Delhi Court April 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.
Yuil Measures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT453TriDel
1. In this case, a duty demand of Rs. 2,09,54,801/- has been confirmed against M/s. Yuil Measures India (hereinafter referred to as applicant No.l) and a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs has been imposed upon this applicant. A penalty of Rs.l lakh has been im-posed on Shri S.K. Gupta, Director of the first applicant (hereinafter referred to as second applicant). The demand arises from the denial of the banefit of duty free import of capital goods and raw materials in terms of Notification 339/85 and 133/94, for the reason that the capital goods and raw material imported free of duty by the first applicant were found to be lying unutilised for a number of years, thereby violating the conditions of the above mentioned Notifications. The Department has invoked the provisions of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Learned Counsel, Shri J.S. Sinha, submits that the applicant No. 1 had imported both capital goods viz. clinical theremometer mac...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Sterling Steels and Wires Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT357TriDel
1. The short question involved in this matter is whether the consignment of wire rods which the respondents herein had obtained from the open market without the cover of a gate pass would be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 202/88. It is stated that in all other cases they had been availing the benefit of Modvat Scheme in respect of duty paid wire rods received by them under cover of gate passes and utilised in manufacture of their final product steel wire. There is no dispute that proper accounts for availment of benefit of Modvat credit Scheme in respect of duty paid wire rods received by them and steel wire manufactured out of steel rods were duly kept by them. Department's objection for denying the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 102/88 is that the respondents herein did not keep a separate record in respect of wire rods purchased by them from the open market and utilised by them in manufacture of steel wires and cleared without payment of du...
Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)(78)LC400Tri(Delhi)
1. Two questions arise for consideration in the appeal, one on merits and the other on the bar of limitation. By the order impugned in the appeal, demand of differential duty on the cost of publicity borne by the wholesale dealers has been confirmed and penalty has been imposed.The manufacturer as well as the wholesale dealers make gift of key chains, calendars, plastic containers and the like to customers for publicising the goods, meeting the cost equally. Publicity banners were also put up, each bearing half of the cost. Following the decisions in Escorts Ltd. in and Somany Pilkington's Ltd. , we hold that the cost borne by the wholesale dealers cannot be included in the assessable value. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....
Lakshmi Ishwar Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT359TriDel
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 29-9-1998 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The appellants received an order for supply of passenger baggage trolleys in response to the tenders issued by the Airport Authority of India. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging that they manufactured passenger baggage trolleys falling under T.I. 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 without obtaining Central Excise Licence in the form L4 and they removed the excisable goods without payment of duty. It was also alleged in the show cause notice that they wilfully misdeclared the goods as fabricated steel frames falling under T.I. 68 instead of passenger Baggage trolleys falling under T.I. 40 of the Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In show cause notice provision of Rule 4(2) 226 and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules were also invoked for imposition of penalty. After adjudication ...
Varanasi Domestic Appliances (P) Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT43TriDel
1. Ld. Advocate, Shri M.P. Devnath, prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 3,87,843/- demanded as duty for the period April, 1993 to August, 1993 against a Show Cause Notice dated 13-9-1996. The demand for duty essentially is on the ground that the value of clearance of the applicant company during the preceding financial year has exceeded Rs. 2 Crores. A small amount of Rs. 12,000/- is also included in the above duty on account of the assessable value.2. We have heard the ld. Advocate at length. We have also heard ld.SDR, Shri D.S. Negi. We do not find that the applicants have a strong prima facie case in their favour. However having regard to the overall submissions including his plea that the factory at present is closed and facing financial problem, we direct the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. Two lakhs within a period of six weeks from today. In case of compliance of the aforesaid directions the balance amount of duty shall remain waived and the Revenu...
Neelendra Pandey Vs. the State of U.P. and Others.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)277; 1998(4)Crimes719; 1998(46)DRJ832
ORDERA.K. Srivastava, J.1. This petition is under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to 'the Code') for grant of anticipatory bail. The offence alleged relates to FIR No. 293/97 filed at police station Kaiser-bagh, Lucknow (U.P.) under Sections 307, 302 and 120-B IPC. Admittedly, process under Section 82 of the Code has been issued by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow by order dated 6.8.1997 against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner moved an application under Section 438 of the Code before the Sessions Judge, Delhi. An interim transit anticipatory bail had been granted to the petitioner for moving bail application before the court of Sessions at Lucknow but the petitioner did not appear before the concerned court and the interim transit anticipatory bail was extended by Shri S.M.Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 9.2.1998. Even during the extended period the petitioner did not approach the concerned court at Lucknow and r...
K.K. Modi Vs. Shri K.N. Modi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)418; 1998(46)DRJ836
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J. 1. Heard parties counsel on this application for amendment of the plaint.2. Mr.Rajiv Sawhney, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.10, states that they are not opposing the amendment. 3. The plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 10 to 15 belong to Modi family and are interested in 20 limited companies known as 'The Modi Ground of Companies'. Late Sh.Gujar Mal Modi and Sh.Kedar Nath Modi, the two brothers started their venture. Sh.Gujar Mal Modi died in 1976 leaving behind his sons, namely, KK. Modi, plaintiff and his brothers Mr.V.K. Modi, Mr.S.K. Modi, Mr.B.K. Modi and Mr.U.K. Modi (Group'B' for short). Mr.M.K. Modi, Defendant No. 2, Mr.Y.K. Modi, Defendant No.14 and D.K. Modi, defendant No. 15 are sons of Sh.Kedar Nath Modi, defendant No.1. Some disputes and differences arose in the family about proper management and control of the companies. The Govt. of India through financial institutions is also involved for they have lent some advan...
P.D. Alkaram Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)641; 1998(1)ARBLR566(Delhi); [1998]94CompCas40(Delhi); 73(1998)DLT147; 1998(45)DRJ423
ORDERD.K. Jain, J. 1. In the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, declaring that the bank guarantee dated 6 December 1996, as revalidated, is not enforceable in law and restraining defendant no.2 from acting upon the said bank guarantee and invoking it, the plaintiff filed this application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction to the same effect. On it, ex parte ad interim injunction order was issued on 19 August 1997 restraining defendant no.1 bank from remitting to defendant no.2 a sum of Rs.20 lakhs under the bank guarantee in question. 2. On being served with the summons/notice, defendant no. 2 has filed the written statement and reply to the application, resisting the suit and the application.3. The brief facts, material for the disposal of the application, culled out from the pleadings, are : 4. The plaintiff, a joint venture company, incorporated in terms of an agreement between one M/s. P.D. , Singapore and its Indian ...
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incomes ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)735; 73(1998)DLT221; 1998(45)DRJ602
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Act has by his order dated 31.3.98, subject to previous approval by the CIT, directed special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax, Act, 1961 to be conducted on his forming an opinion that having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts and interest of revenue, it was a fit case for such audit. The aggrieved petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the quashing of the above said order. 2. The principal submission of Shri G.C. Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, has been that in view of the total sales in business of the petitioner having exceede Rs. 40 lakhs, the accounts of the petitioner have already been audited as ordained by Section 44AB of the Act and hence there was no occasion for directing the special audit. It was further submitted that sub-section (2A) in Section 142 was introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975...
Haresh Pharma-chem Vs. M/S. Max Gb Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)931; 1998(46)DRJ135
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1.The plaintiff has filed the present suit for (i) rendition of accounts; (ii) declaration; and (iii) injunction. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement dated 27.5.1994, called 'Agreement for Consignment' for sale of medicinal goods of the defendant on the terms and conditions agreed therein initially for one year which was twice renewed and last agreement dated 7.4.1997 was for one year. It contemplated supply of medicinal goods by the defendant to be sold on commission basis by the plaintiff. Plaintiff was liable to make payments of those goods to the defendant and on the sales effected the plaintiff was to get 2% commission on the net invoice price. In pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff had furnished a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 40 lakhs entitling the defendant to claim from the said Bank Guarantee the amounts that may be due from the plaintiff towards the supply. Though this agreement was for one year however the supplies had been made up to 14.11.1997 only....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »