Delhi Court August 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.
C.L. Batra Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)36; 68(1997)DLT817; 1997RLR616
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) The petitioner is an owner of Grindlay Cinema, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The petitioner applied to the respondent for sanction of certain additions or alterations in the said building. On 8.4.1996, the petitioner was informed that the building plan approved by the respondent was lying ready and the same would be released only on furnishing certain documents including a No Objection Certificate from the House-Tax Department. Thereafter, petitioner submitted all the documents except the N.O.C. from the House Tax Department as demanded by the respondent. Inasmuch as the sanction of the building plan was not released, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after making several representations. (2) It is contended on behalf of the respondent that since petitioner failed to submit the No Objection Certificate from the House Tax Department, sanction of the building plan was withheld in accordance with the executiv...
Ghisa Ram Tara Chand Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Del)30
ORDERB. M. KOTHARI, A.M. :This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty of Rs. 8,150 levied under s. 271(1)(c) for asst. yr. 1988-89.2. None was present on behalf of the assessee.3. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the reasons mentioned in the penalty order as well as in the order of the CIT(A).4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned representatives of the parties and have perused the orders of the learned Departmental authorities.5. The AO has levied penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of the following additions :Rs.A. Unexplained credit in the name of Shri Gulshan Kumar. (Total credit in this account was of Rs. 7,000) 3,000B. Cash credit in the name of Shri Mahender Kumar. 9,000C. Addition on account of 'Inaam Bartan Scheme' 4,290It was submitted on behalf of assessed before the Departmental authorities that the affidavits of both the creditors were duly furnished. The Department has failed to est...
Unitech Machines Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT123TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the two aforesaid appellants against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 277-78-CE/MRT/93. The matter relates to the seizure of certain quantity of M.S. Scrap belonging to appellants, M/s.Unitech Machines Ltd., Saharanpur and the acquisition/possession of a part thereof by the other appellant, Shri Bhura Khan. Since both the appeals arise from the same order-in-appeal, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Brief facts are : On 24-12-1990 Preventive Officers of Excise intercepted a Tempo vehicle carrying 2.100 metric tonnes of M.S. Scrap cleared from the factory of M/s. Unitech Machines Ltd., Saharanpur without the cover of any excise Gate Pass. This as well as another quantity of 1.118 metric tonnes of M.S. Scrap found in the factory on a visit by the officials were seized on the ground that they were not accounted for in the RG 1 Register.3. In reply to the show cause notice issued on 14-2-1991 to the appellants, M/s. Unitech Mach...
Cinetekk Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT418TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s Cinetekk, the issue for our consideration is whether the reflectors for the cinematographic projectors were eligible for the concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986, as amended. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) in his findings had recorded as under : "On a careful reading of the Notification No. 93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 one cannot fail to notice the fact that something is wrong with Item No. 3 in the table thereunder. While Serial No. 1, 2 and 4 in col. 2 refer to goods falling under the specified headings, in respect of Serial No. 3 above "main equipments" such as cine projectors have been mentioned in column 2, thereby taking away parts of those equipments from the purview of the notification. However, in column 4 the exclusion of parts or accessories containing thermionic valves etc. is common for all the Serial nos. Logically when certain parts are excluded from the concessional assessment it does not...
Ricoh Plast Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT270TriDel
1. M/s. Ricoh Plast, New Delhi, the appellants, have challenged Order-in-Original No. 100/95, dated 20-9-1995 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi by which a duty of Rs. 8,03,088 had been demanded from them and an amount of Rs. 80,000 was imposed as panalty.2. The appellants had filed declarations on 12-1-1988 and 14-7-1988 under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for availing Modvat credit of duty in respect of polythene printing ink, master batch and ethyl acetate to be used in the manufacture of their final product, namely, plastic filling sheets. In the classification lists filed by them from time to time they had also mentioned one more product, namely, flexible layflat tubing falling under sub-heading 3917.00 which is fully exempted from duty under Notification No. 14/92, dated 1-3-1992. Though, as per Rule 57C they were not to be allowed any credit of duty in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of this exempted product, during the years 1992-93 and...
Tara Chand Naresh Chand Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT561TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dated 22-4-1996 passed by the Collector (Appeals), confirming the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Commissioner. By this order, the Additional Commissioner has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 85,815/-, Rs. 35,296/-, Rs. 23,385/-, Rs. 26,657/- and Rs. 31,715/- raised under show cause notices dated 26-11-1993, 28-10-1993, 10-8-1993, 3-8-1993 and 12-7-1993 respectively under Rule 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The allegations made against the appellants are that they received duty paid plastic laminated flexible films falling under sub-heading 3920.38 for packing Pan Masala. The said plastic laminated flexible films have not been declared by the party in their declaration dated 7-4-1989. Thus they have wrongly taken Modvat credit and hence the same is liable to be recovered under Rule 57-I read with Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.3. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Advocate pointed out to the d...
Manish Engineering Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT656TriDel
1. The appellants imported "NEOTOX" Exhaust Gas Indicator. They claimed the impugned goods to be based on micro process technology which analyses the gas with the help of electro chemical gas sensor. Alarm levels are set at internationally recognised values in percentage or ppm. When the hazardous exhaust gas crosses the set alarm level, "NEOTOX" produces continuous fast beeping audible alarm indicating the percentage or ppm level of the hazardous exhaust gas on the indicator.NEOTOX is not an electric vapour and gas alarm consisting of a detector and a sound or visual alarm, but "A PORTABLE BATTERY OPERATED EXHAUST GAS ANALYSER WITH INDICATOR & AUDIBLE ALARM". They, therefore, claimed classification of the goods under CTH 9027.80 together with exemption Notification 49/78. Benefit of clearance under OGL was also claimed.Customs Authorities, however, classified the goods under CTH 85.31.80 denying also the benefit of Notification 49/87 on the ground that it is an instrument by itse...
Union Bank of India Vs. E. Faridun Abbas and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas492(Delhi); 70(1997)DLT106
K.S. Gupta, J.1. The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 12778 of 1996 alleging that defendant No. 2 died in the month of November, 1995. The plaintiff while inquiring into the details of the legal heirs of deceased defendant No. 2 came to know that defendants Nos. 1 and 3 are not residing at the given addresses for a long time. Defendant No. 4 was proceeded against ex parte by the order dated September 26, 1984. It was also revealed that defendant No. 1 disposed of the hypothecated goods and the other movable and immovable properties and left the premises of work and residence without prior informing the plaintiff-bank. It is further alleged that on the last date of hearing, i.e., November 19, 1996, it was informed that defendant No. 1 is in London while defendant No. 3 is in Russia at present. It is stated that with intention to obstruct and delay the execution of the decree which may be passed in the suit against them, defendants Nos. 1 and 3 shifted out of India by disposing of their respecti...
Madan Lal Arora Vs. Soni Udyog and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)369; 1997(2)ARBLR529(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT355; 1997(42)DRJ651
D.K. Jain, J. 1. In an action for passing off and damages, the plaintiff, sole proprietor of M/s. Calcutta Wire Netting Industries, has filed this application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants, the servants, agents, representatives, dealers and all others acting for and on behalf of the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or displaying directly or indirectly, dealing in Wire and Wire Nettings and other allied and cognate goods under the trade mark 'LION BRAND' label with device of lion or any other trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark, 'TIGER BRAND' label with device of Tiger. 2. The plaintiff's case is that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing Wire and Wire Nettings, since the year 1964; it adopted the trade mark 'TIGER BRAND' label with devise of Tiger for its product and has been ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Prof. P.G.A. Nath
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR854(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. By this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a mandamus to the Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,22,062 is gift received from foreign nationals and not professional receipts ?' 2. The Tribunal has opined that it was a factual finding of the Tribunal and no referable question of law arose more so in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Krishna Menon vs . CIT : [1959]35ITR48(SC) . 3. The facts in brief as emerging from the order of the Tribunal : The assessed is an astrologer, musician and palmist. During the asst. yr. 1989-90, he received an amount of Rs. 1,22,062 from five persons from abroad which according to the assessed were not for any professional services rendered but out of personal regard and admiration they he...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »