Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

Biharij Mfg. Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ705

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. a quashing order in respect of criminal proceedings initiated on a complaint by the respondent Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi is sought for.2. The allegations against the petitioners were briefly that they indulged in clandestine removal of manufactured goods and that the value of the clearance, taken together with that of other entities, viz M/s. Cosmos Industries, M/s. Prabhat Sanitryware and M/s. Supreme Plast India exceeded Rs. 1 crore i.e. the limit indicated by an exemption notification issued by the Department in that regard. The crux of the charge was that the clearances had to be taken together, and so valuded, the petitioners were liable to pay excise duty.3. The adjudication order, upon issuance of the show cause notice resulted in findings delivered against the petitioners by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Aggrieved, they preferred appeals to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal....

Rella Ram Sant Ram Vs. Commisisoner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT214; [2008]301ITR392(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') against the order dated 23rd December, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal').2. Brief facts are that a search under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 7th August, 1997 at the business premises of the assessed firm and also the residential premises of its partners. The assessed firm is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of timber/plywood. Consequent to the search, a notice under Section 158BC of the Act dated 28th April, 1992 was issued by the Assessing Officer requiring the assessed to file its return of income for the block period 1st April, 1987 to 7th August, 1997. In response thereto, the assessed filed its return showing undisclosed income of Rs. 4,74,119/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that for the above mentioned period the assessed had shown purchases of Rs. 11,77,666/- and sale of Rs. 20...

Pandit Devi Datt (Now Deceased) Through Lrs Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(209)ELT343(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petition has been filed by the original petitioner Pandit Devi Datt under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the grant of probate of the last Will and testament of the testatrix Shrimati Ram Kesari wife of late Shri Dina Nath. Shrimati Ram Kesari is stated to have passed away on 19.10.1986 and executed the last Will and testament on 27.10.1983 (PW-1/C). The husband of Shrimati Ram Kesari, Shri Dina Nath predeceased her. There was only one child out of the wedlock being her son named Shri Vineet Kumar, who is stated to have executed a Relinquishment Deed dated 4.7.1975 during the lifetime of the testatrix. Shri Vineet Kumar has not been traceable as he left for an unknown destination without informing anyone in January 1983 and nothing has been heard of him since then till date. Pandit Devi Datt filed a petition for succession certificate bearing No. 183/94 before the Administrative Civil Judge, Delhi and in the said proceedings in terms of t...

Devayani Sharma Vs. National Highways Authority of India,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT703

J.M. Malik, J.1. The case of the appellant is that she is the sole proprietor of M/s Devayani Earth Work Contractor and had hired from Rungta Irrigation Ltd. i.e. respondent No. 3, a wheel loader JCB 430Z on a monthly charge of Rs. 1,10,000/-. Thereafter, the appellant entered into an agreement for hire with Maharia Raj (JV) Civil Engineer & Contractors through Vinod Goyal respondent No. 2 on 15.07.2004, in pursuance of which the appellant handed over the physical possession of the loader in question to it on monthly rent of Rs. 1,10,000/-. Respondent No. 2 did not pay anything for use and occupation of the said loader. When the appellant went to take possession of the loader, it transpired that the same had already been seized by National Highways Authority of India, respondent No. 1. Under these circumstances, the appellant filed a suit for possession and for recovery of mesne profits against respondents No. 1 and 2. The appellant also moved an application dated 12.01.2005 under Orde...

Sudha Burman Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]296ITR96(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. By this common judgment, two appeals bearing ITA Nos. 306 and 307/2002 filed by the appellant against the impugned order dt. 3rd June, 2002 [reported as Asstt. CIT v. Smt. Sudha Burman (2004) 91 TTJ (Del) 301--Ed.] passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal') are being disposed of as both these appeals involve common question of law and fact.2. Common facts as emerge out from the record are that appellant is wife of Shri A.C. Burman, chairman, M/s Dabur India Ltd. and has income from house property, business and other sources. Husband of the appellant has undertaken several trips abroad during the relevant period and the appellant accompanied him on these trips. The company had undertaken the expenses on tickets for the appellant's visit abroad. The AO disallowed 50 per cent of the expenses and treated 50 per cent of the amount spent as income of the assessed under the provision of Section 2(24)(iv) of the IT Act (for short as 'Act').3. The app...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vimgi Investment P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Del)270; [2007]290ITR505(Delhi)

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated September 30, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench 'B' in I.T.A. No. 1371/Del/2005 relevant for the assessment year 2001-02.2. The assessed had purchased some units of mutual funds which were cum dividend. The units were sold within two or three days of purchase but after receiving the dividend. The dividend received by the assessed was about Rs. 3.72 crores and the units were sold at a loss of about Rs. 4.45 crores. The loss incurred in the sale of units was adjusted by the assessed against the business profits.3. The Assessing Officer, while assessing the return of the assessed, accepted the bona fides of the transaction and did not cast any doubt upon the genuineness of the sale of the units and, thereforee, adjusted the loss on account of sale against the business profits.4. The Commissioner of Income-tax, however, had a different view and invoked the powers entrusted to him under Section 263 of the Income-...

Government of India, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Acome and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR90(Delhi); 2007(95)DRJ466

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (The Act) to set aside the majority award dated 1.2.2002 passed by an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three members. 2. In relation to a contract for supply of PIJF cables for Department of Telecommunications (DOT) and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL), the parties had entered into an agreement by issuance of two purchase orders by the petitioner both dated 1.6.1988. Dispute arose between the parties since according to the petitioner, some of the supplies were defective while the respondent contended that supplies were good and were in fact utilised by the respondent. 3. The matter was taken to arbitration consisting of three technical experts, namely, Mr. B.R.Nair (the Chairman of the Tribunal), Mr. T. Narayanamoorthy (the arbitrator nominated by the respondent) and Mr. Ranbir Khanna (the arbitrator nominated by the petitioner). Two of the arbitrators, na...

Sidharth Soya Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant challenges the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-original by which the Assistant Commissioner ordered recovery of Rs. 29,330/- as the amount leviable on the value of clearance of exempted goods at the rate of 8% of the total price of such goods on the ground that the separate accounts of the inputs used in the exempted and non-exempted final products were not maintained.2. The appellant was availing Cenvat credit facility on the different chemicals used in the manufacture of refined edible oil. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of refined edible oil from the seeds/oiled cakes by solvent extraction method during which process solvent extracted oil and de-oiled cake were produced. The solvent extracted oil was further used in the refinery to get refined edible oil, which was a dutiable item. During the process of refining, various input chemicals such as, phosphoric acid, caustic soda, sulphuric acid etc. were used and Cenvat cre...

Pawan Sharma Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides and perused the record. The contention is that the appellant is providing manpower for the painting of advertisement materials (supplied by Manglam Cement) on walls. This is brought out by the contract as well as bills also. Ld. Counsel's submission is that wall painting under a labour contract cannot be equated with advertising.2. Prima facie, appellant's contention merits acceptance. Stay application is allowed and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal....

Shakti Metal Refinery Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC254

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby demand for the period April 1990 to 15.12.99 was confirmed by issuing a show-cause notice on 17.3.04 and penalty is imposed. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of brass rods, and from the brass rods they are manufacturing brass wires.The appellants were availling the benefit of small scale exemption in respect of brass rods. As per notification, the benefit is available if the brass rods so produced are less than 10 feet long. On 31.10.99, the officers of Revenue visited the premises of the appellant and it was found that certain quantity of brass rods manufactured by the appellant an more than 10 feet length. The brass rods were seized. Thereafter on 16.12.99 also the appellant explained the reasons that the brass rods more than 10 feet because due to over flow in the dies it happened and thereafter the rods were cleared under notification were less than 10 feet long....