Delhi Court February 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Tirupati Granites P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT207TriDel
1. By the impugned order dated 20-5-1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara, it has been held that marble slabs/marble tiles produced by the appellants herein are excisable under T.I. 68 up to 16-3-1985 and under T.I. 23E after 17-3-1985, that the granite slabs/granite tiles produced by the appellants are excisable under T.I. 68 and the benefits of Notification 77/83 and 77/85 are not available to the appellants since the value of their plant and machinery including the value of electrical panels exceeded the limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. The plea of non-applicability of extended period of limitation has been accepted; however, the demand has been confirmed for a period of six months computed from 3-1-1986 which is the date on which the Superintendent of Central Excise issued the show cause notice which was later substituted by a show cause notice dated 10-11-1989 issued by the Additional Collector. The adjudicating authority has directed determination of quantum ...
Kores (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT685TriDel
1. Appeal No. C/3133/89-B2. - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 28-7-1989 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants imported a consignment of what they claimed to be parts of Encoder Mechanism in SKD condition. They claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No. 349/86 which exempts parts other than specified parts of encorder. This benefit was denied to the appellants on the ground that the goods imported are a complete mechanism in SKD and in terms of Rule 2(a) of General Rules of Interpretation of the Customs Tariff Act. These goods will have to be treated as only one unit. The order of the Assistant Collector further stated that the encoding mechanism consist of 3 sub-assemblies which are containing semi-conductor devices, and therefore, in terms of exemption Notification, exemption to such parts would not be available.3. Arguing for the appellants, the Learned Advocate submits that admittedly the goods are only parts in SKD condition...
Krishna Reprographics Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT56TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of Additional Collector of Central Excise by which he has confiscated sensitised paper falling under Chapter Sub-heading 3703.10 of the CETA, 1985, seized on 5-8-1989 with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 500/- and levied duty of Rs. 2,49,971.38 on this item cleared by the appellants between 7th July, 1988 and 5-8-1989 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. The ground for confiscation of 250 rolls of sensitized paper, each of 10 metre lengths is manufacture and storage by the appellants in contravention of Rule 174, Rule 53 read with Rule 173G and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The duty demand arises because the appellants were held not eligible to exemption from payment of duty under Notification 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 during the years 1987,1988 and 1988-89, since their clearances had exceeded Rs. 7.5 lakhs and the Unit was not registered as a small scale industry and further w.e.f. 7-7-1988, goods ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Western India Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT725TriDel
1. This appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur challenges the order-in-original dated 31-7-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals) by which duty demand of Rs. 39,65,6137-was set aside.2. The facts of the case are called M/s. N.T.P.C. had a project for the construction and installation of a gas power plant at Anta for which equipment and machinery were obtained from M/s. Waagner Baro of Austria. The project work was entrusted to M/s. Hindustan Brown Bovery Ltd. (HBBL), who in turn sub-contracted the whole project to M/s.Larsen and Toubro for the elementary work of setting the foundation for erection, installation of equipment and machinery. Larsen and Toubro sub-contracted the erection and installation of equipment and machinery to M/s. Western India Enterprises Ltd. (WIEL) by contract dated 29-1-1988. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, the whole of the material, equipment and machinery for the erection and installation was to be supplied by HBBL to WIEL. ...
Nestle India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)61ITD444(Delhi)
1. These 18 appeals filed by the assessee relate to assessment years 1987-88 to 1995-96. While 9 appeals relate to orders passed under section 201(1), the other 9 appeals to the orders passed under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act. As common issues are involved in all the appeals, these are consolidated and disposed of by a single order. The grounds of appeal raised are as under :- "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in the circumstances of the case in upholding the order of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax TDS Circle 22(1), New Delhi (ACIT) alleging short deduction of tax at source under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) and deeming the appellant to be an assessee in default." "2. The learned CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in treating the conveyance reimbursement made by the appellant to the employees as salary liable to deduction of tax at source, the same being exempt under section 10(14) read with Explanation to...
Associated Teckno Plastics (P.) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)62ITD212(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) raising for our consideration two separate and specific issues which are embedded in the various grounds raised.2. The first issue raises the question whether the "excess" of Rs. 2.52 crores realised on the transfer of shares of HCL Ltd. (old) to Hewlett Packard America as per the scheme of arrangement between HCL Ltd. (old) and H.P. America is "an adventure in the nature of trade" liable to be taxed as "income from business" as is the case of revenue or under the head "Long term capital gain" as is the claim made by the assessee.3. Before we deal with the aforesaid issue we find it necessary to refer to certain relevant facts that are noted and discussed in the orders of the tax authorities as follows :- A company by the name of M/s. H.C.L. Ltd. (existing Co.) was incorporated on 17-4-1986 and was engaged in "the manufacturing, marketing, maintenance and selling of micro and many range of ...
M/S. Dewan and Sons Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Author ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi388
ORDERLokeshwar Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner, named above, has filed the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing directions to respondent No. 1 -- the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafterreferred to as 'the DDA') to issue a 'No Objection Certificate' (sic) point of view as demanded by respondent No. 2 -- the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short 'the MCD'), for raising construction on property, bearing; No. 15/7361 (Tel Mill Plot). Ram Nagar. Main Kutub Road. Delhi also described as Khasra No. 1 58/2. Qadim Sharif Estate. Kutub Road. Delhi in accordance with law prevalent in 1971 i.e. with FAR 300 and also for a direction, directing the MCD (respondent No. 2) to sanction the building plans in respect of the commercial construction asked for on the above said property in accordance with the laws prevalent in the year 197 1.2.1 The facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition, briefly staled, are that it is averred that the petition...
P.K. Kukreja Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)787; 1997(1)ARBLR429(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT193
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) The petitioners entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 1 for construction of 544 Mig houses in Pocket 'C' & 'D' in Sector 18, Rohini. The said agreement contained a clause being Clause 25 for resolution of disputes and differences between the parties through arbitration. (2) Disputes having arisen between the parties to the contract in respect of the aforesaid agreement, the Engineer Member in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement appointed respondent No. 2 to act as a Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator entered into the reference before whom the parties filed documentary evidence. After hearing the parties at length and on consideration of the documentary evidence, the respondent No. 2 published his award on 28.12.1993. The petitioners accordingly filed the present petition in this Court seeking a direction to the respondent No. 2 to file the award dated 28.12.1993 Along with the records of the arbitration proceedings and also for making the award a rule of the...
Suresh Chander Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)963; 1997(1)ARBLR536(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT377
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) Disputes having arisen between the parties in respect of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 for execution of the work of construction of 300 Janta houses in connection with internal development in Trans Yamuna area in Zone No. 2, the same were referred to the respondent No. 2 for adjudication in terms of the arbitration clause. The respondent No. 2 entered upon the reference and after hearing the parties and receiving the statement of claims and reply thereto and evidence produced by the parties on record, passed an award in respect of the aforesaid disputes on 29th December, 1993. The notice of the award was stated to have been received by the petitioner on or about 30.12.1993. (2) The petitioner thereafter filed the petition in this Court under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act for directing the respondent No. 2 to file the award in the Court with records of the arbitration proceedings. This Court issued notice to the Arbitrat...
Nav Bharat F. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)599; 1997(1)ARBLR541(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT431
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) The petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent for construction of 656 Lig houses at Jahangirpuri, including works relating to water supply, sanitary work and internal development. As per the agreement entered into between the parties, the work was to commence on 22.8.1987 and the date of completion was 22.8.1988. (2) In respect of the aforesaid agreement, disputes arose between the parties relating to payment to be made to the petitioner and accordingly, the said disputes were referred to the Arbitrator by the Engineer Member of the respondent in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement entered into between the parties. The Engineer Member appointed Shri S.K. Ahuja of the Department of Telecommunication as the Sole Arbitrator and the Arbitrator was specifically directed to give reasons for the award. (3) The Arbitrator entered into the reference and accepted the statement of claims and counter statements of facts along with the rejoinder to the counter stat...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »