Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Hansa Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24-8-2004 made by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the amount of duty demand of Rs. 48,243/- on the ground of wrong availment of Modvat credit as ordered by the Assistant Commissioner while setting aside the penalty.2. According to the Revenue, the appellant had wrongly availed Modvat credit of Rs. 48,243/- on the ground of fake invoices issued by the original noticee No. 2, Majestic Industries without physically receiving the Modvatable inputs namely CR coils. On the basis of investigation, it transpired that the invoice Sr. No. 10 dated 18-4-96 was issued fraudulently to facilitate use of inadmissible Modvat credit without there being actual movement of goods. The authorities below came to the conclusion that, as there was no movement of goods under the invoice in question, Modvat credit was wrongly availed and was required to be reversed by the appellant.3. According to the appellant, the extended period of limitation w...

Paramjit Tour and Travels Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)6STT497

1. This application for condonation of delay is filed for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is the submission of learned Advocate that they had filed the appeal in time on 12-4-2005. The Registry had issued a defect memo to the appellant on 15-4-2005 which was not removed by the appellant. Hence, the Registry vide its undated letter returned the appeal.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. I find that the Registry had returned the appeal papers back to the appellant for not removing the defects without registering the appeal. 1 find from the record that the Registry had not cared to intimate the date on which the said letter was issued to them returning the appeal papers to the appellant. Since the appellant had already indicated the intention to file an appeal against Order-in-Appeal but could not remove the defect, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed and delay condoned and stay application is taken ...

Shakti Foam Udyog Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC536

1. This application for condonation of delay is for delay of 41 days in filing the appeal. The reason given for delay in filing the appeal is that the appellant/applicant has not received Order-in-Original.2. Learned D.R. produced letter issued by the office of the Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi-IV indicating that the said letter issued was despatched from their office on 4-1-2006.3. Larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of Margra Industries 2006 (202) E.L.T. 244 (Tri.-LB) has held that mere despatching the order through registered A.D. is not sufficient proof of service. Considering the fact that the affidavit has been filed by the proprietor of the firm indicating that the order-in-original was handed over to one of the part-time employee, I condone the delay and take up the application for stay. From the record I find that the demand of duty has arisen on the goods which were destroyed in fire and subsequently denied the Modvat credit to the applicant. An identical issue is...

Mahender Kr. Lamba Vs. Satender Prakash Lamba

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ288

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Though arguments were addressed by the parties on all the 3 captioned applications, counsel conceded that depending upon the decision in is No. 5270/2005, other 2 applications be decided.2. is No. 5270/2005 has been filed by the defendant praying that the suit be dismissed as not maintainable. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC of the Code of Civil Procedure has been invoked.3. 3 grounds have been urged while invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first is the unconditional withdrawal of CS(OS) No. 211/2003. The second ground urged is that in view of pendency of CS(OS) No. 2123/2003, second suit on the same cause is not maintainable. The 3rd plea is that the claim is barred by the limitation.4. Needless to state, allegation under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC requires the court to treat each and every averment made in the plaint to be correct. However, pleadings in the plaint have to be read meaningfully.5. Mahender Kumar Lamba (Plaintiff), Satender Prakash Lamba (...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vardhman Estate P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]287ITR368(Delhi)

1. We have seen the records of the I.T.A. Nos. 1088 of 2005 see [2006] 287 ITR 370 (Delhi) (infra) where the following substantial question of law has been formulated:Whether the actual service of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood before amendment, after the date prescribed in the said provision would relate back to the date of issue of the notice?2. It is palpably evident that certain typographical errors have occurred in framing the question of law. In our view, it should read as follows:Whether the actual service of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, issued before the date prescribed in the said provision, would relate back to the date of the issuance of the notice?3. So far as this question is concerned it stands answered on all fours by the decision in CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. : [2006]281ITR1(Delhi) (Delhi). The Bench had taken note of and rejected the contention of the Revenue that the words 'served' and 'issued' are synony...

Sh. Ashutosh Gaur Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT566

J.P. Singh, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 24.3.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi in Regular Civil Appeal against order dated 14.10.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi.2. Vide order dated 14.10.2005 learned Civil Judge, Delhi dismissed an application under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved on behalf of the plaintiff for restoration of the suit, dismissed on 19.7.2005 because no Explanationn was furnished in the application for restoration of the suit. The appeal was also dismissed.3. I have heard Mr. Babban Kumar Sharma, Advocate learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and Director NDMC alleging that he was an allottee of 'Tehbazari' by Chaturvedi Committee constituted by the Supreme Court of India. The plaintiff is carrying on hi...

Shri Kuldeep Singh Vs. State Council of Education Research

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT468

Anil Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to admit the petitioner in anyone out of 9 Government DIETS in the two year Diploma Course of Elementary Teacher Education (ETE) for the academic year 2006- 2008 as he could not appear in the counseling on 20.7.2006 on account of suffering from Typhoid though he had sent his mother and uncle with his certificates which were not considered nor his uncle and mother were allowed counseling on behalf of the petitioner.2. The petitioner contended that respondent is an autonomous statutory body of the NCT of Delhi which was set up and established with a view to concentrate on the improvement of quality of school education by bringing qualitative improvement in the training of school teachers at all levels and for which purpose 9 Districts Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) were opened which function under the administrative control of Delhi Government.3. The admission to these nine Districts Ins...

Mr. Randhir Singh Chandok Vs. Mr. VipIn Bansal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ722

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 10.8.2006 following issue was framed:Whether the suit is maintainable on account of the defense that the receipt-cum-undertaking dated 26.12.2005 is in the nature of an agreement to enter into an agreement to sell? Onus on parties.2. is No. 5145/2006 is plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from selling or encumbering the suit land till disposal of the suit. is No. 7050/2006 is defendants' application seeking recall of the ex-parte injunction granted on 5.5.2006.3. Suit seeks specific performance of an agreement dated 26.12.2005.4. As would be evident from the issue framed, question arises whether the document stated as an agreement to sell is an agreement to sell or is it in the nature of an agreement to enter into an agreement. To put it differently, did the parties conclude their bargain intending to enter into a legal relationship with each other when document dated 26.12.2005 was exec...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. P.C. Sharma and Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi51

Hima Kohli, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 10th February, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge in the execution proceedings holding that the respondent/decree holder is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,53,991/- being the interest payable at the rate of 18% per annum from 25th November, 2000 to 25th September, 2003, on the sum awarded by the arbitrator under an award dated 24th November, 2000.2. The brief facts of the case are that an execution petition was filed by the respondent/decree holder against the appellants/judgment debtors praying inter alia, for execution of an award dated 24th November, 2000 published by Dr. Y.P.C. Dangay, an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Engineer (CDZ), New Delhi vide letter dated 5th June, 1998. The learned arbitrator published the award on 24th November, 2000 under which he awarded a sum of Rs. 3,03,178/- in favor of the respondent herein, claimant in the arbitration proceedings and against the appellants herein, ...

Apar Industries Ltd., Korea Kumho Vs. Designated Authority, Ministry

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC601

1. These three appeals under Section 9C of the Customs tariff Act are filed against the final findings dated 06/06/2005 in the mid-term review and subsequent notification No. 78/2005 dated 01/09/2005 vide which the definitive anti dumping duty of US$ 138.39 was imposed on the imports made from Korea Kumho Petrochemicals.2.1 In appeal No. C/935 of 2005 the Domestic Industry is in appeal against the final findings and is seeking to modify the final findings and increase in the anti dumping duty on the ground that the designated authority has not calculated the expenses incurred on the S&GA expenses.2.2 In appeal Nos. C/68 and 69 of 2006 the Exporter Korea Kumho Petrochemicals and importer Rishiroop Polymers Ltd., are challenging the impugned final findings and the notification by which the anti-dumping duty imposed on the exporter was continued, at an enhanced rate pursuant to the mid-term review.3. The designated authority had initiated mid-term review investigation of the anti-dum...