Delhi Court November 2000 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.
Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex. Vs. Hi-tech Polypack
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT118TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Brief facts of the case are that respondents were availing benefit of Modvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of their final product. From 1-4-1997, the appellant started availing the benefit of small scale exemption and opted out of the Modvat scheme. The respondents when opted out of the Modvat scheme are required to reversed credit taken on the inputs lying in stock or used in any finished excisable goods lying in stock as per Rule 57H(7) of the Central Excise Rules. The respondents reversed the amount of Rs. 1,05,863.50. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents asking for reversal credit on the inputs which were contained in the waste as on 1-4-1997. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The respondents filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order gave a finding of the fact that amount of Rs. 1,05,863.50 also includes that much ...
Ram Swarup Cold Storage Allied Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: (2002)256ITR121(Delhi)
1. This is the assessee's appeal directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bareilly, dated June 11, 1993, relevant to the assessment year 1989-90 and the following grounds have been raised : "1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in treating Rs. 1,90,363 in building repair account and Rs. 1,37,621 in racks and fixtures repairs account as capital expenditure in place of revenue expenditure claimed by the appellant. 2. That the appellant had carried out only the current repairs in order to bring the assets into the normal original working condition, and no new asset was required, and as such in no way the same can be treated as capital expenditure. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not accepting the explanation of the appellant and considering the citations given by the appellant. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,100 ...
Kapil Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1154; 2001(75)ECC510
Usha Mehra, J. 1. Mr. Naveen Malhotra, Counsel for the petitioner says that though in the writ number of grounds have been raised but he is restricting his arguments to only one ground namely, if the detenu at the hearing of the Advisory Board makes a request in writing seeking permission to examine his witnesses, who are waiting outside, in rebuttal to the grounds raised in the detention order, then can the Advisory Board rejectsuch a request without assigning any reason. 2. According to Mr. Naveen Malhotra, Counsel for the petitioner, a request was made by the petitioner by way of representation dated 27th January, 2000 to the Advisory Board. It was personally handed over to the Advisory Board seeking permission to examine his witness who was standing outside. But the Advisory Board rejected the same vide order dated 5th February, 2000. In order to appreciate the challenge raised by Mr. Naveen Malhotra, lets in brief go through the facts of this case. In brief the case of the respond...
Chandra Estates Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)613; 89(2001)DLT717; [2001]249ITR54(Delhi)
ORDER In the case of abovementioned property proceedings were initiated by issuing notice under Section 269D(1). The proceedings are hereby dropped.' 8. The said order is at page 114 of the paper-book. It was contended that after the aforesaid order has been passed on June 22, 1989, the Revenue could not have sustained proceedings under Chapter XX-C in the instant case.9. It has been contended before me by Mr. Chadha that after coming into force of Chapter XX-C, the petitioner has filed Form No. 37-I under a mistaken notion and to avoid any technical objection and merely filing of Form No. 37-I pursuant to coming into operation of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act would not confer jurisdiction on respondent No. 2 under the relevant provision of Chapter XX-C, if the transfer was complete, possession has been handed over and substantial sale consideration was given.10. What has been contended before me is that merely filing of Form No. 37-I would not confer jurisdiction as it will not o...
Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Del)177
ORDER UNDER SECTION 245D(4)ValidityCatch Note:The Settlement Commission recorded various findings, most of which do not form the subject-matter of challenge in the petition--The dispute, relates to the pay order issued by the Punjab National Bank, in favor of HCL which was seized by the department--Petitioner in its assets statement claimed this pay order to be a part of its assets and at the same time claimed as a liability a sum of Rs. 49,03,000 being amount payable, so far as M/s. B is concerned-- Two conclusions, have been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that they have no legal basis--Firstly, it is submitted that after the order under section 132(11) was passed, the conclusion that the deemed seizure was illegal is patently illegal and not sustainable--Similarly, conclusion that there was no dispute between the department and the petitioner on the issue that sum of Rs. 50,40,000 actually belonged to M/s. B is factually not correct--Not proper--The matter is remitted back ...
Chandra Estates Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Del)98
ORDERIn the case of above-mentioned property proceedings were initiated by issuing notice under section 269D(1). The proceedings are hereby dropped.'The said order is at p. 114 of the paper-book. It was contended that after aforesaid order has been passed on 22-6-1989, the revenue could not have sustained proceedings under Chapter XX-C in the instant case.4. It has been contended before me by Mr. Chadha that after coming into force of Chapter XX-C petitioner has filed Form 37-I under a mistaken notion and to avoid any technical objection and merely filing of Form 37-I pursuant to coming into operation of Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act would not confer jurisdiction on respondent No. 2 under the relevant provision of Chapter XX-C, if the transfer was complete, possession has been handed over and substantial sale consideration was given.What has been contended before me is that merely filing of Form No. 37-I would not confer jurisdiction as it will not operate as an estoppel against s...
industrial Supplies and Services Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC802
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-original dated 22-1-1992 passed by the Additional Collector who had confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,72,466/- and also imposed the penalties of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173Q(1) and of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, on them.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods (HDPE bags) at Townhall Road, Commerce House, Udaipur. On receipt of information that they were indulging in evasion of Central Excise duty by creating four dummy units, namely M/s. M.K. Enterprises, M/s. K.K.Enterprises, M/s. United Traders & Contractors and M/s. Lucky Traders surprise raid was conducted by the Anti Evasion party headed by the Assistant Collector on their premises on 3-9-1990. The office of the appellants situated at Townhall Road and the factor)7 premises housed in a rented portion of property owned by Shri Bhanwarlal ...
Sona Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC211
1. These are two appeals - one filed by M/s. Sona Udyog Ltd. and the other filed by M/s. Bombay Snuff Company. In both these appeals, the matter relates to the classification of the product, which the manufacturers claimed to be the preparation containing snuff of tobacco classifiable under sub-heading No. 2404.60, while the jurisdic-tional central excise authorities considered the same as snuff of tobacco classifiable under sub-heading No. 2404.50 of the Central Excise Tariff. Both were heard together on 21-9-2000 and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhandara, who adjudicated the matters, had come to a finding that the product manufactured by M/s. Sona Udyog Ltd. and M/s. Bombay Snuff Company was nothing but snuff of tobacco and that mere addition of flavour etc. will not change the essential characteristic of the product. He also referred to the specific description of the product under sub-heading No. 2404.50 of the Central Ex...
Jaipur Syntex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC195
1. In this appeal the appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 10-2-2000 vide which he had affirmed the order-in-original dated 31-12-1997 of the Assistant Commissioner confirming the duty amount of 4,29,817/- on them.2. The issues involved in this appeal are (1) whether duty is payable at the single yarn stage when cleared for captive use for doubling (2) what should be the percentage of wastage of single yarn taken in the manufacture of double yarn, to arrive at the weight of the single yarn for the propose of levy of duty. The Assistant Commissioner through order in original took the view that the duty was payable at the single yarn stage and fixed the percentage of waste at 0.35% for arriving at the weight of the single yarn for the proposes of determining the duty amount. His order was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order.4. It has been fairly conceded by the Counsel for the appellants that bot...
Vikas Spinners Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC206
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-original dated 29-2-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow vide which he had ordered confiscation of their 482 bales of readymade garments (old, used and showing signs of wear) as well as 3 bales of used clothing and showing sings of wear, valued at Rs. 10,42,750/- under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act on them.3. The appellants filed a Bill of Entry dated 7-5-1999 with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Varanasi for clearance of imported cargo consisting of 485 bales of old lot stock garments (assorted) falling under Chapter Sub-headings 6203.41, 6203.42, 6203.43, 6203.33, 6205.20, 6205.30, 6206.30 and 6206.40 of the Customs Tariff imported from Japan in two containers. They also submitted invoice and packing list No. NKS10492, dated 14-2-1...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »