Delhi Court December 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.
Cce, New Delhi/Meerut Vs. M/S. JaIn Papers Convertor, M/S.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT686TriDel
1. At the outset, Shri M.D. Singh, ld. SDR request for condonation of delay. He submits that there has been a delay in filing the reference application. He submits that the reference application was filed in appeal No.E/987/96-NB on 27.3.97 which was received in the Tribunal on 31.3.97 and reference application was in appeal No.E/950/96-NB on 6.1.97 which was received in the Tribunal on 1.4.97. He submits that reference application are required to be dealt with under Section 35G(1). He submits that the Tribunal is competent to condone the delay of 30 days. He submits that in view of the circumstances explained by the Commissioner in the applications, the delay in filing reference applications may be condoned. None appeared for the respondents.However, there is a request for decision on merits. I find that the delay has occurred on the ground that it took some time to trace out the papers. I am satisfied with the explanation furnished by the applicant. In the circumstances, the delay i...
M/S. Shaw Wallace Gelatines Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT707TriDel
1. In both the appeals common issue is involved, therefore, they are being taken up together.2. In the impugned order the benefit of MODVAT credit was denied to Filter pads used in manufacture of Gelatine as input under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the show cause notice was issued to the appellants to denying the benefit as input 'Filter pads' relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Escorts Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 682 (Tribunal). He submits that the Tribunal in the case of Escorts Ltd. (Supra) taken a view that Filter Mesh used for filtering out impurities from molten metal being in the nature of apparatus not eligible for benefit of MODVAT credit. His submission is that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd., Calcutta & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 1996 (15) RLT 144 held that Wire Mash &am...
Meghraj Biscuits Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT602TriDel
1. In the present application for rectification of mistake (ROM), the learned Counsel had submitted that the matter came up for final hearing before the Tribunal, but full submissions could not be made by the appellants and they prayed to file written submissions after the hearing and that there is no mention in the order of the Tribunal that their written submissions had been taken note of. He submits that it has caused mistake in the order and prays that the order be recalled and reheard.2 Shri R.C. Sankhla, JDR, submits that the scope of the ROM application is limited and the matter has been decided after hearing both the sides and there is no mistake in the order which may call for rectification.3. We have carefully considered the matter. The matter was heard on 18-2-2000, when Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate, appearing for the appellants had submitted that M/s. Kay Aar Biscuits (Pvt.) Ltd. owned the brand name 'Meghraj' in the year 1989 and during the period under consideration, M/...
Smithklime Beechem Consumer Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT64TriDel
"Thus the disputed issue in this case boils down to the point as to whether the merger of Unit No. 1 with the unit No. 2 is shifting of the plant or factory to another site or not. On this point, I observe that it is not the case of even appellants that they have merely shifted the plant or factory of unit No. I to anther site. They do clearly admit that they have shifted the plant or fac-iory to another factory belonging to them. There is difference between the word 'site' and 'factory'. But the appellants arguments are for eliminating this substantial difference between 'site' and 'factory'. It is obvious that their arguments are not correct and tenable since 'site' cannot be equated with the factory. In view of the above, I, therefore, find no merits in the appellants' contentions warranting any interference with adjudication order in this case. The appeal is, therefore, rejected". "Here it is true that both the plants belong to the same manufacturer being same partners but Rule 57...
Commissioner of Income-tax-ii and anr. Vs. M/S. Rahuljee and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)141; 2001RLR294
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (in short 'the Act') challenge is to the order dated 11th November, 1999, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-A (in short 'Tribunal') holding that cancellation of penalty levied under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act was proper. It has to be noted that Assessing Officer imposed penalty which was cancelled by the Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] (in short 'CIT(A)) in an appeal filed by the assessed. Revenue's appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal. Dispute relates to Assessment Year 1987-88. 2. Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. assessed obtained order for supply of imported video cassettes to Czechoslovakia. It obtained import license to import video cassettes from a Korean company in semi-knocked down (SKD in short) condition. It was to be assembled in India by the assessed and then to be re-exported to Czechoslovakia. Goods were dispatched by the Korean com...
M/S. Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pargatisheel Mazdoor Sangh, D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)258; 90(2001)DLT140; 2001(58)DRJ274; [2001(89)FLR544]; (2001)IILLJ304Del
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Facing perennial problems of holding demonstrations, dharanas, burning of effigies of the management and holding gate meetings and thereby blocking the egress and ingress of employees of the company and causing hindrance of the entries of the materials and misguiding the workers by making provocative speeches, the plaintiff company has sought through this suit a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, members servants, representatives from holding demonstrations, dharnas, blockade, gherao, shouting slogans, putting up loud-speakers, pasting any banners, causing hindrance in the egress and ingress of the material required for the purpose of the business of the plaintiff within a radius of 500 meters at its following work places:1. Wings Pharamaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., H-44, Udyog Nagar, Delhi -41. 2. Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., J-13, Udyog Nager , Delhi -41. 3. Wings Pharamaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., B-4/48, Paschim Vihar, Delhi -63. 2. The last ...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. the Presiding Officer Labour Court No. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR418]
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 12th May, 1998 passed by the learned Labour Court No. VIII. 2. Respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the Workman) initially joined the services of the Petitioner as a daily wage conductor some time in 1982. He was confirmed on this post in April, 1984. 3. From 15th October, 1986 onwards, the Workman absented himself from his duties without any authority or sanction. Accordingly, on 19th January, 1987 a show cause notice was issued to him in which it was stated that he was unauthorizedly absenting himself from work and that his absence for a period of three months from 15th October, 1986 to 14th January, 1987 was regularised as extraordinary leave without pay. It was stated that his absence beyond 14th January, 1987 cannot be regularised and he was asked to show cause why it should not be deemed that he has resigned from his appointment with effect from 15th January, 1987 under the provisions of Regulation 14(10)(...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bishamber Dayal and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: [2002]255ITR343(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.1. This judgment will govern Income-tax References Nos. 341 and 342 of 1980.2. Heard. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following question, common to both references, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the penalties levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on July 31, 1976, against the assessed for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as without jurisdiction ?'3. The assessment years involved are 1972-73 and 1973-74. It is the undisputed position that fresh order of assessments after reopening of the assessments which were earlier made ex parte were completed on April 30, 1976. Obviously reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissi...
Cit Vs. Smt. Bhagwanti Kohli
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN188(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Heard. At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A, has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the amount of interest (Rs. 63,156 + Rs. 41,682) awarded by the District Judge, which is the subject-matter of appeal filed by Government before the High Court, is not includible in the total income of the assessed for the assessment year 1972-73 ?'2. We have heard the learned counsel for the revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed in spite of service of notice.3. The learned counsel for the revenue brought to our notice the following observation of the Tribunal which, we find, is of great relevance. For adjudicating the dispute before us :'In the light of this finding, we do not propose to enter into the further controversy, ...
Gokul Metallizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT157TriDel
1.The matter was called. No one appeared for the appellants M/s. Gokul Metallizers Pvt. Ltd. The notice for today's hearing was issued on 9-11-2000 and was duly acknowledged by the appellants. In their communication dated 13-11-2000 they have stated as under :- "We shall be obliged if you will give us a revised date of hearing to take place after 15-1-2001 as it will not be convenient for us to attend the hearing on 7- 12-2000." No ground has been given as to why it would not be convenient for the appellants to attend the hearing. The matter is very old in which the goods were imported in the year 1994. The matter relates to the refund claim of Rs. 1,14,650/- filed after the goods had been cleared. They had not filed any appeal against the assessment/classification settled in the Bill of Entry. The refund was rejected on merits. On appeal the collector of Customs (Appeals) held that as the appellants had not filed any appeal against the assessment no refund claim was admissible. He ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »