Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments

Monika Electronics Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appeal Nos. E-4658/04 & E/5087/04 are filed by M/s Monika Electronics Limited and Onida Saka Ltd. against order in appeal dated 18/08/04 and 11/08/04. Appeal Nos. E/5713 - 5718/04 are filed by the revenue against the same order in appeals.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the officers of the Central Excise visited the premises of both the appellants and conducted investigation. During the course of investigation, the officers found that appellants were following the provisions of Central Excise Law as regards to (i) sending inputs unfit for use under Rule 57F(4) to original manufacturer for repairs (ii) availing modvat credit on the inputs which were rejected on line but found in the factory (iii) shortage of inputs in the case of Appeal No. E/5087/04. On a reasonable apprehension, the authorities issued a show cause notice demanding the duty from the appellants on all above three counts. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed pena...

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC284

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise. In this case, the demand was confirmed on the ground that appellant had cleared the duty-paid stock of petroleum product from the bulk petroleum depot, after the increase in excise duty with effect from 28.2.1999 and also collected enhanced duty from their buyers which is not deposited with revenue. We find that this issue is decided by the Tribunal in the appellant's own case in respect of their another depot in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. C.C.E., Raipur . The Tribunal held as under: We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Section 11-D(1) of the Central Excise Act provides that every person who is liable to pay duty and has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed and paid from the buyer in any manner as representing duty of excise, shall pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government. It lis thus evident from the...

Kuber Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 11.12.2002 which upheld the order-in-original that confiscated the seized goods and imposed penalty on the appellant.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant's factory was visited on 9.10.98 by the Central Excise officers and in the presence of authorized signatory the factory records were checked. On physical verification it was found that 57 bags of Moolchand brand Gutka was in excess than the recorded balance in the stock register of finished goods. The authorized representative of the appellant could not give satisfactory answer for the excess goods. Hence, the same were seized. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of the seized goods and for imposition of penalty. The appellant did not file any reply to the show cause notice as they were not given copies of the statements of their authorized representative recorded by the department. The adjudicating authority pass...

Nulon India Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by assessee arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XVI, New Delhi, dated 22-12-2006.2. In the ground raised the assessee challenges the validity of the assessment under Section 143(3), addition of Rs. 60,22,000 being deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, disallowance of Rs. 2,000 being treated as donation and disallowance of Rs. 1,35,595 being expenses incurred through credit card.3. In this case the appellant filed return of income on 31-10-2001. The assessing officer issued notice dated 29-10-2002 under Section 143(2).The same was send through speed post on 30-10-2002 at 11.50 A.M. The notice was issued at the address mentioned in the return of income being Nulon House, 10th Mile Stone, Mathura Road, New Delhi. The notice was redirected at A-74, Sector-5, NOIDA. The notice was served at the redirected address on 6th November, 2002. The assessing officer as well as Learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the notice was issued...

Discover India Tours (P) Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)104TTJ(Delhi)298

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 20th Dec., 2005 for the asst. yr. 2002-03 in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 1. The impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and the learned AO is bad in law, is devoid of jurisdiction, is arbitrary, based on conjectures and surmises, passed without application of mind, without granting proper opportunity to defend, without following the proper legal procedures and is against the principles of natural justice. As such the order is null and void ab initio. 2. The order is against the provisions of the Act and the appellant denies his liability to tax as determined and computed by the learned AO and the manner in which it has been so determined or computed. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the legal validity of the impugned order, whether in specific terms or by implication. 3. The learned AO has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in m...

Ge Capital Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Delhi)65

1. Certain common issues and facts are involved in these appeals, the same were argued together by the learned Counsel for the assessee and learned Departmental Representative. We are deciding these appeals together for convenience.2. Appeal in ITA No. 2038 is appeal filed by the assessee on 14th May, 2002 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, dt. 12th Feb., 2002 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1996-96. Appeals in ITA Nos. 2528 and 2729/Del/2002 are cross-appeals filed by the assessee on 10th June, 2002 and Revenue on 21st June, 2002 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, dt. 28th March, 2002 in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1996-97. Similarly appeals in ITA Nos. 2529 and 2730/Del/2002 are cross-appeals filed by the assessee on 10th June, 2002 and Revenue on 21st June, 2002 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi dt. 27th March, 2002 in the ca...

State Vs. Vijender Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ567

Manju Goel, J.1. State's application for leave to appeal against acquittal dated 27.3.2001 in S.C. No. 258/1996; FIR 71/1988 for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was presented on 28.8.2001. The same was returned by the Registry which required a copy of the impugned order. After removing the objection, the application for leave to appeal was filed on 24.9.2001. The present Crl. M.A. No. 1025/2002 for condoning the delay in presentation of the application for leave is presented on 7.3.2002. The application is opposed on behalf of the respondents.2. Two questions are involved in this application for condonation of delay. The first is whether sufficient ground for condonation of delay has been made out and, secondly, whether the application for condonation of delay, which itself is delayed for not having been filed along With the application for leave to appeal, can be entertained. Let us take the first question first. The facts e...

Furkan @ Javed Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ618

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeals No. 459 of 2004 and 484 of 2004 seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 29.05.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2001, whereby the learned Judge, while acquitting the accused, Gayur, has convicted accused, Furkan and Pappu (the two appellants herein) under Sections 302/307/392/394/34 IPC and also under Section 397 IPC and Further by his order dated 31.5.2004 sentenced both the convicted accused to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month under Section 302/34 IPC; three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month under Section 307/34 IPC; seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 392/34 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month; three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of ...

Rama Shankar and anr. Vs. Mukhtiare and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ517

S. Muralidhar, J.CM No. 10940/2006 & 10941/2006 (under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC)The applications are allowed. The LRs of the respondent No. 1 in each of the appeals are permitted to be brought on record. The amended memo of parties will be filed in two weeks.The applications stand disposed of accordingly.RFA Nos. 352/1981 & 353/19811. These appeals are directed to against the impugned judgments and orders dated 25th September, 1981 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi disposing of two references being LAC Nos. 83/1980 and 84/1980 under Sections 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act').2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are that in respect of land admeasuring 93 bighas situated in village Khanpur, which was notified for acquisition for a public purpose by a notification dated 12.4.1972 under Section 4 of the Act, an award No. 15/1973-74 came to be made on 26.6.1973. The total compensation fixed, including solarium and interest, was Rs. 1,07,439.43. In ...

Hotel Excelsior Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT320

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Notwithstanding that sufficient cause justifying delay to be condoned in seeking review of the order dated 29.8.2005 has not been shown, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that since the issue decided by this Court is of importance delay may be condoned and review petition decided on merits. Accordingly CM. No. 15170/05 is allowed. Delay in filing the review petition is condoned.2. Vide order dated 29.8.2005, writ petition was disposed of holding that counsel for the petitioner could not point out any exception carved out in the conversion policy excluding hotels which was disinvested from the scheme of conversion notified by the Government. Contention of respondents that Ministry of Finance had issued some clarificatory directives was noted and it was held that an exception to a policy cannot be carved out by way of clarification or directives. It was held that petitioner was entitled for consideration under the conversion policy. 3. It is settled law t...