Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 14 of about 321 results (0.021 seconds)Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sh. B.S. Chopra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT207; 1999(50)DRJ822; [2000(84)FLR591]; (1999)123PLR44
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner, namely, Management of the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'KHDC for short) is a Karnataka State Undertaking. Respondent No. l was working with the petitioner as Assistant Accounts Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'AAO', for short). His services were terminated by the petitioner. Petitioner and respondent No. 1 had raised industrial dispute challenging the said termination which has been referred for adjudication to Labour Court-3/respondent No. 2. On receiving the reference the Labour Court issued notice to both the parties who appeared before it and filed their respective pleadings. The evidence of workmen was over on 11.1.1994 and thereafter the matter was kept for evidence of the Management on 13.3.1994 on which date witness of the management appeared to give evidence but since Presiding Officer was on leave, the case was adjourned to 3.5.1994. Thereafter the matter came up on 24.9.1994 and 28.9.1994 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]241ITR556(Delhi)
1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question, in respect of the assessment year 1982-85, for the opinion of this court :'On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Tribunal has erred to hold that the expenditure incurred on replacement of moulds is a revenue expenditure ?'2. During the relevant previous year ending on December 31, 1981, the assessed spent a sum of Rs. 3,99,580 on the purchase of moulds for manufacturing the glass and debited the same to the profit and loss account. While completing the assessment for the relevant assessment year the Assessing Officer treated the said amount as capital expenditure and accordingly allowed only depreciation on the said amount. The assessor's appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was unsuccessful. Aggrieved, the assessed carried the m...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN230(Delhi)
ORDER1. By this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question, in respect of the assessment year 1982-83, for the opinion of this court:'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Tribunal has erred to hold that the expenditure incurred on replacement of moulds is a revenue expenditure?'2. During the relevant previous year ending on 31-12-1981 the assessed spent a sum of Rs. 3,99,580 on the purchase of moulds for manufacturing the glass and debited the same to the profit and loss account. While completing assessment for the relevant assessment year the assessing officer treated the said amount as capital expenditure and, accordingly, allowed only depreciation on the said amount. The assessor's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsuccessful. Aggrieved, the assessed carried the matter in further a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. VipIn Silk Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT422TriDel
1. The respondents vide letter dated 30th July, 1999 made a request to decide the appeal on merits. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 2-4-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that Flat bed screens are classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.42 of Central Excise Tariff and in view of the Notification No. 39/90-C.E.(N.T.), dated 10-10-1990 no duty is payable from 1-10-1986 to 2-9-1987.3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturing Flat Bed Screens which were used in Printing of Fabrics.A show cause notice was issued to the respondents for demand of duty for the period from 1-10-1986 to 2-9-1987 on the ground that the printing frames are classificable under Heading 84.42 of the Central Excise Tariff. The demand was dropped by the Assistant Collector in view of the Notification No. 39/90-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10-10-1990 issued under 11C of the Central Excise ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Emson Forge Private Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT618TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed the appeal against the allowance of Modvat credit on Hinumark 2000 TCNC System No. 197. The Commissioner (A) held that "The function of the machine was to control the movement of cutting tools and measure numerically component size, thereby it is an accessory to the machine, as per Rule 57Q(1)(b), the credit is admissible." 2. Arguing the case, Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, ld. JDR submits that the Commissioner (A) has held that the goods are accessories as they control the movement of cutting tools and measure numerically component size whereas the adjudicating authority had examined the functional use of the computerised control system and on the basis of technical literature it was observed that it works as guiding factor for accurate functioning on the lathe machine. He submits that having regard to this functional use, the machine does not qualify to be considered as capital goods in terms of Clauses (a) to (c) of Rule 57Q. He submits that no direct nexus is shown ...
Tag this Judgment!Amritsar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT431TriDel
1. This stay petition is filed by the appellant. They are engaged in the manufacture of aerated water. Aerated water became chargeable to specific rate of duty on ad valorem basis. Show cause notices were issued to the appellant why the value of water sold should not be enhanced by adding the amount of expenditure incurred by them. The period involved in notices is from 1-3-1994 to 31-8-1997. Notice dated 20-7-1998 related to the period from 1-3-1994 to 31-12-1994, notice dated 22-4-1997 in respect of period from 1-1-1995 to 31-1-1997, notice dated 4-9-1997 relates to period from 1-2-1997 to 30-6-1997 and notice dated 4-2-1998 in relation to the period from 1-7-1997 to 31-8-1997.The total amount covered by the above mentioned aforesaid notices was Rs. 1,32,70,016/-. The appellant filed their objections to the above notices. After considering the defence raised by the appellant, the Commissioner by the impugned order confirmed the duty for a lesser amount of Rs. 98,73,369 /-. Appellant...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. JaIn Tobacco Products Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC805Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants herein are manufacturing Biris. Rolling of biris was done manually. However, for the purpose of baking the biris the appellants are using exhaust fans and heaters in a room where the biris are baked. After baking of biris in the manner aforesaid, packing etc.is being done manually and the goods were cleared by the appellants on proper payment of duty on lower rate, i.e. other than biris falling under sub-heading 2404.31. Under that sub-heading, biris had been defined as follows : "In the manufacture of which any process has been conducted with the aid of machines operated with or without the aid of power." 2. It was alleged by Revenue in the show cause notice that the biris as manufactured above, machine was used in baking/drying the biris and, therefore, the correct classification would be under Tariff sub-heading 2404.31 which carries a higher rate of duty. At this stage, learned Advocate submitted that the Biris were manufactured under the physical control of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Faridabad Forgings Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)681; 81(1999)DLT383; 1999(51)DRJ29; 1999(66)ECC106
ORDERArun Kumar J. 1. The above writ petitions raise a common question of law and fact. This common order will, thereforee, dispose of all the three petitions. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 23/24th December, 1998 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals). The impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on an application filed by the petitioner praying for waiver of predeposit. The application was filed along with appeal against the order of the Assessing Authority imposing duty and penalty on the petitioner. By the impugned order, the Commissioner has disposed of similar applications for waiver of pre-deposit in 32 appeals filed by different parties, having different facts and different grounds for seeking waiver of pre-deposit. The order does not contain any reasons nor does it disclose any basis whatsoever for the decision contained therein. As per the order the Commissioner has directed different part...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Soni and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)678; 81(1999)DLT347; 1999(51)DRJ46
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act which provides the basis for determination of property tax to be levied on properties falling within Municipal Corporation of Delhi jurisdiction, is ultra virus the Constitution of India. To make good this point the learned counsel first contended that section 116 shows that the property tax is being levied on rental income from the property and as such it becomes a tax on income which as per Article 270 of the Constitution of India only the central Government can levy and collect. Secondly, it is contended that the Union parliament had no legislative competence to enact Section 116. Relevant portion of Section 116 is reproduced as under. '116. Determination of rateable value of lands and buildings assessable to property taxes- (1) The rateable value of any lands or building assessable to property taxes be the annual rent at which such land or...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Raja Ram Maize Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT171TriDel
1. These are seven appeals filed by Revenue against allowance of Modvat credit on certain items by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Since these seven appeals pertained to common items, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Shri T.A. Arunachalam, ld. DR submits that in the grounds of appeal filed by the Department only three items as follows have been agitated : He submits that Enamelled Winding Wire/Copper Winding Wire are parts of 'Electric Motor'. Electric motor is not a capital good for the purpose of Rule 57Q.He submits that Rotary Units, F.R.B. Sleeves, Shaft, Impeller are also not parts having a nexus to machinery, plant etc. used for production or processing or bringing about any change in the final product and thus he submits that the items arc not covered by Rule 57Q.Ld. DR submits that Cylindrical Vertical Tanks are not capital goods as they are used for storage purposes and claimed no role in production or processing or bringing about any...
Tag this Judgment!