Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 13 of about 261 results (0.021 seconds)Rishi Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT874TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the enhancement of value imported components of VCRs as well as their confiscation.2. Arguing for the assessee Shri A.N. Haksar, ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that this matter is coming before the Tribunal for a third time. Matter has been remanded twice for proper adjudication. In this context, he drew our attention to the Final Order Nos. 946-947/99-A; dated 6-7-1999 wherein the matter has been remanded observing that unless the goods are comparable in all particulars, the value of one cannot be taken as the value of the other. Accordingly, matter was remanded for proper examination and to determine the value based upon the contemporaneous evidence. He referred to the para 4 of the Final Order Nos. 946-947/99-A which is as under :- "4. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that unless the goods are comparable in all particulars, the value of one cannot be taken as the value of t...
Tag this Judgment!Trend Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT606TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed as time-barred.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appeal was filed six days beyond the period of limitation. The appellants also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the reason for delay was explained as labour problem in the factory due to which the factory was closed for a month. He submits that as the reason for delay in filing the appeal was duly explained, the appellants are entitled for condonation of delay. He relies upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Haryana v.Chandra Mani and Ors.4. In this case, the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner was of six days. The reason for delay in filing the appeal was a labour problem due to which the factory was closed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana ...
Tag this Judgment!Saipem Spa Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)76ITD101(Delhi)
1. Under section 254(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) has constituted the present Bench and referred the following questions :-- "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases value on account of the accommodation provided to the employees at rig site in the form of Steel Bunkers on single status sharing basis, is assessable as a perquisite under section 17(2) ?" 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the value in respect of free meals provided to the employees at rig site is assessable as a perquisite under section 17(2) ?" The assessees in most of the cases are foreign technicians employed by "SAIPEM spa", a foreign company. In ITA Nos. 3593, 3599 and 3601 (Delhi) of 1993 the employer was Reading & Bates Exploration Co. as agent of Mr. I.B. Amit. Facts were stated to be identical with that of SAIPEM. In these cases also the ...
Tag this Judgment!Saipem Spa as Agent of D. N. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2002)254ITR26(Delhi)
1. Under s. 254(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) has constituted the present Bench and referred the following questions : 1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases value on account of the accommodation provided to the employees at rig site in the form of steel bunkers on single status sharing basis, is assessable as a perquisite under s. 17(2) ?" 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the value in respect of free meals provided to the employees at rig site is assessable as a perquisite under s. 17(2) ?" 3. The assessees in most of the cases are foreign technicians employed by "SAIPEM spa", a foreign company. In ITA Nos. 3593, 3599 and 3601 (Del) of 1993 the employer was Reading & Bates Exploration Co. as agent of Mr. I. B. Amit. Facts were stated to be identical with that of SAIPEM. In these cases also the employees of these con...
Tag this Judgment!Urmila Kumari Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi109; 2003(56)DRJ391
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, widow of an army man, has filed this writ petition seeking an enquiry into the circumstances, where her late husband was first declared as being a recipient of 'Paramvir Chakra award' Posthumously but later the same was changed to 'Sena Medal' award. Petitioner is the widow of a brave soldier Yogender Yadav of the 18 grenadiers, who sacrificed his life during the 'Operation Vijay'. A number of press reports carried the news that Yogender Yadav had been awarded the 'Paramvir Chakra' posthumously. These naturally gave enough cause to the petitioner to nurture apprehensions and misgivings as to how the award was subsequently changed to the 'Sena Medal', culminating in the filing of this petition.2. Notice to show cause in this case had been issued and respondents filed counter affidavit, explaining how the mistake occurred. This happens a case of mistaken identity. It is rather unusual to have two soldiers with the same name and caste namely 'Yogender...
Tag this Judgment!Management of the Associated Cement Cos. Ltd. Vs. Workman, Saroj Arora
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR914]; (2001)ILLJ828Del
B.A. Khan, J.1. Parties are involved in an Industrial dispute (ID No. 833/90) before the Industrial Tribunal pending for the last about nine years or so and Mr. Sameer Parkash, practicing Advocate is the bone of contention. Respondent workman wants him to be debarred from representing the employer but petitioner justifies his representation under Section 36(2) of ID Act. Though the point in issue is as good as covered by the Supreme Court Judgment in Paradip Port Trust Paradip v. Their Workmen, : (1976)IILLJ409SC , yet the rival contentions would have to be gone into again.2. It transpires that respondent objected to Mr. Parkash's representation as late as on 27.4.1999 on the plea that he being a practicing Advocate was disqualified to represent the Management in the face of provisions of Section 36(3)(4) of I.D.Act. Petitioner justified his representation on the ground that he was the President, Treasurer and the Officer on special duty of the Industrial and Commercial Employer Associ...
Tag this Judgment!Enkay Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ828
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This batch of 14 writ petitions, all filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raises common question. All the petitioners are having their manufacturing units within the limits of National Capital 'Territory of Delhi and all these units are manufacturing Urea Formaldehyde Powder. By impugned order dated 7th June, 2000, Delhi Pollution Control Committee (for short 'DPCC) has treated these units under 'H' category as per Master Plan 2001 and following the orders of Supreme Court passed in I.A. 22/94 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985 entitled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1996SC2231a , passed directions under Section 31A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 read with Rule 20(6) of Air Rules, 1983 directing these petitioners to close down their units with immediate effect. In order to effectuate this direction, other consequential directions are given to Delhi Vidyut Board and Delhi Jal Board for disconnection of electric...
Tag this Judgment!Usha thermosets Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT202TriDel
1. Misc. application is filed by the party raising an additional ground. Referring to the ground taken in the Misc. application, Sh.Jitendra Singh submitted that order passed by the Assistant Commissioner suffers from want of jurisdiction. He said that Assistant Commissioner was not competent to adjudicate the matter in raising the demand of duty more than Rs. 50,000/-. In this context, he referred to the Circular No. 392-CX-6 dated 14-5-92 prescribing the monetary limits of the Assistant Collector/Assistant Commissioner in adjudicating the cases demanding duty under Section 11A of the Act to Rs. 50,000/-, except in cases relating to approval of classification list and price list. He said that the matter does not relate to either approval of classification list or price list and since the duty has been demanded to Rs. 52,60,682/-, this adjudication proceeding does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner. Precisely this was the view of the Tribunal in the case of...
Tag this Judgment!inderjit Singh Bawaja Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT288TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs. In the impugned order, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakh was imposed on the appellant under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the appellant is carrying on business as a common carrier under the name 'Rajasthan Goods Carriers'. During the course of his business, some goods were booked at Bombay by the employee of the appellant for transporting to Delhi and the consigner of the goods described the goods as motor parts and the invoice was also supplied by the consigner. The goods were received in Delhi on 14-4-1998. The consigner did not turn up for receiving the goods till 11-5-1998 and the goods were kept in the godown of the appellants. The Customs Officers, on visit to the godown of the appellant, found the goods, in question, as bearing of foreign origin. He submits that the appellant has no concern with the goods, in quest...
Tag this Judgment!Veekay General Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT277TriDel
1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 2,27,286/- and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on M/s. Veekay General Industries and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on Shri R.C. Prasad, authorised representative of M/s. Veekay General Industries.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of Copper wire from Copper ingots and Cooper Strips are their intermediate product. He submits that duty is demanded on Copper strips. He draws intention to the Panchnama dated 8-12-96 which shows that Copper strips were in semi-finished condition. He also draws intention to the statement of Shri R.C. Prasad recorded at the time of visit which also says that Copper strips was in semi-finished condition. His contention is that the Copper strips are intermediate product and is in semi-finished condition, therefore, it is not marketable as such and not reached at RG-1 stage. He, therefore, prays that the appli...
Tag this Judgment!