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.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. H.P.L. Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC267
1. In this impugned order ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the product in question shall be classifiable tinder Tariff Heading 25.01.Being aggrieved by this order Revenue has filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case in brief are that two show cause notices were issued to the respondents herein. The show cause notices were issued on account of the fact that the assessee in their classification lists declaration filed under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had been declaring the 'denatured salt' as one of the manufactured items and had claimed the 3. On examination of the manufacturing process, it was noticed that the respondents have been purchasing raw materials namely Urea, Caustic Soda, Chlorine Gas etc. Caustic Soda and Chlorine gas are first reacted in a closed tank and the product so formed is transferred to another tank in which urea is already placed. Mixture in this tank is heated up to the temperature of 100C. Heating is done with steam. The chemical...
Ess Ess Metals and Electricals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT473TriDel
1. Arguing the case for restoration of the appeal, Shri J.P. Kaushik, ld. Advocate submits that the case was listed for reporting compliance on 5-10-2000; that when the matter was called on 5-10-2000 none appeared. Ld. Counsel submits that the applicants had already filed an application for modification of the stay order; that this application was received in the office of the Tribunal on 8-8-2000. He submits that this application was not considered nor was any opportunity given to the applicants to comply with the order after modification. He submits that normally after deciding the modification of an order, time is given to the appellant for complying with the order. He submits that in the instant case, there was no time given to the appellants and the appeal itself was dismissed. He, therefore, prays that in view of the fact that the applicants had not been given any opportunity of complying with the order modified or otherwise, therefore, there has been failure of justice by not o...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Llyod Bitumen Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT382TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the eligibility for the benefit of exemption under Notification No.53/65-C.E., dated 20-3-1565 in respect of the products, roof loid and scrap felt. There is no dispute that these products were classifiable under Heading No. 59.09 of the Tariff. Both the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras, IX Division who adjudicated the matter and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras held that the goods were eligible for the exemption under the aforesaid notification.2. In the appeal the Revenue had pleaded hat the products were not suitable for the applications envisaged in the notification. Under this notification, the rot-proofed jute products, laminated products and fire-resistant jute products were eligible for exemption. The Revenue has pleaded that the products were suitable only for water/damp-proofing.3. When the matter was called no one appeared for the respondents. The notice for today's hearing has been r...
Mmtc Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)(95)LC103Tri(Delhi)
1. All the above six appeals involve a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. The details of the first four appeals filed by M/s. M.M.T.C. Ltd. are as under: SL. No. Appeal No.Adj. Order dated Duty demand Penalty _____________________________________________________________________ 1.50/98 29.9.1997 Rs. 34,80,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/- 2.51/98 29.9.1997 Rs. 29,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- 3.52/98 30.9.1997 Rs. 36,74,598.35 Rs. 10,00,000/- 4.53/98 5.11.1997 Rs. 29,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- ______________________________________________________________________ Appeal No. C/478/98-C has been filed by the Revenue against the order in original No. ACU/DS/13/97 dated 30.8.1997 whereunder the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi has dropped the duty demand of Rs. 7,07,01,428/- raised on M/s. M.M.T.C. Ltd. and has dropped penal action proposed against M/s. MMTC.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. MMTC is a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India...
Century Lamination Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT437TriDel
1. Shri A.P. Mathur, ld. Court sel submits that this Tribunal did not take into account that the appeal was filed by the appellant well within the prescribed period of three months; that this Tribunal did not consider that the appellant clearly mentioned in the appeal that the statement of facts of grounds of appeal will be submitted subsequently and had asked for personal hearing; that the grounds of appeal and the statement of facts would have been submitted at the time of hearing the appeal itself; that the facts of the case were narrated in the impugned order itself. Ld. Counsel, therefore, submitted that findings of the Tribunal were given without taking into account the correct and complete facts. Therefore, submits that there has been a mistake and prays that the mistake may be rectified.2. Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR, appearing for Revenue submits that Tribunal in its final order held in the case before us, the position is still worse that no grounds for appeal or the statement o...
M.M.T.C. Limited Vs. Commr. of Cus
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT412TriDel
1. All the above six appeals involve a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. The details of the first four appeals filed by M/s. M.M.T.C Ltd. are as under:_________________________________________________________Sl. Appeal Adj. order Duty demand PenaltyNo. No. dated4.53/98 5-11-1997 Rs. 29,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/-_________________________________________________________ Appeal No. C/478/98-C has been filed by tb; Revenue against the order in original No. ACU/DS/13/97, dated 30-3-97 whereunder the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi has dropped the duty demand of Rs. 7,07,01,428/- raised on M/s. M.M.T.C. Ltd. and has dropped penal action proposed against M/s. MMTC.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. MMTC is a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India. Under the Export and Import Policy of the Government, as framed from time to time, Schemes were formulated whereby jewellery manufacturing units were permitted to import primary ...
Bhagwan Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi171; 2000(57)DRJ455
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming that the DDA had illegally demolished his flour mill being run in the name of Ashoka Flour Mill, located in Khasra No. 100/28, admeasuring 450 Sq. yards, in village Razapur, Badli in an action on 12-9-1996. In the present writ petition, petitioner seeks permission for raising construction as also for protection of his possession.2. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before that the DDA has in a blatantly illegal action demolished the flour mill, which falls within khasra No. 100/28. Learned counsel in support of it relies on document filed along with the writ petition, showing that the plot of the petitioner was not under acquisition, Reliance is placed on a list of khasra Numbers that had been acquired. In any way, this need not detain us any further, as it is not the case of the petiti...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Angira Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Del)604
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of revenue following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal).'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there was no transfer of the property within the meaning of section 2(47) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Factual position as set out in the statement of case is as follows:Assessee, Smt. Angira Devi, is the only daughter of late Shri Raghumal. Her mother was Smt. Bhagwati Devi. assessed was married to Shri Hans Raj Gupta and had four sons, namely, Desh Raj, Shiv Raj, Rajinder Kumar and Mahender Kumar. Raghumal had several immovable and movable properties. By a will dated 4-9-1926, he bequeathed certain specified amount to several persons named in the will and appointed his wife and daugh...
Bhagat Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Del)181; [2001]250ITR291(Delhi); [2001]114TAXMAN606(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act'), filed by the assessed. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1992-93. The challenge is to the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi (in short, the 'Tribunal').2. The factual position, as highlighted by the assessed, which needs to be noted is essentially as follows :The assessed is a private limited company, which derived income at the relevant point of time from exhibition of shorts/slides, hiring of news reels, rental of shops, show rooms in its film exhibition complex, rendering of various management services to a cold storage concern, The assessed also received an amount on account of disputed claims and dues in respect of its erstwhile business of civil construction works carried out under several contracts. The aforesaid contracts were with Hindustan Steelworks Construction Co. Ltd. (in short, 'HSCL'). These related to the co...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jatinder and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)376; [2001]250ITR189(Delhi); [2001]116TAXMAN817(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. All these cases involve an identical issue and, thereforee, are taken up together to be governed by this common judgment.2. The assessed in each case was a director of a company, Bhagat Construction Company (P.) Ltd. The assessment years involved are 1970-71 and 1971-72. The company was incorporated on October 19, 1965. It followed the accounting year on the Diwali day basis. The question as to whether the fixed salary or commission on net profit or sales or partly by one or partly by the other in respect of the directors, was to be decided by the board of directors as laid down in articles 25 and 29 of the memorandum and articles of association of the company. By resolution passed at an extraordinary meeting of the shareholders held on March 8, 1966, D. R. Bhagat was appointed as the managing director and three other persons, namely, Jatinder Kumar, Prem Sagar Bhagat and Vidya Sagar Bhagat, were appointed as directors. D. R. Bhagat was to be paid a fixed salary ...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »