Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 6 of about 243 results (0.012 seconds)Mardia Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT79TriDel
In Samrat International (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561, their Lordships of the Supreme Court took the view that pending finalisation of the classification list or price list, the duty paid for clearing the goods would be provisional.In Coastal Gases & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam -1997 (92) E.L.T. 460, the assessee contended that their claims for refund was not time barred, inasmuch as on the date when they filed the claim for refund, their classification list had not been approved. While dealing with that contention, the Court said that no material was placed before them to show that they cleared the goods manufactured by following the procedure laid down in Rule 9B or that the payment of excise duty, which the appellants had made during the relevant period, was provisional. On that basis, the entire matter was remanded back to the concerned adjudicating authority observing: "If the appellants su...
Tag this Judgment!Light Publications Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC620
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 22.3.93 passed by the Collector, Central Excise.In the impugned order the duty amounting to Rs. 5,99,423.23 was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was also imposed. The Collector of Central Excise also ordered for confiscation of Land, Plant & Machinery and permitted the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Printed Cartons and Printed Catch Covers and they were availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986 which was amended by Notification No. 244/87-CE dated 30.10.87 to the effect that the benefit of the notification is not admissible to the units registered with Director General of Technical Development Units (DGTD) as per Para-4(b) of Notification No.175/86-CE. The appellants applied for registration as DGTD Unit and the same was granted on 26.7.88. The Unit of the appellant w...
Tag this Judgment!Meera Sahni and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)302; 89(2001)DLT484; 2001(57)DRJ329
ORDERARUN KUMAR, J.1. The award with respect to land in dispute was made on 12th December 1997 as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the respondents cannot take any proceedings for taking possession of the petitioners' land under section 16 of the said Act. He relies on the provisions of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act) in support of his contention. The facts are that the petitioners purchased the land in question on 5th June 1980. The land was admittedly notified under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per notification dated 24th October 1961. The declaration under section 6 of the said Act was issued on 4th January 1969.2. As per the case of the petitioners the vendors had obtained permission under section 5 of the Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 for transfer of the land and the petitioners purchased the same on the strength of t...
Tag this Judgment!Mercury Travels (India) Ltd and Others Vs. Shri Mahabir Prasad and anr
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)381; 89(2001)DLT440; 2001(58)DRJ781
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. Respondents herein had filed suit for ejectment and for recovery of money and mesne profits against appellant herein. By impugned judgment dated 31st August, 1998 learned Additional District Judge has decreed the suit for recovery of possession of premises known as 2-A, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi also known as A-16, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi on a plot of land measuring 1800 sq.yds. with double storey building with cost. Decree for recovery of Rs.24,000/- and Rs.5,734/- is also passed in favor of the respondents herein. Mesne profits are awarded at the rate of Rs.12,000/-PM from 26th May, 1992 onwards till handing over the possession of the suit property. The decree also injuncts the appellant, its servant, agent and relative from transferring, alienating or parting with possession of the suit property mentioned in the plaint. Direction is also given to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the respondents within two months from the date of ju...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)412; 89(2001)DLT495; 2001(57)DRJ335
ORDERARUN KUMAR, J.1. The petitioners filed the present petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith hand over the actual and physical possession of the petitioners' land measuring 112 bighas and 14 bids was in village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi. The petitioners further prayed that respondents be directed to comply with the judgment and directions contained in the judgment of this court dated 16th May, 1989 in CWP 51/1989 and in Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India. The petitioners subsequently filed an amended writ petition claiming the relief of restoration of possession of their land and the relief of quashing of the notifications under section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to the land in suit.2. Briefly the facts are that the Government had issued a notification dated 25th November, 1980 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of certain lands including the lands of the petitioners which are subject matter of the presen...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. E. Merck (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)270; AIR2001Delhi326; 90(2001)DLT60; 2001(57)DRJ430
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. By impugned Notification dated 14th October, 1999 the Central Government has in exercise of powers contained under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (as amended 68 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) prohibited manufacture, sale or distribution of Fixed Dose Combination (hereinafter referred to as FDC, for short) of Vitamins B1, B6 and B12 for human use w.e.f. 1st January, 2001. Petitioner is a pharmaceutical Company. Apart from manufacturing other medicines, it is the manufacturer of FDC of Vitamins B1, B6 and B12 which is marketed by it in the name of 'Neurobion' in tablet and ingestible forms. Petitioners claim to have largest market share of this drug, with total sale of Rs.35.43 crores per year which is equivalent to approximately 23.6% of the total pharmaceutical products. It was, thereforee, but natural for the petitioners to feel aggrieved against this Notification and by means of present Writ Petition the petitioners ha...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Kanti Singh and Others Vs. the Project and Equipment Corporation ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)686
ORDERSharda Agarwal, J.EA.386/1999.1. By this application the judgment-debtor seeks adjustment of TDS from the decretal amount. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is contended by learned counsel for the judgment-debtor and that of Income-Tax Department that according to Section 194(1) of Income-Tax Act, 1961 all the receipts by the decree-holder were taxable. The receipts in the present case are for the use of the property and it is contended that the same are amenable to Section 194(1) of the Income-Tax Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the decree-holder has contended that in the execution petition the decree-holder is seeking relief in pursuance of the decree passed by the Court. He also contends that in any case, the mesne profits or interest accrued there upon cannot be included under Section 194(1) of the Income-Tax Act.2. The decree for possession and mesne profits in this case was passed in favor of the decree-holders and again...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Amrit Pal Singh and anr. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)441
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Defendants 1 & 2 who are main rivals have compromised the matter. Both are Government authorities. The relief sought by the plaintiffs is against both the defendants for restraining them or their officers, employees, servants/agents or any other person whosoever and from removing, defacing, damaging and preventing from putting up advertisement boards on the Bus Queue Shelters (in short 'BQS') and Time Keeping Booths (in short 'TKBs') and/or interfering in any manner whatsoever, with the display of the plaintiff's advertisement on the BQS and the TKBs in the allotted zones.2. Vide interim order dated 2.11.2000, it was observed that since there is no possibility of the defendants resolving their differences and consequently being unable to enter into a contract with the highest tenderer because of their disputes inter se and since the plaintiffs are exploiting the BQSsand TKBs against payments, the plaintiffs are permitted to continue to exhibit their advertisement...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Ram and Co. (Huf) and Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2002]254ITR307(Delhi); [2001]115TAXMAN499(Delhi)
D. K. Jain J. 1. On being moved by the assessed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to grant registration to the firm of Kalu Ram and Co. ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the income arising from contract was rightly assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family of Kalu Ram and Co. ?' 2. The two references, pertaining to the assessment year 1972-73, arise out of two appeals filed by Kalu Ram and Co. (Firm) (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm') and Kalu Ram and Co. (HUF) (hereinafter referred as 'the HUF'). The previous year relevant to the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Dhaka Vikas Society and anr. Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi154
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition raises interesting question of law. Petitioner No. 1 is the society registered under the societies Registration Act which is running petitioner No. 2 named 'V.D. Institute of Technology' It is conducting B.Ed, courses. The National Institute for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'NCTE Act') was passed by the Parliament with the main objective to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. As per the provisions of this Act, any Institution offering course or training in teacher education is required to seek recognition under this Act. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute') applied for grant of recognition under the said Act by making appropri...
Tag this Judgment!