Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sethia Plastic Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Del)484; [2009]316ITR133(Delhi)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) has been preferred by the Revenue against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dt. 23rd Nov., 2004 in ITA No. 3504/Del/2003 in relation to asst. yr. 2000-01. By the impugned order the Tribunal partly allowed appeal filed by the respondent/assessed thereby reversing the order passed by the CIT(A) dt. 7th May, 2003 and deleting the additions of Rs. 30,83,659 made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).2. The facts in brief as noticed by the Tribunal are that the assessed was engaged in the business of manufacture of rigid PVC pipes and profiles. The assessed returned a total income of Rs. 25,26,292 for the asst. yr. 2000-01. Survey operations under Section 133A of the Act were carried out at the business premises of the assessed on 17th Dec, 1999. In the course of survey operations, the assessed surrendered a total amount of Rs. 25,07,500 out of which Rs. 9 lakhs were on account...

Pallavi Infoway Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant is a registered tour operator. It imported one used Mitsubishi Delica Car at Nhava Sheva Port and filed a Bill of Entry dated 9-5-2004 for its clearance. The declared CIF value was Rs.3,60,000/-.2. The appellant sought clearance of the car under Policy relating to the import of second-hand capital goods. That Policy read as under: Import of second hand capital goods which are not more than 10 years old shall be allowed on surrender of SIL, equivalent to 5 times the GIF value of imported goods. The second hand capital goods shall not be transferred, sold or otherwise disposed of within a period of two years from the date of import, except with the prior permission of the Director General of Foreign Trade.The appellant also sought to surrender Special Import Licence (SIL) equivalent to 5 times the CIF value of imported car in terms of the above provisions.3. The Customs authorities objected and pointed out that cars are not allowed to be imported as second-hand capital ...

General Electric International Vs. Commr. of Ser. Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STT524

3. There is no dispute that the appellants received the services and paid the Service tax. The only objection is that the appellants" address, according; to the invoice, is a Dubai address. There is also no dispute that the service is in regard to appellant's project in India.4. The address of the service provider would appear to be not relevant for the purpose of tax credit. If the tax has been paid, the credit would follow. In that view of the matter, prima facie, the appellant's claim was well-founded.5. In the result, the stay application is allowed and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal....

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Vidhya Cylinder Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(213)ELT390TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 12-7-04 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim to the respondents.2. Considered the submissions made at length by both the sides and perused the records. I find that in this case, there was a confiscation of the goods excess found in the factory premises of the respondents.The adjudicating authority confiscated the seized goods but did not indicate a specific amount in lieu of redemption fine. He only appropriated the bank guarantee executed by the respondents against un-quantified redemption fine. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty on the respondent. The respondent went in KVSS Scheme in respect of penalty before the competent authority and got the relief.It is the submission of the learned advocate appearing for the respondent that if the amount of redemption fine would have been quantified by the adjudicating authority, he would have gone for KVSS Scheme that amount also.3. I find stro...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2006)ACC764; 2007ACJ2542; 134(2006)DLT340

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Admit.2. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. A claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein-after referred to as the said Act) was filed by respondent no.1 in which the owner of the vehicle (respondent no.2) along with insurance company (petitioner herein) were imp leaded as respondents. Written statement was filed by the owner and the insurance company. 4. The driver had died at the time of the accident and thus could not be imp leaded as a party. Both the respondents filed their written statement but the owner absented himself from the proceedings and was proceeded ex parte. The insurance company (petitioner herein) filed an application under Section 170 of the said Act which reads as under: 170. Impleading insurer in certain cases ' Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that:a. there may be collusion between the persons making the claim and the pers...

Hindustan Paper Corporation Vs. Roshan Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT36; 2006(91)DRJ770; (2007)ILLJ273Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. 1. This writ petition has been directed against the Award dated 18.5.1996 of Industrial Tribunal whereby the Tribunal directed the reinstatement of respondent No. 1, Roshan Lal with full back wages.2. The factual matrix is that India Paper Pulp Company Ltd. (for short 'IPPCL') was incurring heavy losses and the amount of creditors was in jeopardize. In order to help the revival of this Company, the petitioner company was asked by Government to provide technical and financial help. The petitioner company started overseeing the operation of IPPCL as directed by Government of India. Several winding up petitions filed by the creditors of IPPCL, were pending before Calcutta High Court. Petitioner Company after studying all aspects of the operations and Mill of IPPCL, submitted a report to the Government. From October 1976 petitioner company also started looking after marketing of the paper products of IPPCL and deputed its officers to help in marketing of paper stoc...

P.U.R. Polyurethane Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Geeta Bhargava and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ83

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These two applications CM No. 8513/2006 in W.P. (C) 3916/1990 CM No. 9394/2006 in Cont. Cas. (C) 88/92, have been filed seeking recall of an order dated 3.7.2006 passed by us in writ petition W.P. (C) No. 3916 of 1990 and Contempt Case No. 88/1992.2. These applications are filed by the petitioner whose counsel on record submitted before us that on the earlier date of hearing i.e. 3.7.2006, he was in some serious personal difficulty and was unable to attend the hearing. We may mention here that on 3.7.2006 we passed over the matter once and when no.one was present on behalf of the petitioner even on the second call, we proceeded to hear counsel for the respondent and passed the final order dated 3.7.2006.3. Although these applications are designed as applications for recall of our order dated 3.7.2006, they really are petitions seeking a review of that order. Counsel for the petitioner was unable to show us any provision in the CPC or the Rules of this Court, that pe...

Lark Laboratories(India) Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Its Se ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT128; [2006(111)FLR867]; (2007)ILLJ72Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by Government of NCT, Delhi dated 6th September, 2004 whereby the request of the petitioner for granting exemption under Section 88 of the ESI Act in respect of 'traveling medical sales representatives' employed in the petitioner company was declined.2. The facts necessary to dispose of this writ petition follow. The petitioner is a company engaged in manufacturing, sale and marketing of pharmaceutical formulations. The petitioner applied for grant of exemption under Section 88 of ESI Act in respect of medical representatives/employees who used to remain away from head office for a period of seven months in a year. The application for grant of exemption for such employees was being made regularly by the petitioner from 1981 onwards. The applications made with effect from 1.4.81 to 31.3.88 were allowed and the respondent No. 1 vide notification No. 281/87/IMP/LC dated 2.6.88 granted exemp...

Jagminder Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, F.C.D. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT256

Manju Goel, J.1. The petitioner was a workman with respondent No. 1 and had been terminated with effect from 9.8.1983. He raised an industrial dispute which was decided by award dated 6.5.2004. The award directed the management to reinstate the petitioner with 25% back wages. The petitioner says that the award dated 6.5.2004 was published on 14.6.2004. The petitioner further says that the petitioner has been paid only 25% back wages and was taken in service only on 9.2.2005. He further submits that he is entitled to full wages from the date of the award till he was actually allowed to join. 2. On behalf of the respondent it is stated that the respondent is required to implement the award within two months of its publication and, thereforee, the respondent was within its right to take the petitioner on duty from 14.8.2004. The petitioner was actually taken on duty on 9.2.2005. It is explained that in the meantime the respondents have been seeking the opinion of the different branches of...

Phool Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ727

S. Muralidhar, J.Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2608-16/2004 2608-16/2004 1. This writ petition, filed on 19.2.2004 by 9 petitioners, all claiming to be residents of Village Usmanpur, Delhi, seeks the following reliefs:(a) Pass an appropriate writ order or direction for quashing/setting aside the notification No. F.9(1)/89/L&B;/LA/I dated 23.06.1989 under Section 4 and notification No. F-9(1)89/L&B;/LA/II dated 20.06.1990 issued under Section 6 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land of petitioners.(b) Pass an appropriate writ order or direction whereby declaring that the acquisition proceeding initiated by the respondent has lapsed in the absence of the award and also for not complying with the provisions of Section 17(3-A) and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. (c) Pass an appropriate writ order or direction whereby directing the respondents for releasing the land of the petitioners situated in Khasra Nos. 126/3 Min of Village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Ilaka-Shahdara, Delhi ...