1
Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Nov-29-2002
Reported in : (2003)(86)ECC200
1. In these 12 appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No.41/2001 dated 30.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I, the common issue involved is whether the Modvat Credit is to be disallowed to all the appellants on the ground that the supplier of the inputs has taken the Modvat Credit on fake and bogus invoices and utilized the said Credit towards payment of duty in respect of inputs supplied to the appellants.2. We heard Shri Naveen Mullick, Shri Kamaljeet Singh, and Shri V.K.Gupta, learned Advocates who appeared on behalf of different appellants. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants availed of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs received from the suppliers; that one of the suppliers of inputs is M/s. Prerna Metal Industries; that the inquiries initiated against the said Prerna Metal Industry revealed that they had taken the Modvat Credit on the strength of the invoices which were fake and bogus and were never i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Nov-29-2002
Reported in : (2003)(153)ELT114TriDel
1. In these 12 appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No.41/2001 dated 30-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I, the common issue involved is whether the Modvat credit is to be disallowed to all the appellants on the ground that the supplier of the inputs has taken the Modvat credit on fake and bogus invoices and utilized the said Credit towards payment of duty in respect of inputs supplied to the appellants.2. We heard Shri Naveen Mullick, Shri Kamaljeet Singh, and Shri V.K.Gupta, learned Advocates who appeared on behalf of different appellants. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants availed of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs received from the suppliers, that one of the supplier of inputs is M/s.Prerna Metal Industries; that the inquiries initiated against the said Prerna Metal Industry revealed that they had taken the Modvat credit on the strength of the invoices which were fake and bogus and were never iss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-01-2002
Reported in : 100(2002)DLT519
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Main question involved in this petition is whether notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is illegal and invalid because of its being not served within the year to which it related as contemplated under Section 126 of the Act and secondly imperative conditions of service under Section 444(1)(d) of the Act having not been complied with.2. The respondent No. 1 took the suit property on lease from DDA in 1979 for a premium of Rs. 14,795/-. He started construction on the said plot of land in 1980. It is also not in dispute that the said property was put to residential use only. A notice under Section 126 of the Act was issued by the petitioner proposing to enhance the rateable value of the said property from Rs. 2,520/- to Rs. 37,800- w.e.f. 1.4.1980 on account of erection of building on plot. The cost of the land was assessed at Rs. 1,600/- per sq. metre existing in the year 1980 on the basis that for differen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-30-2002
Reported in : I(2003)ACC194; 2004ACJ80; AIR2003Delhi50; 100(2002)DLT721; 2003(66)DRJ407; [2004(101)FLR165]
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The petitioner is heir and legal representative of one Vinod Kumar Sharma. He met with an accident on 10.12.1992 while allegedly driving in a drunken state. A First Information Report (in short, 'F.I.R.') was lodged on the basis of a telephone call, which is in the following terms :-'D.D. No. 50B dt. 10.12.92, P.S. Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Arrival of telephonic information from P.P. MIG Flats and Departure. Time, 8.10 P.M. Constable Santosh Kumar No. 1547/W gave an information from P.P. MIG Flats that on the main Najafgarh Road, in front of Shop of Maharaja Band, a two wheeler scooter has met with an accident. Police be sent. As per the procedure, the telephonic information was recorded in the Daily Dairy. Copy of the Daily Dairy has been handed over to S.I. Suhil Kumar who along with Constable Sumer Singh No. 1197/W left for the spot. Duty Officer.' 2. Thereafter the respondent No. 6 together with a Constable visited the site. The said respondent recorded statemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-26-2002
Reported in : 2003(69)DRJ751
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. These three appeals are filed by the Union of India the Delhi Development Authority and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi respectively against the same judgment/order dated 1st August, 2001 rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 923/97 which was filed by the unofficial respondents herein.2. The unofficial respondents herein had filed the aforesaid writ petition herein direction was sought to the appellants herein (official respondents) to decide representations dated 4th November, 1996, 6th December, 1996 and 24th January, 1997 of the respondents for releasing from acquisition the lands situated in Village Okhla Mahigiran, Mehrauli. They also made a prayer to the effect that the appellants herein should be directed to implement the National Housing Policy 1994 ('NHP-94' for short) as adopted by both the Houses of Parliament. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, certain significant developments took place. A decision was taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-26-2002
Reported in : (2002)178CTR(Del)119
S.B. Sinha, C.J.The following questions at the instance of the assessed and/or the revenue in respect of the assessment years specified hereinbelow have been referred to by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for opinion of this court :IT Ref. Nos. 86 to 88/1984; Assessment year 1976- 77 (i) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed-company was eligible for deduction under section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessed's undertaking could be held to be manufacturing or producing articles within the meaning of section 80?'IT Ref. Nos. 315 to 318/851; Assessment years 1979-80 & 1980-81assessed :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed-company was eligible for deduction under sections 80J and 80HH of the Act and the assessed's undertaking could be held to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-25-2002
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)8; 2003CriLJ1443; 101(2002)DLT245; 2003(66)DRJ390
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. The petitioner is an accused in a criminal complaint filed by the respondent for his prosecution for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (in short the Act) before a court in Delhi. He has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of this criminal complaint.2. Supreme Court in Rajender Prasad v. Bashir and Ors. 2001 III AD(CR)SC 384 after referring to the earlier judgment in Krishnan and Anr. v. Krishnaveni and Anr. : 1997CriLJ1519 held that the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in special circumstances. In Krishnana and another (supra) the Supreme Court had laid down that the High Court may exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where High Court finds that there had been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, the High Court may, in its discretion prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice. It is now well settl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-20-2002
Reported in : (2002)(84)ECC881
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 30.7.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The issue is of interest under Section 11-AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short Act).2. Shri Harishankar, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and he submitted that by virtue of show cause notice dated 5.3.90, a demand of Rs. 6,10,788.87 P has been raised on the ground that the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86 had been wrongly availed from 1.4.86 to 30.6.88; that by order in original dated 2.5.91, the Commissioner has confirmed the entire demand; that vide order dated 9.7.92, the Delhi High Court modified the terms of stay to furnishing of bank guarantee for Rs. 7,10,788.87P and the requisite bank guarantee was furnished on 30.7.92, which was thereafter renewed from time to time; that vide final order dated 11.5.2000, the Tribunal allowed Appeal No. 4500/91 in part confirming the demand for the period prior to 31.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-19-2002
Reported in : 100(2002)DLT497
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 19th November, 1983 passed by Mr. S.P. Singh, Additional District Judge/ Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the 'said Act') in P.P. A. No.(s) 21/82 and 22/82, whereby and where under the appeals filed by the writ petitioners herein purported to be in terms of Section 9 thereof arising out of an order dated 8th September, 1980 passed by Estate Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, in case No. 13/77 were dismissed.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.A mezzanine floor of the premises in question was left out by M/s. Tropical Insurance Company in favor of one Uttam Prakash Bansal in the year 1950. He entered into a partnership with one Deen Dayal Kaushik. In the premises in question office of the firm was opened.3. According to the petitioners herein rent used to be paid by bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-18-2002
Reported in : 100(2002)DLT85; 2003(66)DRJ775
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Whether the provisions of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, is still in force and in any event has been impliedly repealed by Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, are some of the questions involved in these writ petitions.2. The petitioners herein are the owners/Bhumidars in respect of non-agricultural and agricultural land in the Revenue Estate of Kanjhawala, North West District of Delhi. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of Notification dated 8 9.1993 issued by the Lt. Governor Delhi intending to make a scheme for reconsolidation of holdings purporting to act under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act No. 50 of 1948 (as extended to Delhi) (Consolidation Act) and also for consolidation scheme under Sub-section (2) of Section 14 thereof.3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have averred that the Notification dated 8.9.1993 under S...
Tag this Judgment!