Delhi Court January 2010 Judgments

Subhash Bansal and Another Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

PER: D.N.PANDA Both the appellants have come in appeal before the tribunal against order dated 31.7.2009 passed by the ld. Commissioner with following consequences: (1) Goods worth Rs.12,10,71,484/- (Rupees twelve crores ten lakhs seventy one thousand four hundred and eighty four only) as detailed in para 46 (ii) above were confiscated under Section 111(b), (d), (f) and (l) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to Shri B.K.Goyal and Shri Subhash Bansal under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 to redeem the confiscated goods depositing Rs.2 crores (Rs.Two crores only) as redemption fine. (2) Duty at appropriate rate was required to be paid on the goods under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 at the time of redemption and total duty of Rs.11,47,31,273/- Rupees eleven crores forty seven lakhs thirty one thousand two hundred and seventy three only) was confirmed under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Penalty equivalent to the amount of duty was imposed and with liabili...

Pearl Academy of Fashion Vs. Basant Kumar Goel

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. Short facts of the case are that the complainants daughter got admission in OPs Academy on 9.3.2007 and deposited Rs. 85,500 as the admission fees. Subsequently she was admitted to MBA Course in Jamia Hamdard University. She therefore relinquished the OP Academy and applied for the refund of the fees deposited by her and the OP returned her Rs. 65,000 after deducting a sum of Rs. 20,000 towards the Registration and the Admission fees. 2. With this grouse the complainant filed a complaint against the OP for the refund of amount of Rs. 20,000 before the District Forum. 3. The OP Academy opposed the claim and filed the written statement, pleading the sum of Rs. 20,000 cannot be refunded, in view of refund Policy, of the OP. 4. The District Forum repelled the contention of the OP Academy and decreed the claim of the complainant directing the OP to refund the complainant Rs. 20,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum from March 2007, till the date of pa...

Air India Limited Vs. Manoj Kumar Dewan

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

M.L. Sahni, Member: 1. M/s. Air India Ltd. the OP before the District Forum, have filed this appeal challenging Forums order dated 4.6.2008 whereby the OP (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) have been directed to pay to the Respondent (complainant) Rs. 87,667 the price of the ticket , Rs. 1,00,000 towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000 towards cost of litigation, on variety of grounds, inter alia, that the father of the complainant did not have proper authorization to file the consumer complaint and that the District Forum awarded and exorbitant amount of Rs. 1,00,000 towards compensation as against prayer of the complaint asking for Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and harassment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, are that Respondent had booked return ticket from New York to Delhi for 26.1.2001 and from Delhi to New York vide flight No. AI-III for 4.3.2001 via London with the Appellant/OP under a highly concessional scheme from its agent a...

National Insurance Co. Ltd and Another Vs. Deepankar Mukhopadhaya

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

M.L. Sahni, Member: 1. Order dated 28.1.2008 passed by the District Forum VII (Sheikh Sarai), New Delhi, has been impugned by the OP (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) on the ground, inter alia, that learned District Forum has failed to consider the fact that according to own admission of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) in his legal notice dated 16.10.2006 that the insured goods already reached its destination at Delhi on 20/22 January, 2006 and the same were received by complainant through his men. Therefore, obtaining the insurance policy on 31.1.2006 by the complainant concealing the material facts and for covering the risk of the goods during transportation only after reaching the consignment at its destination shows mala fide intentions of the complainant to get the claim which is not maintainable. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, precisely stated, are that a Marine Cargo (Specific Voyage) Insurance Policy was obtained by the complainant/res...

Vinay Wires and Poly Products Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorised Signato ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2010(172)LC171(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this writ petition, quashing of order No. 51/2009-M (CX)/DA dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Member (Central Excise), Central Board of Excise and Customs, is prayed for. The impugned order imposes the following restrictions on the petitioner:i. The facility of monthly payment of excise duty by the assessees i.e, M/s. Vinay Wires and Poly Products Pvt. Ltd., Unit I and II, Kanpur, as provided under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is ordered to be withdrawn and they are required to pay excise duty for each consignment at the time of removal of the goods with effect from 21.12.2009 to 30.06.2010.ii. Payment of excise duty by utilization of CENVAT credit as provided under Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, is ordered to be stopped with effect from 21.12.2009 to 30.06.2010. During this period, the assessees are required to pay excise duty without utilizing CENVAT credit. However, the assessees are permitted to take CENVAT credit on goods receiv...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Insilco Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]321ITR105(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. In both these appeals, the identical question of law was framed, which relates to charging of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). For answering this questions, we can take note of the facts of ITA No. 119 of 2002.2. The respondent assessee was incorporated on 19.10.1988 to manufacture and import and export silco and donatives thereof. It filed its return for the first time on 31.12.1990 which related to the assessment year 1990-91 declaring 'Nil' income. In this return the aggregate interest of Rs. 6,48,190/- received by the assessee on certain deposits was set off against interest paid on deferred payment facility amounting to Rs. 12,03,993/-. The Assessing Officer refused to allow this set off in his assessment order dated 26.2.1992. His view was that the interest income earned by the assessee during the period of construction is chargeable to tax under the head 'Income from other sources'. The interest paid, on t...

C.R. Park M, N and P Blocks Residents Welfare Association and anr. Vs. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 167(2010)DLT53

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners at the very outset points out that the correct name of Petitioner No. 1 is 'C.R. Park (M, N & P Blocks) Residents Welfare Association (Regd.)' and that the name of Petitioner No. 1 as appearing in the memo of parties as well as in the writ petition and other documents should read accordingly. This prayer is allowed and it is directed that as far as the present petition is concerned, the name of Petitioner No. 1 should read as 'C.R. Park (M, N & P Blocks) Residents Welfare Association (Regd.).'2. The Petitioner No. 1 is an association of the residents of Blocks M, N and P of Chittranjan Park ('CR Park'), New Delhi. Petitioner No. 2 is a welfare association of the residents of CR Park Block 52.3. The principal grievance of the Petitioners is against the allotment made by a letter dated 12th May 1997 of a piece of land in Plot Nos. 2 and 3 adjoining Pocket 52 and Blocks, M. N & P, C.R. Park, New Delhi in favour of Re...

Manita Khurana Vs. Indra Khurana

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 167(2010)DLT58

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the defendant in a suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff and with respect to the order dated 10th November, 2009 of the Additional District Judge, dismissing the application of the petitioner/defendant for transfer of the suit to the Family Court in view of Sections 7 & 8 of the Family Court Act, 1984. The Counsel for the petitioner was heard on the aspect of issuance of notice of the petition to the respondent on 7th December, 2009 and the order reserved; since the suit was listed before the learned Additional District Judge for recording the evidence of the petitioner/defendant on the very next day, vide order of the same day, it was further directed that the learned Additional District Judge shall adjourn the hearing awaiting the orders of this Court.2. The petitioner/defendant is the daughter-in-law of the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff has instituted th...

C.C.E., Ludhiana Vs. M/S Vinayak Textile Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.400/ST/Appl/Ldh/2007 dated 3.1.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent, manufacturer of cotton yarn availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs and capital goods and credit of service tax paid by them on the input service being used and received by them for the manufacture of finished goods. The original authority confirmed the demand amounting to Rs.72,945/- on the ground that the service tax payment was made using Cenvat credit and not by cash/PLA. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that a sum of Rs.56,583/- related to service tax payable on the services of Goods Transport Agency received in connection with the receipt of raw materials from the raw material suppliers. The respondents as recipient of the said services of GTA are deemed providers of the said services and required to pay service tax and accordingly, they paid t...

C.C.E., Ludhiana Vs. M/S Nicks (India) Tools

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 404/ST/Appl/Ldh/2007 dated 3.1.2008. 2. Heard the learned Jt.CDR and none appears for the respondent. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent, manufacturer of M.V. parts availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs and capital goods and credit of service tax paid by them on the input service being used and received by them for the manufacture of finished goods. The original authority confirmed the demand amounting to Rs.68,632/- on the ground that the service tax payment was made using Cenvat credit and not by cash/PLA. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that a sum of Rs.10,180/- related to service tax payable on the services of Goods Transport Agency received in connection with the receipt of raw materials from the raw material suppliers. The respondents as recipient of the said services of GTA are deemed providers of the said services and required to ...