Delhi Court April 2006 Judgments

Hawa Singh Vs. P.O. Labour Court

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT300; [2006(111)FLR282]

ORDER The probation period of Driver 15/48 Hawa Singh posted at Kirti Nagar Fire Station is hereby terminated with effect from the afternoon of 11th September, 1990. He is directed to hand over the complete charge of his post to the Officer-in-Charge, Kirti Nagar Fire Station. This issue in continuation of office message dated 11.9.1990 conveyed through Headquarters Control. Sd/-Dy. Chief Fire Officer-IDelhi Fire Service6. This order even when examined closely would reflect that the same does not appear to cast any kind of aspersion on the petitioner or any stigma on his reputation. The order at the face of it appears to be totally innocuous and merely informs the petitioner that his probation period stands terminated with effect from 11th September, 1990.7. So far as the instance on which the petitioner is basing his entire writ petition is an incident which has occurred on the 4th October, 1989. The petitioner has contended that because of the accident which resulted for no fault of ...

Friends Trading Company Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC639

1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the duty of Rs. 1,40,149/- was confirmed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the present appellants made import against DEPB Scrip. The goods were cleared without payment of duty.Subsequently, it was found that DEPB Scrip were obtained by producing forged bank certificate of export and realization issued by various banks, and therefore, DEPB Scrips were cancelled by the competent authority. In pursuance cancellation of DEPB Scrip demand of duty was confirmed after issuance of show cause notice.3. Facts of the case are that M/s. Parker Industries after producing the relevant evidence before the competent authority obtained Transferable DEPB Scrips which were first transferred to one M/s. Shyam International. M/s. Shyam International transferred the same to M/s.Vivek Impex Pvt. Ltd. and the present appellants purchased the DEPB Scrip from M/s. Vivek Impex Pvt. L...

Cce Vs. Meghdoot Pistons (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC202

2. The dispute is whether the appellant is entitled to refund of un-utilized Modvat credit taken on inputs which were used in the production of exported goods. The appellant is a manufacturer of aluminium pistons and was taking credit of central excise duty paid on inputs. The Aluminium Pistons so manufactured out of modvatable imports were exported through merchant exporters. The merchant exporters claimed customs drawback. When the appellant claimed refund of outstanding Modvat credit on the inputs, the claim was rejected on the ground that allowing of refund of Modvat credit would be double benefit as the Merchant exporters availed of draw back benefit. The respondent-manufacturer went on appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent. The present appeal is directed against that order. The finding of the Commissioner may be read: I have carefully gone through the case records. Memorandum of Appeal and records of Personal Hearing. ...

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT686; [2006(110)FLR912]; (2006)144PLR10

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM(M) 1328/2004 is directed against the order dated 18.08.2004 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has on an application for amendment of written statement declined the amendment on the ground that the same has been filed with inordinate delay of nearly five years which has also not been explained.2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that although the law on the subject is that the management is at liberty to incorporate in the written statement and that in the event the enquiry is held to be bad they should be given permission to substantiate their claim by leading further evidence but in the event no application has been moved soon after filing of the written statement or incorporating the written statement there is no bar for the management seeking amendment of the written statement and thereby incorporate the necessary amendment at any stage, provided it shows sufficient cause for delay in doing so. He relies upon a judgme...

Cit Vs. Padmini Packaging (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN268(Delhi)

ORDERThe assessed is engaged in the manufacture of moulded plastic items. It claimed that it had paid commission to its agents at the rate of 8.65 per cent which was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the same was excessive. The assessing officer was of the view that a commission of 2.65 per cent would be reasonable and accordingly allowed deduction of the same from the taxable income of the assessed.2. In an appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition. In a further appeal to the Tribunal filed by the revenue, the said deletion has been affirmed on the following findings of fact:(a) That there was a nexus between the expenditure and the business of the assessed.(b) That the genuineness of the expenditure was not disputed by the revenue.(c) That there was no evidence to suggest any siphoning off of the money on account of payment of commission.3. Based on the above findings and relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in CIT...

Cit Vs. Digvijay Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Del)234; [2007]294ITR359(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent-assessed to the maintainability of the present appeal in this Court. It was argued by Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that since the assessment order for the assessment years in question namely, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1994-95 was passed by the assessing officer, Bulandshahr and since an appeal against the said order was heard by the Commissioner (Appeals). Meerut, any appeal arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal even though located in Delhi can be maintained only before the High Court at Allahabad. Relying upon the Division Bench decisions of this court in Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT : [1978]113ITR817(Delhi) and Suresh Desai & Associates v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 912 , it was argued by Mr. Aggarwal that the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear references under the unamended provisions and appeals under section 260A of the Act has to be determined by reference to the ci...

Optic Electronics (India) Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner holding that the exemption granted to the appellant was not available because the appellant had failed to fulfil the condition of exemption notification and the terms of the bond executed in compliance of the terms of the notification and ordering the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 28,75,236/- pursuant to the bond.2. The appellant had imported "periscope night vision equipment PMK-72" for the purpose of manufacture/export of tools permitted to the appellant in terms of LOA against various bills of entry. According to the appellant, 11 sets of periscopes and their accessories were stolen from their premises in respect of which the appellant filed FIR on 12-4-2004, while simultaneously intimating about the same to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs.3. On the strength of B-17 bond executed by the appellant, and because details of the goods were not made available to show that they were the same as reported to have been stolen a...

V.K. JaIn and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The facts as stated in the impugned Order may be read first: "On 3-5-2003, three Shipping Bills No. 6803995, 6803996 and 6803997 were filed through EDI System in the name of the exporter, M/s. Almas Creations, 781/21, Zakir Nagar, New Delhi through M/s, V.K. Jain and Co., CHA. These three export consignments were brought for customs clearance by one Shri Kailash Chander Joshi. The goods i.e. shawls and stoles of S/B No. 6803995 were examined and found to be over-valued and, therefore, the goods pertaining to other two S/Bs of the same exporter were also examined, on examination, the goods of all the three Shipping Bills were found to be over-invoiced. Samples drawn for market enquiry to confirm the above facts also revealed overvaluation which appeared to have been done with the intention to avail higher DEPB benefits." 2. In view of overvaluation of the export consignments under the aforesaid shipping bills, a show cause notice dated 27-2-2004 was issued to the present appellant M...

Cce Vs. Hira Cement

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC669

1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court under Civil Appeal No. 4424 of 2004 filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur has remanded this case to the Tribunal for consideration of the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.2. The facts in brief are that M/s Hira Cement, Raipur are manufacturer of cement and are registered with the Central Excise department and have claimed exemption under SSI exemption notifications issued from time to time. They filed classification list/declaration claiming SSI exemption from time to time. Show-cause notices were issued to them on the ground that they are not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.93 as amended and Notification No. 16/97-CE dated 1.4.97 and 38/97-CE dated 26.7.97 as claimed in their declaration filed under Rule 1738. The ground for denying the SSI exemption was that M/s Hira Cement were selling most of their goods through the premises of M/s Hira Industries Ltd...

Greaves Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR166(Delhi); 129(2006)DLT342; 2006(88)DRJ784

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The question that arises before this Court is with regard to the award passed by the sole arbitrator on 29.09.1994 in respect of disputes which had arisen between the parties.2. Without going into the details the sum and substance of the cases of the parties are as follows. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award, insofar as claim Nos. 2 (a), 3 and 8 are concerned, requires to be sustained and be made a rule of the Court. He further submitted that insofar as claim Nos. 1, 2 (b), (c) and 4 to 7 are concerned, the same require to be remitted for arbitration inasmuch as the learned arbitrator has not adjudicated claims. He submitted that the learned arbitrator had not adjudicated claims as, at that time, an earlier arbitration proceeding was pending between the parties which would form the basis of decision insofar as these claims were concerned. Now that the earlier arbitration proceedings have already culminated in an award dated 20.05.19...