Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

Pasupati Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC239

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of various varieties of yarn. It had been clearing yarn after paying excise duty in accordance with the classification approved by competent excise officers. Rates of duty was part of the approved classification list. Three such classification lists were dated 17.5.83, 17.2.84 and 1.3.84. One variety of yarn covered by the classification lists was Cellulosic Spun Yarn.2. The appellant had sought classification of Cellulosic Spun Yarn under Tariff Heading 18III(i) and the classification was approved also.We may note here the relevant tariff heading: Yarn, in which man-made fibre of cellulosic origin predominates in weight and, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power - Explanation I - "Count" means the size of grey yarn (excluding any sizing material) expressed in English Count. Explanation II - For multiple fold yarn, "count" means the count of the basic single yarn. Explanation III - Wh...

Smt. Kama Vati Vs. Chander Bhan and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT396; (2007)146PLR21

J.P. Singh, J.1. This application under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 has been moved on behalf of the respondents for review of the order dated 1.8.2005.2. I have heard Mr. S.P. Chug, Advocate learned Counsel for the applicants/respondents/plaintiffs and Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate learned Counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner/defendant.3. It will be helpful to refer briefly to the facts of this case. The opposite party to this application had filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India [C.M. (M)] against an order dated 19.8.2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi allowing an application for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 3 & 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned civil judge had set aside a consent order vide order dated 19.8.2004, which was challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said C.M. (M) was allowed by this Court and the impugned order dated 19.8.2004 was set aside. It was directed by this Cou...

Harish Yadav Vs. Cbi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT62; 2009(93)DRJ672

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. These three appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 18-03-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions case No. 78/05 whereby the three appellants have been convicted under Sections 396/397/400/201 IPC and the order dated 05-04-2006 whereby life imprisonment has been imposed upon all of them for their conviction under Sections 396 and 400 IPC besides rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default one month's simple imprisonment, for their conviction under Section 201 IPC. Since all the appeals arise out of the same judgment and were heard also analogously the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts leading to the trial and conviction of the appellants, as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in para Nos. 1 to 5 of the impugned judgment, are as follows:1. The history of this case is that during the intervening night of 29/30.8.1998, a dacoity-cum-murder took ...

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Awaz Builders (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]290ITR588(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against an order dt. 30th March, 2005 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'WT' in WTA Nos. 73 to 75/Del/2004 relevant for the asst. yrs. 1996-97 to 1998-99.2. In fact, the Revenue has filed three appeals. All of them are listed today and are numbered as WT Appeal No. 31 of 2005, WT Appeal No. 32 of 2005 and WT Appeal No. 33 of 2005. Today we are only considering WT Appeal No. 31 of 2005 because it has been shown by learned Counsel for the assessed that the facts of this appeal are different of the other two appeals inasmuch as there is an amendment to the WT Act which has a material bearing on the facts pertaining to the other two appeals, but not this appeal.3. The assessed was the owner of a commercial building No. 16/15, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. This building was sought to be assessed to wealth-tax. According to the assessed since it was a commercial building it was not included in the definition of 'assets' as defined in Section 2(ea)(i) of the Act. At...

Amit Kumar Jha Vs. Connectors and Another.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of having been sold defective mobile handset, the respondents have been vide impugned order dated 4.9.2006 passed by the District Forum, directed to replace the set with new packed set of Nokia with fresh warranty of one year and also to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation. 2. Appellant is still dissatisfied with this order and has preferred this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 3. It appears that the main grievance of the appellant is that the impugned order has not been complied with by the respondents so far. This grievance can be remedied by directing the appellant to file application under Section s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for implementation of the order. Even otherwise, the appellant has been adequately compensated besides replacement of handset purchased by him with a new handset. 4. There is no merit in appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. 5. A copy of this...

Olympic Petro Products Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC186

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of polyester monofilament yarn. Certain quantity of yarn was cleared at concessional rate of duty under Notification No.76/88 for slide fasteners. The condition of the notification is that procedure set out in Chapter X of Central Excise Rules is to be followed. The appellant cleared the goods against the CT-2 certificates produced by the manufacturer of slide fasteners. Show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for demanding duty on the ground that the appellant had not produced requisite warehousing certificate.2. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, the appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed.3. The contention of the appellant is that as per provision set out under Chapter X of Central Excise Rules, the recipient of the goods has to apply for necessary certificate by giving certain bond to receive t...

Cts Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The application is in regard to the import of 'slop oil'. The consignment was confiscated, hazardous material. The grievance is that an opportunity to redeem was not allowed. The application states that "prima facie case was in the favour of the applicant".2. There is no merit in the application. Hazardous materials are prohibited for import. Therefore, confiscation was clearly in terms of law.3. In view of the above, the stay application is rejected and authorities are directed not to allow clearance of the consignment until disposal of the appeal....

Smt. Naushaba Rana Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)109ITD288(Delhi)

1. All these appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar, dated 24-2-2005.2. Though several grounds are raised, the assessee challenges the addition made to the income being the amount received by way of gift from various donors and also challenges levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act. The ground relating to reassessment made under Section 147 was not pressed before us. Hence, the same is not discussed in detail but is dismissed for want of prosecution.3. In all these appeals the appellants are stated to have received various gifts. The details of such gifts assessee-wise are as under: Sh. Quamruzama Rana (i) Mr. Abdul Javed S/oShri Gafoor R/o 3342, Kucha Rehman, Delhi-6 (ii) Mr. Mohd. Ahsan S/o Shri Mohd. Hafizur Rehman R/o 3342, Kucha Rehman, Delhi-6 (iii) Mr. Azhar Mohd. S/o Shri Mohd. Hafiz R/o 294, Matya Mahal, Delhi-6 Sh. Abdul Quadir Rana (i) Sh. Rafiq Ahmad S/o Sh. Mohd. Hafiz, 294 Matya Mahal,...

ito Vs. R.K. Suri

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal filed by revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXI, New Delhi dated 31-1-2003 for assessment year 1998-99. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,01,251 made by the assessing officer as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that the amount of reserve and surplus shown in the balance sheet of the concerned company cannot be treated as 'accumulated profits' as stipulated in Section 2(22)(e). 2. In granting the relief of Rs. 5,01,251 the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has ignored the fact that even the assessee himself in para 3.13 of his submission made before the Commissioner (Appeals) has stated that provisions of Section 2(22)(e) can be invoked to the extent of Rs. 3,77,250 instead of Rs. 5,01,251. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case...

Deputy General Manager Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC466

1. This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 29.11.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order of the adjudicating authority denying modvat credit of Rs. 5,50,986/- to the appellant and directing its recovery as well as imposing penalty of the like amount and requiring interest to be paid.2. The appellant, a Government of India Undertaking, was manufacturing excisable goods falling under Chapter 85 and availing modvat credit facility under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules of 1944. It appeared from the scrutiny of their returns in the month of May 1997, and other modvat/input documents that, the appellant had availed modvat credit wrongly on the strength of invoices mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the notice for the reasons shown therein. As regards invoice Nos. 11 to 17 of Annexure 'A', the case of the Revenue was that modvat credit was availed after the expiry of six months, which was permissible under Rule 57G(5) of the said Rules. As regards the invoice...