Delhi Court March 1998 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.
Dena Jee Sansthan Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT113TriDel
1. These three applications arise out of the common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut and hence are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. M/s. Dena Jee Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as applicant No. 1) is registered with the U.P. Khadi Gram-Udyog Board and engaged in the manufacture of various types of Shampoos viz. (1) Denajee Brand Satritha Shampoo (2) Denajee Brand Herbal Shampoo and (3) Denajee Brand Neem Shampoo. The department found that these three products were specifically manufactured for use on the hair and would fall for classification under Chapter Heading 3305.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and therefore, liable to duty at the rates applicable from time to time. The applicants had not applied for registration as a Central Excise unit and had also not filed any classification list for manufacture of these three types of shampoos and therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 14-3-1997 for dem...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Kelvinator of India
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)67ITD213(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) - III, New Delhi, dated 23-8-1991. The only ground raised by the revenue is as under :- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the I.T. Act by issue of notice under section 148 on 20-4-1990 were not valid, without taking into consideration the amended provisions of section 147 introduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1-4-1989." 2. The Ld. D.R. has argued that the order of the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer was not entitled to commence proceedings under section 147(a) or 147(b) and thus the re-assessment proceedings initiated by virtue of notice under section 148 are not valid. He has also argued that notice issued under section 148 read with section 147 is procedural in nature. The amendment in these sections has been made by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1-4-1989 and...
H.S. Gupta and anr. Vs. D.D.A. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)20; AIR1999Delhi59; 75(1998)DLT138; 1999(48)DRJ306
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. The respondent Delhi Development Authority (for short, DDA) had come out with a scheme for allotment of plots in the Rohini area, North-west Delhi known as Rohini Residential Scheme (1981 Registrants). Applications were invited from persons falling in the middle income group (MIG) having income in excess of Rs. 1, 000/- but less than Rs.-2,000/- per month for allotment of plots measuring 60 sq. mtr. The plots were offered @ Rs.200/- per sq. mtr. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are the registrants under the said Scheme. A priority list with respect to all the registrants under the said Scheme was drawn. In the year 1991 a draw of lots was held by the DDA for the registrants under the said Scheme. There were about five thousand plots to be allotted in sections 23 and 24 in the Rohini Residential Scheme. Soon thereafter about 3,000 allotment letters were issued. Letters to about 2,000 registrants remained to be issued. The petitioners in these cases b...
Hansa Industries Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Kidarsons Industries P. Ltd. a ... Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)27; [1998]94CompCas552(Delhi); 1998(45)DRJ149
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. The appellants in this appeal have challenged the order dated 5th February, 1993 passed by Hon'ble the Single Judge dismissing their objections to the report of M/s.V.Shankar Aiyer & Company, Chartered Accountants valuing the shares of respondent No.1 company and directing the implementation of the settlement arrived at between the parties on 9th June, 1988 in accordance with the report of the Chartered Accountant. Certain other directions were also given by Hon'ble the Single Judge in the impugned order. Before we deal with the controversies raised in this appeal, a few facts relevant for its disposal are given hereinbelow :-2. The respondent company is a closely held private company of the appellants and respondents 2 to 4. The entire shareholding of the company is held by the family except that a few shares are held by some of the relatives and friends of the parties. The family consist of four brothers and their mother. While the appellant No.4 and members o...
Sheela Agarwal Vs. M/S. Infocom Digital Systems Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)636; 72(1998)DLT622; (1998)119PLR5
D.K. Jain, J.1. This is defendant's application under section 16 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the CPC) for rejection of the plaint/dismissal of suit on the ground that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance, mandatory and permanent injunction, praying for a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell an industrial plot, bearing no.52, Sector-34, Gurgaon Technology Park, Gurgaon (Haryana), for which the entire sale consideration stands paid. Alternatively, if the decree for specific performance cannot be granted, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for a sum of Rs.20 lacs along with interest 30% per annum or market value of the said plot, whichever is higher, along with future interest. She has also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, mortgaging, selling or transferring the said property to anybody else. ...
Kamal Kumar Vs. Airport Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT146; 1998(46)DRJ17
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-claimant for making the Award dated January 8, 1996 rule of the court and for issuance of decree in terms thereof.2. The respondent invited tenders for providing railing of central verge from National Highway 8 to the beginning of diversion of approach road (Centaur Hotel crossing), in Delhi. Pursuant to the aforesaid invitation the petitioner tendered for providing of railing at Central verge on January 27, 1994 and as he was the lowest tenderer he was awarded the work by acceptance of tender on February 21, 1994. An agreement dated February 22, 1994 as a consequence was entered into between the parties. The same contained an arbitration clause 25 which reads as follows:'CLAUSE 25. Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specification designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on th...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Devidayal Aluminium Ind. (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT119TriDel
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is whether Modvat credit as input will be admissible to lubricating oil used in the process of manufacture of brass strips and foils.2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the respondent herein are engaged in the manufacture of copper alloys strips and foils, Aluminium pressure cookers and aluminium racks. For manufacture of brass strips and foils in the rolling mill the Appellant used lubricating oil in the continuous process of rolling. The department alleged that lubricating oil is not used in or in relation to the manufacture of strips and foils of brass, therefore, Modvat credit under Rule 57A was not admissible to the appellants. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the view put forth by the respondent herein and allowed the appeal of the respondent. Hence the department has filed the present appeal before us.3. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, ld. JDR appearing for the appellant Commissioner submits that their case is covered by the ...
Punjab State Forest Development Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC403
1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of wooden furniture, since February, 1998 was not paying Central Excise duty. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued proposing demand of duty for clearances made during the period 1988 to 1990. Appellant pleaded benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86. Rejecting this claim on the ground that the appellant had not filed declaration as contemplated in Notification No. 111/78 and was actually not availing benefit of exemption in any preceding year, the Additional Collector confirmed the demand. Hence, the present appeal.2. Notification No. 175/86 grants full exemption for clearances of the value of Rs. 15 lakhs. The value of the clearances of the appellant was as follows:-- The Department has not demanded any duty in respect of the clearances in 1987-88. Para 4 of the Notification states that the exemption shall be applicable only to a factory which is an undertaking registered with the Director of Industries in any State or the Deve...
Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT181TriDel
1. In this appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Allahabad dated 1-6-1995 the dispute relates to the alleged suppression of actual production of Branded Chewing Tobacco falling under Chapter sub-heading 2404.41 and their clandestine removal by appellants during the period November 1987 to October 1992.2. By show cause notice dated 5-1-1993 the Department alleged suppression by appellants of actual quantity of production of the item by virtue of addition of other ingredients like Musk Bhola, Pondry, Glycerine, Spices, Menthol etc. in the coloured tobacco. It was alleged that during experiments conducted by the officers of Central Excise on 27-7-1991 and 1-8-1991 increase in weight to the extent of 7.47 per cent had been found and this fact had been suppressed by the appellants.3. The matter was adjudicated by the Collector after considering the assessee's written submissions and their further submissions during personal hearing. Collector stated that ...
Omega Electronics Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT250TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellants against the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The Assistant Collector has accepted the plea of the Appellants in classifying the items under Tariff Item 68 observing that the goods were not Wireless set. Not being satisfied with the findings of the Assistant Collector, Department filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals). Collector (Appeals) held that items were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 33 as Radio and Transistor sets.3. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the Id. Consultant submits that apart from the merits of the case the orders passed by the respective authorities below are not sustainable in the eye of law and because of the fact that Department has invoked larger period and the matter was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector. After the amendment to Section 11A in 1985 Assistant Collector was not competent to adjudicate the matter as the period is involved beyond the period of six months on...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »