Delhi Court July 1999 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.
Khub Engg. Ind. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT612TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Khub Engg. Indus. Pvt. Ltd., a 100% export oriented unit the appellants had imported capital goods for manufacturing Dry Battery Cells for export in terms of Notification No.77/80-Cus., dated 17-4-1980. They operated for a period of about six months and were closed thereafter. The proceedings were drawn against them with the allegation that they had violated the terms and conditions of Notification No. 77/80-Cus., dated 17-4-1980. The adjudicating Collector of Customs, Kandla, had demanded customs duty of Rs. 15,18,412/-in respect of the capital goods and components and raw material. He had also imposed a redemption fine of Rs 75,000/-.2. Shri R. Parthasarthi, Advocate, submitted that the appellants had imported the capital equipment for manufacturing goods for export and had worked for some time and had effected exports to different countries including USSR. With the breaking up of the erstwhile Soviet Republic their exports dwindled and they found it ...
Deep Jyote Paints Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC362Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals are filed against the common Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.2. In the impugned order/the Collector of Central Excise held that M/s.Deep Colour Coatings and M/s. Deep Jyoti Paints and Chemical Corporation were not in existence prior to 22-6-1982 as manufacturing units. Therefore, their clearances had to be clubbed with the clearance of Deep Jyoti Paint Industries.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the Collector of Central Excise, in the impugned order, wrongly held that M/s. Deep Colour Coatings and M/s. Deep Jyoti Paints & Chemical Corporation were not in existence prior to 22-6-1982 as manufacturing units. He submits that the appellants produced evidence to show that these units were manufacturing paints and varnishes prior to 22-6-1982.4. He submits that M/s. Deep Jyoti Paint Industries was in existence since 1978 as a partnership firm and were engaged in the manufacture of paints and thinners...
Shafiqur Rehman Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1999
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1157TriDel
1. Briefly stated. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this case are as follows :- 2. 7200 cartons, each containing 200 cigarettes, in 30 gunny bags were detained by the custom officers at Delhi Domestic Airport while they were brought from Imphal. Packages or the goods carried the following marking "Romantic brands, USA Blend". A statement was recorded from the appellant that he obtained these cigarettes from one Gopen Singh of Imphal. He gave certain telephone Nos. and address of the said Gopen Singh. On investigation by customs authorities, no such person was found to be at the given address. There were no sale invoices or purchase vouchers regarding the valid purchase of the said cigarettes.In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the customs officers had a reasonable belief that the goods were liabile to be confiscated and hence they seized the same under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Later on it appears that before the sale of the goods no sample of the said goods was r...
V. Sri Ram and Others Vs. Delta Airlines Inc. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)782; 80(1999)DLT503; 1999(50)DRJ465; (2000)ILLJ414Del
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1.the petitioners herein were employed by the respondent No. 1 and consequent to the termination of their services upon the cessation of the operation in Delhi they approached the Conciliation Officer. After proceedings before the Conciliation Officer and his failure report, the petitioners came to this Court by CWP No. 1830/96 as no decision was taken on the reference of the dispute sought to be raised by them. On 12.11.97 this Court directed the Government to take a decision on the reference of the dispute within three weeks. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.1.98 passed consequent to the direction of this Court dated 12.11.97 in CWP No. 1830/96 by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, declining to make a reference of Industrial Disputes on the ground that the entire establishment of the respondent No.1 Delta Airlines has been closed due to economic considerations the retrenchment compensation was paid far in excess of the scales...
Krishan Garg Vs. Hari Om Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)772; 80(1999)DLT635; 1999(50)DRJ732
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This order shall dispose of the plaintiff's applications No. 10005/96 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2.2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession, damages (mesne profits), declaration and injunction. It is incorporated in the plaint that the plaintiff and his uncle, Kale Chand jointly purchased a plot of land measuring 240 sq. yards bearing No.16 in block 'C' of the layout plan of Bhagwan Dass Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi. They mutually divided the plot into two portions, each portion to have an area of 120 sq. yards and they raised construction on their respective portions. The plaintiff constructed the ground floor on his side of the plot in the year 1968-69 and started living there. He constructed the first floor thereon in the year 1976.3. The defendant is the Younger brother of the plaintiff and was a student during the said period of 1968-69. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff financed the education of the defendant and he completed h...
State Through Delhi Police Vs. Amardeep Singh Gill, Vikas Yadav and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)909; 80(1999)DLT718; 1999(50)DRJ738
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. In Crl. M. (M) No. 1630/99 the State through Delhi Police is seeking the setting aside/striking off of the order dated 20th May, 1999 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi has granted bail to the Respondents. The Respondents in the case are Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Alok Khanna and Amit Jhingan. They are hereinafter respectively referred to as Tony, Alok and Amit. 2. In Crl. M. (M) N0. 1701/99 the State through Delhi Police has challenged the grant of bail to Vikas Yadav (hereinafter referred to as Vikas). He was granted bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi by an order dated 29th May, 1999. 3. Both these petitions arise as a result of F.I.R. No. 287/99 registered in Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi for offences under Section 302/201/120B/211/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC). The order dated 29th May, 1999 relies upon the observations made in the order dated 20th May, 1999. Consequently, with the ...
Ashok Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Del)273
ORDERBY THE COURT:At the instance of the assessed in respect of assessment year 1973-74, the Tribunal has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case an appeal lies to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the charging of penal interest under section 215 and s. 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The question as to whether an appeal lies against an order charging interest under section 215 of the Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1986]160ITR961(SC) and it was held that unless the assessed raises a dispute that he was not liable to the levy at all, an order demanding or charging interest under the said section was not appealable. It was further held that levy of interest is part of the process of assessment and although ss. 143 and 144 do not specifically...
Dlf Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC640Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi made in Or-der-in-Appeal No. 411-C.E./JPR/97, dated 30-12-1997. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Chapter 25 of the schedule under Tariff Heading under Chapter 25. After the Modvat credit was introduced, the appellant filed declaration in terms of Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules and claimed such credit of the duty paid on capital goods used for production or process of the final product. A show cause notice dated 27-9-1996 was issued denying Modvat credit on goods in respect of structures and parts of fire extinguishers and parts of programmable logic control (page 15). On 22-10-1996 a reply to show cause notice was given by the assessee/appellant. By Order-in-Original No. 131/91, the Asstt. Commissioner rejected the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,68,133/- consisting of Rs. 1,33,951/- relating to structure and parts, Rs. 26...
Bim Sabt Jwellery Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT479TriDel
1. Briefly stated. The relevant facts of the case for its disposal are as follows :- 2. Appellant herein sent 200 bars of gold of 10 tolas each into this-country to one Ganesh Exports with a direction to its bankers to release documents of import to the said party on collection of payment in cash. Later on, the appellant came to know from its bankers the said Ganesh Exports have not got the documents released from the bank. The appellant therefore started looking for another customer. In the meantime, the customs authorities had started investigation into the case. It appears that a customer was found by the appellant and he even filed a B/E with a Special Import Licence. But the said customer withdrew himself on being scared by the investigation caused by the customs authorities. Accordingly, the appellant unable to find a customer in India, requested for re-export of gold out of India. The customs authority however, refused this prayer. Against this refusal, appellant went to the Hi...
Grauer and Weil (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC52Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal is directed against the impugned order which held that the appellants had clandestinely removed 1600 litres of chemical from their factory without payment of duty. Evidence relied on is that when Central Excise Officers carried out physical verification of stock on 29-3-1995, the aforesaid quantity was not found in stock and that the appellants had on the previous day cancelled an invoice being Invoice No. 143, dated 28-3-1995 for the supply of 2000 litres to M/s. Growel Chromatex Pvt. Ltd., Noida. The impugned order has held that the goods covered by Invoice No. 143 were, in fact, sent to the buyer, the buyer and the appellant are group companies located in the same neighbourhood and the appellants' explanation regarding cancellation of the invoice was not genuine and the goods had, in fact, been clandestinely removed.2. As against the aforesaid allegation and finding, the explanation of the appellant all through was that they had prepared invoice No. 143 proposing to c...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »