Delhi Court November 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bengal Transport Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)990; 69(1997)DLT1038; 1998(45)DRJ45
Arun Kumar, J. (1) Since a short point is involved, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. (2) Respondent No.2, the Container Corporation of India (for short CCI) issued an advertisement inviting tenders from experienced handling contractors for cargo handling operations at its Inland Container Depot (for short ICD), Tughlakabad, New Delhi. Tender papers were issued to various parties on 29th November, 1996. The tenders were opened on 10th December, 1996 and the rates quoted by the various tenderers became known on that date itself. According to the petitioner its tender was the lowest. The period for which the work was to be awarded under the tender is four years, i.e., from 1st February, 1997 to 31st January 2001. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspire of being the lowest tenderer, the work was not awarded to the petitioner. On the contrary the work has been awarded to respondent No.4 who, according to the petitioner, was not even the second lowest tenderer but w...
industrial Finance Corporation of India Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: [1998]233ITR13(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The assessed is a statutory corporation established under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948, and set up for the purpose of providing long and medium term credits. During the year ending June 30, 1976, the Corporation transferred to a reserve created under Section 36(1)(viii) a sum of Rs. 41,02,578 being ten per cent, of the total income of Rs. 4,10,25,778. Under the provisions of Section 36(1)(viii) financial corporations engaged in providing long-term finance for industrial or agricultural development in India are entitled to a deduction in the computation of their taxable profit of the amount transferred by them out of such profits to a Special Reserve Account, up to a specified percentage of their total income as computed before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The deduction is available only where the financial corporation is approved by the Central Government for the purposes of this section. The question whether the...
Director of Income-tax Exemption Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR688(Delhi)
R. C. LAHOTI J. - By this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated November 7, 1994, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting the petitioners application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as barred by time, as also the order dated June 2, 1995, rejecting the petitioners application under section 254(2) of the Act seeking rectification in the order dated November 7, 1994.The facts in brief. On February 21, 1994, the Tribunal passed an order remanding the matter as to the assessment of the second respondent to the Assessing Officer. The order was received by the Commissioner of Income-tax on June 9, 1994. On August 8, 1994, an application under section 256(1) of the Act seeking reference to the High Court on certain questions of law arising out of the order dated February 21, 1994, was filed. The Tribunal formed an opinion that the application, having been filed beyond the period of limitati...
Roshan Lal Mehta Vs. Nand Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT746
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) Learned Counsel for the respondent did not desire to file a reply and the case had been directed to be listed for today after notice miscellaneous matters, vide order dated 28.8.1997. (2) By this revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner had assailed the order dated 4.9.1993, passed by the then Sub Judge, allowing the application under Order Xxii, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code of the applicant, Mr. Satwant Singh. (3) The facts in brief as set out by the Counsel for the petitioner may be briefly noted: The petitioner had purchased the house in question viz. D-229, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, constructed on a plot of 125 sq. yards from one Mr. Nand Singh, the original plaintiff. It is stated that possession was handed over to petitioner Nos. I and 2, who happened to be husband and wife. Sh. Nand Singh had also executed the usual agreement to sell, power of attorney in favor of petitioners and a registered will in favor of Sh. Roshan Lal, petitioner No. 1. On 11.10.1982,...
Sundeep Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1997
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT886TriDel
1. After hearing the submissions of the ld. Counsel on the said petition filed by the applicant, it became clear that the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal on a short point. Accordingly I waive the pre-deposit of the penalty amount which is the subject-matter of the said application and proceed to take up the appeal which I do with the consent of both the sides. The appeal is against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- for alleged wrong taking of Modvat credit of Rs. 40,772/- 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods in the manufacture of which duty paid inputs are used. The appellant, being a small scale industrial unit, was availing of Notification No. 1/93, dated 1-3-1993. In terms of the said Notification, the appellant was availing of full exemption from duty during the period 1-4-1995 to 31-5-1995 at which stage, having exceeded duty free exemption limit, appellant started paying duty availing of Modvat credit. In earlier year also, appellant was ava...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat Agro Industries Corpn.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1997
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT558TriDel
1. Ld. DR stated that the respondents are the manufacturers of P.P.Food falling under Chapter 20 & 21. They filed C.L. wherein they have claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 as amended. The said unit had amalgamated with M/s. Gujarat Agro Ind. Corpn. Ltd., w.e.f. 1-4-1984. The unit was not eligible for the concession covered under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 as their principal unit was not coming under the preview of exemption under the said notification. Their S.S.I. registration has not been got amended. The said unit availed the said exemption under Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 as amended, for the period from 1-1-1988 to 15-1-1988 and paid duty at concessional rate of 5% Adv. on the clearances and hence they are required to pay differential amount @ 5% on their said clearances.1.2 A S.C.N., dated 14-4-1988 had been issued demanding differential duty.1.3 The respondents did not reply to the said S.C.N. and continued prolon...
Minwool Insulation Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT372TriDel
1. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of slag wool. They also manufacture rock wool, up to 20-2-1989, the Assessee cleared slag wool and rock wool as two different products. On 21-2-1989, the appellants filed a classification list classifying their products as mineral fibre i.e.slag wool known as rock wool, claiming exemption from duty under Notification No. 50/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. The Department returned the Classification List to the Assessee asking them to indicate the correct description of the goods. The Appellants re-submitted these classification lists requesting the Asstt. Collector to keep them pending till they receive orders from the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). These classification lists were approved provisionally, asking the Assessee to show cause as to why the products slag wool as described by them should not be classified separately under Chapter Sub-heading 6803.00, attracting duty at 15% ad val...
Jagdamba Sahakari Sakhar Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT591TriDel
1. This Appeal arises against order-in-original dated 12-1-1990 passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad confirming the duty amount of Rs. 79,013.10 under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act and also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Rule 173Q of the said Rules.2. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 1-9-1989 that the appellants had manufactured steel tanks and removed the same for storage of molasses in the sugar factory without informing the department wilfully with intention to evade duty of excise. It was contended by the Appellants that they had sent letter dated 24-10-1984 to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Shrigonda intimating the construction of steel tank for storage of molasses and also seeking permission to store molasses in steel tanks. The said letter was acknowledged and the Superintendent of Central Excise vide his letter dated 7-11-1984 approved ground plan to store ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Cycle Equipment (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1997
Reported in: 1997(43)DRJ686
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) This Judgment will dispose of the objections filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the petitioner for setting aside the Award dated 29th May, 1984. (2) The facts which are incorporated in the application are referred to in paragraphs 1 to 5 which may be reproduced as follows:- '`1.That on the request of the Respondent No. 1 load of 1707 Kv for power and 9.5 Kv for lighting total 1716.5 Kv was sanctioned as per revised agreement dated 15th November 1977. 2. That it was agreed between the parties that the Tariff Schedule Lip will be applicable. 3. That one of the gadgets described in the Test notice submitted by the Respondent No. 1 was electric are furnace which as per specifications given in the test notice was rated as 1400 Kw and as is the practice, the same was accepted as correct. 4. That on inspection by the Enforcement Department of Desu on 4th August 1978 a load of 2080 Kwa of the arc furnace besides load of 194.17 Hp for other install...
B.R. Malhotra Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)1049; 71(1998)DLT498; 1998(44)DRJ337
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Petitioner joined the Indian Military Academy in 1961. He got permanent commission in the Regiment of Artillery in June,1963. In April,1966 petitioner sustained Gun Shot Wound in both his knees. This happened while petitioner was operationally deployed in hi altitude area of NEFA. The Medical Board assessed his disability at 40% and opined that it was attributable to Military Service. However, the petitioner remained in military hospital for treatment and thereafter served in various staff appointments in the Indian Army as permanent Low Medical Category Officer. On 12th May,1982 petitioner was sent on deputation to Bharat Electronics Ltd. (in short the BEL) as Manager (Personnel & Administration). The deputation was in public interest and not on his request. While working in the Bel a question arose whether the petitioner would be entitled to disability pension in the event of his permanently getting absorbed in BEL. In response to this query by the Bel, the Army He...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »