Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 5 of about 176 results (0.021 seconds)Dda Self Finance Flats Owners Society (Regd.) and Others Vs. Uoi and O ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1213; AIR2001Delhi39; 88(2000)DLT786; 2000(57)DRJ70
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioners seek quashing of the letters of demand issued by the DDA to the petitioners in respect of 5th and final installments for the flats allotted to them on the ground that the same have been determined arbitrarily. 2. The first petitioner is a Society of flat owners, registered with the Registrar of Societies. Remaining petitioners totalling 125, are the members of the Society who were allotted flats by the third respondent DDA under Self Financing (Housing Registration) Scheme. Fourth respondent the Deputy Director (H-1) is the functionary of DDA. While the first respondent is the Union of India, the second respondent is the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi and is the ex-officio Chairman of the third respondent. 3. The third respondent came out with Self Financing House Registration Scheme. This Scheme was announced and advertised in the edition of Hindustan Times dated August 28, 1977. An announcement, ...
Tag this Judgment!Foray International Vs. Director General of Foreign Trade and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)67; 88(2000)DLT426; 2000(55)DRJ811; 2001(73)ECC44
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for dispos-al. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of the order 1F No. 03/509/AM-89/ECA/CLA dated 22.2.1999 and No. 03/509/AM-89/ECA/CLA dated 20.5.1999, by a writ of certiorari. The petitioner also prays for directions to the respondent to grant advance import license etc. to the petitioner, as per the entitlement, without being influenced by the debarment orders. 3. By the aforesaid orders dated 22.2.1999 and 20.5.1999, the petitioner's application for deletion of its name from the defaulters list of black listed persons was rejected. Petitioner firm had been granted an advance license under the Duty Exemption Scheme by the Office of Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports in the year 1983 in the sum of Rs. 7,78,600/-. The said license was issued subject to the condition that the petitioner would export a specified quantity of goods for a total value of Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Pant Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Del)326
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.On being moved by the assessed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), following question has been referred for opinion of this court, by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessed was not entitled to deduction under section 80TT in respect of winnings from jackpot?'2. Factual position, in a nutshell is as follows:Assessee, an individual, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1974-75 corresponding to accounting year ending on 31-3-1974. On 3-2-1974, assessed had won a sum of Rs. 1,26,700 as jackpot and the said amount was paid to the assessed by Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. assessed treated this amount as income and claimed deduction under section 80TT of the Act. Such deduction was claimed on the ground that winning of jackpot was in the nature of winnings from a lottery. The Income Tax Officer, ho...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ardee Mechanical Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]247ITR87(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of assessment and in directing the Income-tax Officer to consider the assessor's claim for set off of toss suffered in the assessment year 1967-68 but which was not determined in pursuance of a return under Section 139 in the proceedings for the assessment year 1974-75, in which the loss suffered was said to be set off against the deemed profit under Section 41(2) ?'2. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows : The assessee, a private limited company was incorporated on April 16, 1962. On the basis of the returns filed by it for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1966-67, ass...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Pant Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)48; 89(2001)DLT433; [2001]248ITR718(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. On being moved by the assessed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Delhi Bench 'A' (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessed was not entitled to deduction under Section 80TT in respect of winnings from jackpot ?'2. The factual position, in a nutshell, is as follows :3. The assessed, an individual, filed his return of income for the assessment year 1974-75 corresponding to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1974. On February 3, 1974, the assessed had won a sum of Rs. 1,26,700 as jackpot and the said amount was paid to the assessed by the Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. The assessed treated this amount as income and claimed deduction under Section 80TT of the Act. Such deduction was claimed on the ground that winning o...
Tag this Judgment!Unispanners Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT815TriDel
1. M/s. Unispanners Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as USPL) are manufacturers of Gear Box, Drive Shaft, Header Pipes, Steel Fabricated Structures, etc. They are registered as SSI unit with the Directorate of Industries. Uttar Pradesh and have been availing exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-86 as amended till March, 1992. M/s.Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as PCT) are manufacturers of Cooling Towers as well as parts and components thereof, in their factories at Calcutta and Sahibabad. For this purpose, they also procure some of the parts and components from outside (other manufacturers) in the normal course of business. M/s.PCT placed an order for supply of Gear Reducer and Drive Shaft of particular specification and size with M/s. USPL on a principal to principal basis.2. On the basis of visit by the Central Excise officers to the factory of M/s. USPL on 2-5-92, a show cause notice was issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut all...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Narayan Textile Mills and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC243
1. In the impugned order, the Collector observed that "In view of the discussion above, no duty is chargeable from M/s. Vipul Traders and other firms of Shri Babubhai Shah and M/s. Pooja Fabrics and other firms of Shri Prakash Shah. The Collector also imposed the penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs on M/s. Shree Narayan Textile Mills Under Rule 173Q(1), Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri Panchman Narayan, partner of M/s. Shree Narayan Textile and Rs. 50,000 each on S/Shri Babubhai R. Shah and Prakash Bhai R. Shan Under Rule 209." Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed captioned two appeals.2. The facts of the case in brief are that M/s. Shree Narayan Textiles Mills, the appellants in this case are engaged in the processing of man made fabrics. During the material time man made fabrics were exempt from basic excise duty. However it was chargeable to duty under Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the appellants on...
Tag this Judgment!Oswal Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT819TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 69,59,384/- on fancy/special yarn manufactured by the appellants herein during the period 1992-93 to 1994-95, as a result of its classification under Heading 56.06 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and has imposed a penalty of equal amount under the provisions of Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act.2. We have heard Shri R. Swaminathan, learned Consultant appearing along with Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate for the appellants, and Dr. Ravinder Babu, learned DR for the Revenue.3. We find that the demand for the above amount for the same period was raised vide show cause notice dated 31-1-97 and was adjudicated, along with 5 other notices by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order Nos.22-27 dated 29-1-98, dropping the demand and accepting the classification of the goods under Chapter 51 as claimed by the assessees. On 25-5-98, the Assistant Commissioner issued a co...
Tag this Judgment!J.S.S. Printing Industries Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT309TriDel
1. These appeals have come up before this Larger Bench of five Members on reference made by the East Regional Bench. The question referred for decision is : "Will the processing as recorded herein earlier undergone on used rolls withered rolls resulting in a new/same design would amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?" 2. For understanding the actual issue in controversy, a short resume of the facts is necessary. It is as follows :- 3. Appellants are engaged in the business of engraving and/or re-engraving of rollers falling under sub-heading 8442.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Appellants undertake job work for engraving rollers supplied by their customers. They receive job charges for the work carried out on the materials, namely, rollers provided by their customers. Engraved rollers are sent back under their delivery challans/invoices for the job charges. Appellants also receive orders for supply of engraved rollers and in suc...
Tag this Judgment!Jagsonpal Pharma Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(94)LC277Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufacture P&P Medicines, falling under Heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed modvat credit on disposable syringes and needles supplied by them along with the injections manufactured by them. These syringes and needles are bought out items. They took credit of duty paid on disposable syringe and needle. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad vide her Order dated 2.2.1998 directed for the recovery of modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 1,95,460.00 availed by the appellants during the period from 1.10.1993 to 30.9.1994. The Additional Commissioner in her order relied on the decision of the CEGAT in the case of Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi 1997 (92) ELT 414 (T) in which it is held that syringe and needle is not an input in or in relation to manufacture of final product.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order passed by the Additional Commissioner rejecting the appeal of the party giving r...
Tag this Judgment!