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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maharishi Ved Vigyan Vishwa Vidya Peeth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR170(Delhi)
R. C. LAHOTI J. - An application under sub-section (1) of section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed by the Revenue having been rejected by the Tribunal, the present application under sub-section (2) thereof has been filed before the High Court. On the last date of hearing, we posed a question to both learned counsel for the parties : if there be no dispute on the facts and this court forms an opinion that the question of law proposed by a party does arise as a question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal, is it necessary for this court to perform the ritual of calling for the statement of the case and then answering the question Cannot this court straightaway answer the question and thereby avoid the time consuming process of performing its statutory obligation in two steps, while everybody is agreeable that the same result is capable of being achieved in one step only Both learned counsel have addressed us on the question.Section 256 of the Act reads as under :'256. Sta...
Aag Rola Magnetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT511TriDel
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Original dated 24-5-1989 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras. By this order the Collector has held that the goods namely, 'Hard Ferrite (demagnetised and magnetised) pieces' of the same goods are liable to duty and they are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 160/86. He has also held that the appellants have removed the goods clandestinely, hence there is a contravention of Rules 9(2) read with proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, and hence the larger period is attracted for clearances made during 1-4-1986 to 17-10-1988.The demands were raised on the clearances made by the appellants by show casue notice dated 17-2-1989. The Collector has also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- besides confirming the duty demand of Rs. 18,60,484.05. The appellants have requested the case to be decided on merits. It is contended by them that they are carrying on business in the manufacture of sale of hard fe...
Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT164TriDel
1. The present appeal arises out of the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who held that "It is evident from the legal position prevalent at the material time and also from the findings of the order-in-original that the Modvat credit was not admissible on the strength of invoice other than the duplicate copy. Only with the issue of Notification No. 23/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 20-5-1994 Modvat credit on the basis of original copy could be taken in case of loss of duplicate copy subject to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Asstt.Commissioner." The ld. Commissioner Appeals upheld the order-in-original and rejected the appeal of the Assessee.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee-appellant before us took Modvat credit of Rs. 6,27,454/- on Polyester Staple Fibre and took Modvat credit on the strength of original copy of invoices in 10 cases.The Department alleged that Modvat credit can be taken only on the strength of Transporter's copy (duplicate copy) of invoices and since...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Redema
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT454TriDel
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Madras dated 25-7-1989. By this order, he has accepted the appeal of the assessee and directed that the refund claim lodged on 29-1-1988 for a sum of Rs. 8,418/- be granted to them. The assessee had cleared 340 track pins on payment of duty under GP Nos. 87/17-9-1987 and 91/29-10-1987 although they were exempted under Notification No.164/87, dated 10-6-1987. The lower authority had rejected the refund claim for non-observance of the procedure prescribed under Chapter X.The learned Collector (Appeals) examined the citation relied before him and held that the assessee had produced the CT 2 certificate from the actual user namely, CVRD, factory, Ministry of Defence, Avadi, Madras.He has also noticed that there is no dispute about the track pins manufactured by the assessee being eligible for exemption if used as original equipment parts and if the procedure prescribed under Chapter X is followed. He has noted that ...
Carrier Aircon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT552TriDel
1. M/s. Carrier Aircon Ltd. have filed the present stay application praying for waiving the pre-deposit and staying the recovery of the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 76,281 /-.2. We have heard Shri R. Krishnan, advocate for the appellants and Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR for the respondents Revenue.3. On import for countervailing duty purpose, the goods were assessed under sub-heading No. 8414.99. Subsequently the demand was raised on the ground that the goods imported - stators were part of the gas compressor of a kind used in refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery which were classifiable under sub-heading No.8414.10 of the Central Excise Tariff as in force during the relevant time i.e. during the year 1995. The parts and accessories of the goods covered by sub-heading No. 8414.10 were covered by the sub-heading No.8414.91 and not under sub-heading No. 8414.99. The importers had submitted before the adjudicating authority that the goods imported by them i.e. stators wer...
Collector of Customs Vs. Jagdamba Lamps Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT88TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the eligibility of the goods imported to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 67/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983 (as amended) for the purpose of levying the countervailing duty. The importers had described the goods imported as under :- Bulbs (6V, 10W 15 x 44 mm) gas filled. In the invoice dated 27-12-1990, the goods were similarly described as 6V, 10W 15 x 44 mm gas filled. On examination the goods were found to be electric filament lamp. The importers had claimed that the goods imported were covered by S. No. 4 of the table annexed to Notification No. 67/83-C.E. which covered the following : "vacuum gas bulbs not exceeding 60W, other than those specified in S. No. 01 to 03 above".2. The Assistant Collector Customs, Bombay referred to Indian Standard Specification and tooking the view that bulbs imported were festoons lamps and were nothing but a filament lamp. He held that the festoon lamp were more appropriately covered unde...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Seal Narrow Tapes Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT476TriDel
1. The appeal by the department is against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta holding that the appellants before him who are respondents herein were eligible for the refund as ordered by him, overruling the findings of the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector while rejecting the refund claim of the present respondents had held that in arriving at the assessable value of the goods in question deduction could be allowed only of the amount of duty calculated with reference to the exempted rate of duty and not at the statutory rate otherwise leviable but for the exemption.The Collector (Appeals), however, found that respondents had realised from their customers only the gross value of the goods as agreed to between them and did not realise any extra amount as Central Excise duty. He, therefore, held that as they had paid such excise duty in excess to which the refund claim related, there was no justification for the Assistant Collecto...
Sharad Dutt Vs. Kiran
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: II(1997)DMC643
A.K. Srivastava, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.1994 passed by Shri S.N. Chopra, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in HMA No. 584/88, Sharad Dutt v. Smt. Kiran. By the impugned order, the petition of the appellant for getting his marriage with the respondent annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') has been dismissed on merits. It was found to suffer from laches as well. The alternative prayer of the appellant for getting divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion has also been negatived by the learned Trial Court. 2. During the course of argument, in appeal, learned Counsel for appellant gave up the ground of desertion for seeking divorce and relied only on the main prayer in the petition for annulment of marriage under Section 11 of the Act and in the alternative for divorce under Section 13 of the Act on the grounds of cruelty only. 3. It order to appreciate the issues involv...
M.G.F. (India) Ltd. Vs. Satish Grover
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1997
Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)127; 69(1997)DLT649; 1998(44)DRJ203
Held:The petitioner Company, in support of its case, has adduced the evidence by means of affidavit and has filed the affidavit of Shri Rajiv Gupta, Director-in-Charge and the Constituted Attorney of the petitioner company. Said Shri Rajiv Gupta, in his affidavit, filed by way of evidence, has fully supported the case of the petitioner company and has also proved and exhibited all the material/relevant documents, including the Hire Purchase Agreement dated the 19th October, 1997, containing the arbitration clause. The evidence of said Shri Rajiv Gupta, adduced by means of affidavit, has gone on record un-rebutted and unchallenged which ! see no reason to disbelieve.From the ex-pane evidence, adduced by the petitioner company, by way of affidavit of Shri Rajiv Gupta, Director-in-Charge and the constituted attorney of the petitioner company, which I see no reason to disbelieve, the case of the petitioner company, in my opinion, stands amply proved. I, consequently, direct that the Hire P...
Ramsons Southend Vs. Division Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1997
Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)484; 71(1998)DLT842; 1998(44)DRJ677
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. This Regular First Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dismissing suit for recovery of Rs. 64,900/- for loss occasioned on account of burglary. The suit has been dismissed solely on the finding on the issue: 'Whether the suit is barred by time?' in affirmative.2. The plaintiff/appellant, a registered partnership firm, is an authorised dealer of M/s. Raymond's Woolen Mills Ltd., having their showroom at C-1/A Green Park Extension. It has procured multi-peril insurance policy No. 7512100791 7512100791 for the period 8.11.82 to 8.11.83 from the defendants/respondents in the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to cover losses on account of (a) fire, lightening; (b) Riot and strike; or (c) theft or any attempt thereof. According to the appellant, there was a burglary or theft in the evening of 16.4.83 at about 5:15 P.M. at the above said shop of the plaintiff. The burglars/culprits opened the door of the shop violently and forcibly and threatened the employees and customers...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »