Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

Max India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In all the appeals filed by the appellants, common issue is involved and, therefore, they are taken up together for disposal.2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of BOPP films classifiable under heading No. 39.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed cenvat credit on capital goods namely L-4 Filter Stack consisting of 34 filter candles which was sent for repairs to U.K. The appellant reversed cenvat credit while clearing of the capital goods for repairs. The appellants received back the said capital goods in their factory after repair and paid duty on bill of entry against which they have not taken any cenvat credit. Subsequently, they detected that they had erroneously reversed cenvat credit at the time of clearance of the capital goods for repairs. As such, the appellants filed refund claim.Show cause notices were issued; alleging that while examining such cases by Head Quarter office, on post audit of ...

Na Vs. Hakti Ind. (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant, Navshakti Ind.(P) Ltd. imported 26 consignments of paper and sought their clearance in 1997-98. The goods were claimed as printing paper and they were assessed accordingly. From a chart filed with the appeal, it is also seen that 19 consignments were cleared against Test Bonds. These Test Bonds were also subsequently cancelled.Since some of the consignments were detained (pending test etc.) for long period, the Deptt. also issued detention certificate in 1998, so as to enable the appellant to obtain waiver of demurrage charges from the Container Corpn. of India and Shipping companies.3. Subsequently, on 23-7-2002, a SCN was issued alleging that the goods imported were actually news print, and on account of mis-declaration as printing paper, there was a short levy of customs duty of about Rs. 32 lakhs. The appellant resisted the allegation; but under an ex parte order dated 31-8-2006, that demand was confirmed and penalties imposed.The present appeal and stay applicat...

Mitsui Marubeni Corporation Vs. Dy. Director of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)110ITD535(Delhi)

1. These are appeals by the assessee against the common order dated 27/2/2004 of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Appeals)-XXIX, New Delhi, relating to the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01.2. The first ground in both these appeals by the assessee relates to the challenge to the validity of the assessing officer assuming jurisdiction under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act].3.1 The facts and circumstances relevant for adjudication of the aforesaid ground are as follows: The assessee is an AOP, of which the members were non-resident foreign companies by name, M/s. Mitsui Construction Company Limited, Japan and M/s. Marubeni Corporation, Japan. M/s. Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited [hereinafter referred to as NTBCL] awarded an engineering procurement and construction contract for the execution of Delhi Noida Bridge Project to the assessee. An agreement dated 19/1/1998 was entered into between the assessee and NTBCL. The total value...

Midland International Ltd. Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)109ITD198(Delhi)

1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi, passed in Appeal No. 0380/2001-2002 dated December 23, 2002 on the following grounds: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified to upheld A.O.'s action in having held that for determining ALV of the property, addition of 15% interest on the security deposit, if any, had to be added and further erred in enhancing the ALV of the property by adding an amount of notional interest calculated at 15% on security deposit of Rs. 3,79,620/- instead of on Rs. 2,86,443/-adopted by the Assessing Officer. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was further not justified to uphold action of the Assessing Authority in having allocated administrative and personnel expenses to property income whereas no such expenses were in fact incurred for the purpose. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further gravely erred to have upheld the disallowance of...

Sh. Chunni Lal and anr. Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT224

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The respondents filed an eviction petition against the appellants as far back as in the year 1983 in respect of premises bearing No. E-46/2, Hauz Khas, New Delhi on the grounds under Section 14(1)(a), (b) & (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The respondents alleged that appellant No. 1 herein was a tenant in the shop, which had been sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession to appellant No. 2 without the consent of the respondents/landlord. Appellant No. 1 was alleged to be in arrears of rent, which had not been cleared despite the notice of demand and it was further claimed that the premises were required for rebuilding purposes.2. The appellants filed a common written statement pleading that one Mr. Bhoj Raj was the landlord, who had since passed away and after his demise his wife and children had succeeded to the property. The respondents were alleged to have no concern with the premises. The receip...

Shri S.D. Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT683; 2007(95)DRJ478

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. Shri S.D. Sharma, the petitioner was an inspector with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI for short). He was departmentally proceeded against and dismissed from service vide order dated 26th June, 2003. His departmental appeal was also dismissed on 9th July, 2003 and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) has rejected his Original Application on 26th March, 2004. Petitioner assails all these orders in this writ petition.2. Major Penalty proceedings under Rule 8 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (Subordinate Ranks)(Discipline & Appeal Rules) 1961 were initiated against the petitioner in respect of 2 out of the 4 charges leveled against him. The articles of charge framed against the petitioner read as follows:Article-IThat said Shri S.D. Mishra, while functioning as Inspector in C.B.I., MDMA, New Delhi during the period 1996, onwards failed to maintain absolute integrity and exhibited a conduct, unbecoming a Gov...

Klm Royal Dutch Airlines Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT402; [2007]292ITR49(Delhi)

1. In these writ petitions the Order disposing of the Objections filed by KLM Dutch Airlines ('assessed' for short) to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings has been challenged; a prayer has also been made for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any like Order quashing the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act [for short 'IT Act'] dated 8.3.2006; and for quashing the re-assessment proceedings initiated in pursuance to the Notice dated 8.3.2006. The assailed Notice pertains to Assessment Year (AY) 2001-2002 in WP(C) 16576-77 and to AY 2003-2004 in WP(C) No. 16574-75. On a perusal of the impugned Notice it appears that the Assistant Director of Income Tax [for short Assessing Officer(AO)] intends to 'reassess' the income of the Petitioner/assessed inter alias since the word 'assessed' has been scored out. This is noteworthy since avowedly no assessment has in fact been framed.2. The assessed had filed its Return of Income under Section 139 of the IT Act on 31....

Glaxo Smith Kline Asia P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ681

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a mandamus to the respondents 'to give appeal effect to the order of the Tribunal and grant refund to the petitioner along with interest thereon till the date of grant of refund'.Background facts2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of fast moving consumer products. The petitioner itself did not have any employee other than a company secretary. The administrative services relating to marketing, finance, human resource, secretarial services, etc., were provided by Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Limited ('GSKCH'), a widely held public limited company.3. The agreement between GSKCH and the petitioner was that the petitioner would reimburse the costs incurred by GSKCH for providing the various services to the petitioner plus 5 per cent, (referred to as 'cross charges'). Since in the said agreeme...

Sh. Raghubir Singh (Retd) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT467

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 8th September, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 681/04, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.2. Petitioner joined service as Carpenter in MES on 9th October, 1964. He was promoted as a Cabinet Maker on 1st September, 1979. He was further promoted to the Highly Skilled-II category on 18th October, 1984 and to the Highly Skilled-I category on 15th October, 1985. According to the petitioner as per the Recruitment Rules, he was eligible for promotion as Master Craftsman in the year 1988 when he completed 10 years' continuous regular service with 3 years' service as Highly Skilled Grade-I. Petitioner states that even though he was eligible, his case was not considered while his juniors were promoted.3. It appears that a Departmental Prom...

Voltas Limited Vs. Voltas Employees' Union and Anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR526]; (2007)IILLJ604Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 28.10.2001 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (in short 'the ALC) conferring status of protected workmen on S/Shri. S.K. Sharma, Rajender Prasad Tiwari, T.C. Jhangia and Jasbir Singh, all employees of the respondent for the year 2000-01 up to 11.7.2001, when the services of the aforementioned four persons were terminated by the management consequent to disciplinary action. Mr. Trilok Singh, another workman, was declared protected workman for complete year.2. A perusal of the impugned order would show that Voltas Employees Union, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I made an application under Section 33(4) of Industrial Dispute Act (in short ' the Act') to the ALC seeking declaration as protected workmen in respect of five of its office bearers named in the above paragraph for the year 2001-02. The union stated that it had made an application to the management for the same purpose on 15.3...