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.
Jindal Polyester Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT296TriDel
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 48,08,428/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the applicants. The demand represents depreciation allegedly claimed in excess by the applicants.2. Issue to be determined prima facie is the date of commencement of commercial production by the applicants for the purpose of commencement of period of calculation of depreciation. According to the Commissioner commercial production commenced on 29-3-1996 while the department alleges that it was only a trial production on that date and that commercial production began only on 19-7-1996 and that the applicants were entitled to claim depreciation only from 19-7-1996 and not from 29-3-1996.3. We have heard both sides. There is no dispute that the quantity produced in March, 1996 was exported. The Commissioner has accepted this position but has held that the manufacture in March was only trial production because they had produced only very small quantity of 1.74 M...
C.C.E., New Delhi Vs. M/S. Plastikot (Sundersons)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT700TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Plastikot (Sundersons) Industries, Proprietor - M/s. Chaukhani India )P Ltd., Sonepat manufactures coated cotton fabrics and coated man-made fabrics falling under Items No.19 (III) and No. 22 (3) respectively of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. On 21.2.85, their factory premises and registered office were raided by the Officers of the Anti Evasion Wing of the DRI and Officers of Central Excise Department. On verification of their stock, 7867 mts. of coated cotton fabrics were found in excess of the recorded balance in their RG.1 Register for which separate proceedings were initiated against them.2. From the seized records, it was learnt that they had purchased 60,114 mtrs. of cotton fabrics. As per the ledger of M/s. Ambika Textiles, Burhanpur, this party had supplied to the appellants the aforestated cotton fabrics against 9 bills during the months of June and July, 1984. There was no entry of this quantity of cotton cloth in their Form IV register. The sup...
Electricity Poles Mfg. Unit Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT300TriDel
1. In this appeal M/s. Electricity Poles Mfg. Unit, controlled by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, questions the correctness of Order-in-Appeal No. 324-CE MRT/2000, dated 22-5-2000. As per that order the Commissioner (Appeals) modified Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed the duty demanded therein. He relieved the appellant from the liability of payment of penalty.According to the learned Counsel representing the appellant, the case in hand is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Rajshree Foods Pvt. Ltd. 1997 (18) RLT 52 and the appellant could not have been saddled with the liability as per the orders passed by the Tribunal.2. A demand cum Show-Cause-Notice dated 28-4-1998 was issued to the appellant alleging that assessable value of the electric poles manufactured by the appellant herein for the use of Electricity Board, should have been evaluated, taking into consideration the notional profit in force, as well. This profit element have not been...
Ramachandra and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT390TriDel
1. This is an application filed by the assessee to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that there is a delay of 63 days in filing the appeal. He explained the delay by filing the date chart which is as under : -(ii) Date of receipt of Order-in- 11-11-1999 original(iii) Appeal required to be filed 14-2-2000 (12/13-2- within 3 months. 2000 Saturday/ Sun- day closed days).(i) 5-2-2000 to 16-2-2000 (Sickness - Affida- 11 days vit/Medical Certificate enclosed)(ii) During sickness relevant papers/order- 5 days in-original got mixed up and could not(iii) Could not get hold the papers sent a FAX to concerned C.H.A. on 21-2-2000(iv) Received papers from C.H.A. on 10-4- 47 days 2000.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate submitted that the applicants were not negligent in filing the appeal but the major delay occurred at Chennai as the Custom House Agent would get copies of the said documents only on 6th/7th April, 2000. He r...
Ykk India Ltd. Vs. Cc (icd)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)(96)LC372Tri(Delhi)
1. The applicants seek stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who, while holding that sanction of refund of Rs. 63,43,597/- paid as revenue deposit on imported capital goods to the applicants, by the Assistant Commissioner under Assessment Order dated 30.6.1998 on the reasoning that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the cases of captive consumption of capital goods is not in accordance with the legal position settled by the Apex Court decision in the case of Union of India v. Solar Pesticides P. Ltd. , and setting aside the denial of refund of Rs. 17,05,119 /- (by the same adjudication order dated 30.6.1998) being revenue deposit on imported raw materials, has set aside the entire adjudication order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund), ICD, Tuglakabad.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of zip fasteners. They imported various raw materials and cap...
Hidrive Finance Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Del)90
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.Since a short point is involved, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for disposal.Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the appropriate authority, Income Tax department (hereinafter referred to as `the authority) purportedly under section 269UC(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). By the said order the authority held that transfer of the subject property without obtaining the requisite no-objection certificate (hereinafter referred to as `NOC) from the authority is void in terms of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 269UK read with sections 269UK(1) and 269UA(2)(f)(1) of the Act. The statement filed in Form 37-1 on 23-4-1999, was held to be not maintainable in law as it was in respect of a void transaction and was not to be acted upon.2. Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:On 9-10-1989, an agreement to sell was entered into by the petitioner and Mr. Pra...
Madan Lal (Deceased) Legal Heirs and ors. Vs. Ram Parshad and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ856
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is against the Judgment and decree passed on 18.1.1982 by learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the suit of plaintiff/appellants by which they had sought partition of immovable properties bearing. No. 61-62, I-Block, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi and No. J-77, Srinivaspuri, New Delhi and for rendition of accounts in respect of the rents realised by defendant/respondent No. 1.2. The facts relevant for decision of the present appeal in brief are that Madan Lal, Manohar Lal and Krishan Gopal plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 and Ram Parshad-defendant/respondent No. 1 are sons of Munshi Ram. Som Raj was another son of Munshi Ram who expired in the year 1975. On 16.11.1977 the plaintiffs filed a suit claiming partition of the suit property alleging that Ram Parshad, defendant and Madan Lal, plaintiff before partition of the country were in service at Lahore (now in Pakistan) and upon migration came to Delhi in 1947. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 with their mother and bro...
Lakshmi Steels Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: 2002(141)ELT318(Del)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Rule D.B.Since a short point is involved, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for disposal. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short Tribunal) while dealing with a prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 30,32,433/- and penalty amounting to Rs. 30,32,433/- levied under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Act).2. Background in which the levy was made is essentially as follows :Central Excise officers paid a surprise visit to the unit of the petitioner. Except a chowkidar no other employee was present. Statement of the chowkidar was recorded to the effect that there were no machines and for two months there was no activity going on in the unit. Officers observed that the machines available were rusted. When the proprietor was contacted it was stated that there was no power connection and he was using a generator for drawing po...
Hidrive Finance Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)472; 89(2001)DLT791; 2000(57)DRJ882; [2001]249ITR34(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Rule D. B.2. Since a short point is involved, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for disposal.3. A challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the appropriate authority, Income-tax Department (in short 'the Authority'), purportedly under Section 269UC(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). By the said order, the authority held that transfer of the subject property without obtaining the requisite no objection certificate ('NOC' in short) from the authority is void in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 269UK read with Sections 269UK(1) and 269UA(f)(i) of the Act. The statement filed in Form No. 37-1 on April 23, 1999, was held to be not maintainable in law as it was in respect of a void transaction and was not to be acted upon.4. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice :On October 9, 1989, an agreement to sell was entered into by the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Narang, ...
Venkatesh Beverages Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT276TriDel
1. None for the applicants. The applicants have moved the present Misc.application seeking refund of the duty amount of Rs. 4,30,543/- deposited by them under Section 35F at the time of filing of the appeal before the Tribunal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 2-3-94 passed by the Collector of Central Excises (Appeals), on the ground that the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, for de novo decision in the light of the judgment recorded in the case of Krishna & Company v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 2. The perusal of the record shows that the applicants thereafter independently applied before the Assistant Collector for refund of the duty amount before filing the present Misc. application before the Tribunal and Assistant Collector rejected the same on merits by passing detailed order dated 5-5-2000. No appeal has been filed by the applicants against that order of the Assistant Collector rejecting their refund claim. Therefore, the present Misc. application file...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »