquisite of rent-free accommodation provided to employees to the assessed should be valued under section 40A(5) and not under section 17, read with rule 3 of Income Tax Rules for assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75.'2. The above question was answered against the assessed. The remaining two questions, which were as under, were also answered against the assessed a...

Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.M. Sharma and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant manufactures and markets refrigerators under the brand name of Panasonic. The respondent purchased one 1.5 ton air conditioner manufactured and marketed by respondent No. 2 M/s. DKs show, dealer of the appellant. In spite of having made efforts to rectify the defects particularly of the compressor in the air-conditioner, the AC remained non-functional. While allowing the complaint of the respondent, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 2.9.2005 directed the appellant as well its dealer to refund the cost of the defective machine i.e., Rs. 24,200 and also to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation inclusive of the cost of litigation for the inconvenience, mental agony and harassment suffered by the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has directed this appeal. 2. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the appellants were proceeded ex parte in spite of the Managing Director of the appellant having been served at his Noida office. 3. A...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Ispat Works (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC128

1. The revenue is in appeal in all the three appeals against order-in-appeal dated 24-5-2004, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim rejected by Order in Originals.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondents had availed the Service of the Goods Transport Operators for the period 16-7-97 to 16-10-98. The appellants were Small Scale Industries and deposited the Service Tax on the insistance and direction of the department. Notification No. 43/97-S.T., dated 5-4-1997 was amended retrospectively for providing exemption from levy of Service Tax for the Small Scale Industries registered with the state government. Hence the respondent filed the refund claim with the authorities on the ground that the amount paid by them was not Service Tax and is not payable by them. A show cause notice was issued and on adjudication, the refund claim for the period 16-11-97 to 1-6-98 was allowed and the refund claim pertaining to the period 16-7-97 to 16-...

Tony Electronics Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC273

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of Video Magnetic Tapes (VMT) and Blank Video Cassettes (BVC). These goods are liable to central excise duty on ad valorem basis. When they cleared the consignment they discharged duty based on the sale price. The period of dispute is 1996-97 to 1999-2000. Under the impugned order, it has been held that the goods were required to be valued based on cost of production and duty discharge based on such valuation. This finding is under challenge in the appeal.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, duty liability was on the normal price at which the goods are sold in wholesale to buyers. It is being pointed out that appellant's sales were to independent wholesale buyers and the sale price was the sole consideration, Counsel would contend that the impugned order has shown no reason, for rejection of the sale prices and therefore, the basis of the valuation order in the impugned or...

Smt. Manorama Devi, Shri Ayodhya Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC352

1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 16.6.2004 vide which the Order-in-Original imposing penalty and confiscating the goods was upheld.2. The relevant facts which arise for consideration are that the Customs officers intercepted a van and recovered 17 silver bullion from the body of the vehicle. The occupants of the van could not produce any document evidencing its lawful importation or possession. On recording the statements of the concerned, show cause notice was issued and on adjudication the adjudicating authority absolutely confiscated the silver which was seized and also imposed penalty on the appellants. On an appeal the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on merits as well as on limitation. Hence, this appeal.3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that though the appeals were rejected on limitation they are also rejected on merits, and hence, appeals which was filed before the Tribunal are liable to be entertained and disposed of b...

L.S. Nalwaya and Co. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC46

1. This appeal is directed against the order is appeal dated 02/10/2004 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order in original wherein interest was imposed and confirmed against the appellants.2. The appellants is a practicing chartered accountant and were liable to pay the Service Tax. The Chartered Accountant association of Rajasthan unsuccessfully challenged the imposition of the Service Tax in the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, but the Hon'ble High Court granted the Chartered Accountants Association time to pay up Service Tax dues.3. The learned Advocate appearing for appellant submits that the Service Tax dues were paid by the appellants on 11/06/2003 & 18/6/2003.He fairly submits that the time limit granted by the Hon'ble High Court expired on 15/10/2002. It was submitted that the Hon'ble High Court had left open the issue of imposition of interest to the authorities. He submits that the interest levied by the department is for the whole period for which the S...

Thales-e-transaction Cga Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal dated 24/2/2005 which upheld the dismissal of refund claim of the appellants by order in original.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that appellants under the impression that they are covered under the provisions of Service Tax got themselves Registered under the category of "Consulting Engineer" and paid the Service Tax for the period from 1^st April 2002 to 31^st March 2003. The appellants were awarded a lump sum contract for supply and installation of Automatic fare collection system for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation under an agreement. Under the said agreement the appellants were to submit Designs and drawings for approval of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. The appellants filed a refund claim for the Service Tax paid by them under mistaken provisions of law, on the ground that they came to know that Service Tax is not payable when there is a lump sum contract, for which they relied upon the decision of the Tri...

Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant M/s Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. is a Public Limited Company registered in 1913 and was engaged since 1935, in the manufacture of jute products in its factory at Sahjanwa, Gorakhpur. In 1998 the appellant informed the jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent that it was putting up a synthetic yarn spinning unit in the name of Mahabir Syntex (a unit of Mahabir Jute Mils Ltd.) at Sahjanwa, and ground plan for the project was also enclosed.Accordingly, on 26^th Feb. 1998, a registration certificate for manufacture of synthetic yarn was issued by the Superintendent to the appellant in the name of Mahabir Syntex (a unit of Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd.) at Sahjanwa, Gorakhpur. The yarn spinning machinery was installed in the existing premises of the jute manufacturing factory.2. Appellant received LDO, a modvatable input, between 31.3.2000 and 27.1.2001 in their factory at Sahjanwa, and took modvat credit. This LDO was used in the generation of electricity, in generators which fo...