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.
Punjab Laminates Private Ltd. Vs. Cegat and Cce
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: 2002(82)ECC262
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. An application under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act) filed before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short the 'Tribunal') seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 36,37,338, pending disposal of the appeal, filed against the order of adjudication. The demand was raised on paper based decorative laminated sheets cleared during the period from 8th January 1993 to 31st March 1994, as a result of denial of Notification No. 135/89-CE dated 12th May 1989. Though petitioner's stand is that the said notification did apply, Revenue decided otherwise. Placing reliance on an earlier decision by the Tribunal in the case of G.M. Laminates Private Limited v. CCE, Chandigarh , Tribunal did not accept the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit, but directed deposit of Rs. 10 lacs as duty, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order i.e. 2nd November 1999. According to le...
Maihar Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT377TriDel
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, vide his order dated 28-1-2000/22-5-2000 has disallowed the modvat credit to the appellants totally amounting to Rs. 2,28,353/- availed by them in respect of the input items 'Oxygen Gas', 'Dissolved Acetylene Gas' and 'Welding Electrodes' during the period from October 1998 to March 1999. The appellants are the manufacturers of Cement and Clinker falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Commissioner in his order has observed that these items are used by the party for cutting and welding of various iron & steel structural items, and repairs and maintenance of plant & machinery. It is observed that these items are not imparting any property and quality to clinker and cement.Therefore, these cannot be said to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of these final products. Consequently, the Commissioner has disallowed the modvat credit on these inputs and confirmed the demand of the aforestated amount under Rul...
H.P.L. Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT566TriDel
1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 55,028/-.Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of chemicals. The applicants filed an application for remission of duty under Section 5 read with Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules on the ground that there was some fire accident in the factory.The request for remission was denied to the applicants.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to them before rejecting their request nor any appealable order had been served on the applicants. He submits that a copy of the letter dated 3-12-99 from Dy.Commissioner (Headquarters) to Dy. Commissioner (CE), Faridabad, whereby it was informed that the request of the applicants has been rejected, was only supplied to the appellant. His submission is that even after filing the appeal, the applicants approached the Commissioner (Appeals) vide letters dated 7-9-...
R.K. Mehra Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT398TriDel
1. The brief facts in this case are that the premises of some Transporters and Goods Carriers at Amritsar were searched by the staff of Office of Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Amritsar Division on 17-10-98. On search, a number of packages stated to have been despatched by the manufacturers of man-made fabrics from Surat were seized on the reasonable belief that the goods were cleared without payment of Central Excise duty. It was found that the consignments had been consigned to Amritsar under the names which appear to be fictitious/fake, coded and without complete addresses. The names of consigners and consignees in the G.Rs relating to these consignments were written in coded alphabets/numerals and same were not accompanied by any bill/invoice or any other valid covering documents. Since no party came forward to claim the ownership of the seized goods, a show cause notice was made out and pasted at the premises of the transporters from whose premises the goods were seized a...
National Publishing House Vs. Mr. Amit Sachdeva
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)21; 90(2001)DLT697; 2001(57)DRJ859; 2001(2)RAJ270
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. By these orders I shall dispose of OMP 194/2000 filed by the National Publishing House (Publisher) v. Amit Sachdeva (Author) and OMP No. 234/2000 filed by Amit Sachdeva (Author) against National Publishing House (Publisher) hereinafter. Both the Petitions are under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. In the first Petition the Publisher has prayed for an injunction restraining the author from cancelling the Agreement dated 16.3.1998 and also from transferring/assigning the publication rights of the book MICRO ECONOMICS PARTS 1 and 2 FOR B.COM.(HON.), DELHI UNIVERSITY. In the second Petition the author has prayed for an injunction restraining the Publisher from selling the Reprint 2000 of the books 'Micro Economic Theory Applications Part I' and 'Micro Economic Theory Applications Part II'. 2. The Agreement dated 10th March, 1998, between the parties postulates inter alias as follows: '3. That the author before handover the manuscript to the...
Puran Chand and Co. Vs. Ganeshi Lal Tara Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi175; 2000(57)DRJ300
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. Seeds for the litigation giving rise to this appeal were sown more than 70 years ago and yet there appears to be no end to it. 2. The point arising for consideration in this appeal is short though the parties have also tried to bring other points in controversy, which in our considered opinion, will not require any adjudication. The question to be answered by us is that whether the appellants are entitled to actual physical delivery of possession of various portions of the property in occupation of the respondents in accordance with Rule 95 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure or would be entitled to only symbolic (constructive) possession, as provided in Rule 86 of Order 21 of the Code. 3. More than 72 years ago, to be exact, on 6-2-1928 the property bearing Nos. 391 to 399, 405 and 406, Chandni Chowk, Delhi were mortgaged with possession by Ganga Ram in favor of Ram Chand, Bengali Mal, Shyam Lal and Chote Lal for Rs. 80,000/-. On the same day Ganga Ram exe...
Deen Dayal Sharma and anr. Vs. Upkar Chibbar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: 58(2001)DLT195
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Boundaries between nations have two prominent characteristics - they change from time to time and most often cause friction and fighting between the neighbours. This is also true of those between States within a nation, and as the present case manifests, even between inhabitants of adjoining colonies located in the same metropolis. The Plaintiffs, the alleged owners of 325 and 326, Village Masjid Moth, New Delhi, have filed this suit for a declaration that the land over which ownership is claimed by the Defendant is a service lane on the, back side of N.D.S.E. Part-II, New Delhi, and that the land is a 'public utility service'. The Plaintiff has further prayed for an injunction restraining the Defendant from raising any unauthorised construction on this land. On 6.6.1997, the Defendant was restrained from raising any unauthorised, structure without having any sanctioned plan.2. This application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 shall now be disposed on. Arguments wer...
R.L. Narang and Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)162; [2001]249ITR68(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Since the questions referred in both references are identical, this common order will dispose of both of them.2. At the instance of the assesses, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (in short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a notice requiring the statement of assets and liabilities as on March 31, 1962, March 31, 1970, and March 31, 1971, is a valid notice under Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the absence of fresh notice under Sections 142(1) and 142(1)(ii) after the asses-see had filed revised return on March 22, 1973, the Income-tax Officer was competent to make assessment under Section 144 on the ground that the notices issued under Sections 142(1) and 142(1)(ii) issued earlier ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Satinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR183(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (in short the 'Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts of Rs. 1,18,996 and Rs. 5,138 received by the assessed during the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, respectively, on account of his 50 per cent, share in the jagir income are his agricultural income and thereforee exempt from tax ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. Since the dispute involved is identical, our judgment will govern each of the references.3. The dispute relates to the question as to whether the jagir income received by the assessed was to be treated as his agricultural income and, thereforee, exempt from tax. Taking note o...
Piyare Lal Hari Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR739(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN1(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the assessed, in compliance with the directions given by this court by order dated July 20, 1978, in I. T. C.No. 40 of 1974 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B (in short 'the Tribunal') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and provisions of law, the Tribunal was justified in coming to a conclusion that the provisions of Section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are applicable to this case ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was further justified in including the value of the material supplied by the Government in the execution of the contracts in gross turnover of the applicant-firm and further estimating an additional profit at Rs. 80,920 on account of materials supplied by the Government to the applicant-firm in the execution of the contracts ?' 2. The dispute relat...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »