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.
Shiv Shankar Soni Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT174TriDel
1. In adjudication of a case involving alleged illegal import of gold biscuits, the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 85,000/- on this applicant as per Order dated 16-9-1998.Aggrieved by this order, the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and also filed therein an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the above amount and for stay of recovery thereof under Section 129E of the Customs Act. The said application was disposed of by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) as per the "Interim Stay Order" dated 4/6-4-2000. As per this Interim Stay Order, the party was directed to deposit the amount within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order. However, the de-' posit was not made by the party within the stipulated time. But well within the stipulated time, an application for reconsideration of the stay order was submitted to ld.Commissioner (Appeals). This application was, however, not considered by the authority. The lower ...
Commercial Engg. and Body Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT167TriDel
1. Along with this appeal, appellant filed application E/Stay/1818/2000-A praying for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount demanded as per the impugned order for entertaining the appeal. When that application came up for orders, we heard learned Counsel representing the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative.Both of them submitted before us that the matter has to go back to the lower appellate authority because of the fact that authority did not consider the contentions raised by the assessee on merits, in as much as the appeal before that authority was rejected solely on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 35F of the Act, is not having made deposit of 40% of the duty claimed as ordered by him.2. Appellant-assessee claimed the benefit of total exemption from duty as per serial number 18 of Notification No. 162/86-C.E. dated 12-3-1986. In the case of the same assessee for an earlier period the adjudicating authority denied the exemption u...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Montari Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT168TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed the above application for reference of the following question of law stated to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final order No. A/533/99-NB, dated 29-6-1999 : "Whether CEGAT is justified in allowing credit on certificate issued under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 after six months of the date of issue of the said certificates?" 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein were engaged in the manufacture of Insecticides and Herbicides falling under Chapters 28, 29 and 38 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. They were availing modvat facility. In the month of September, 1995, they were required to pay differential duty of Rs. 1,02,247/- and on the strength of the certificate of payment, they took Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules. This was objected to by the Department which issued a show cause notice dated 12-3-1996. The proceedings against the assessees were dropped by the Additional Commissioner; however, t...
Pearl Engineering Polymers Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT65TriDel
1. Issues raised in all these 5 appeals are identical and so we consider it advantageous to dispose of them by a common order.Appellants in C/402 to 404/98-D are M/s. Pearl Engineering Polymers and their two directors. M/s. Pearl Engineering Polymers entered into an agreement with M/s. Zimmer, Germany for setting up Polyethyleme Terephthalic Chips (PET chips). As part of the agreement, M/s. had sent 112 volumes of books. They were imported during the period 1993 and 1994, pursuant to the agreement dated 4-5-1993. Show cause notices were issued invoking the extended period of limitation proposing to classify the goods under Heading 49.01 as also under Heading 49.11. Appellant contended that the imported goods were books and they are covered by Chapter 49 of the tariff entry and are wholly exempt from duty under Notification 107/93, dated 30-3-1993 and Notification 38/94, dated 1-3-1994. This contention was negatived by the adjudicating authority and consequently duty levied and penalty...
M/S. Mehra Khanna and Co., Delhi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)418; 89(2001)DLT461; 2001(58)DRJ78
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. (Oral) 1. At the instance of assessed, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Benches 'B' & 'C'(in short 'Tribunal') (ITR 20/80 by Delhi Bench-B and ITR 325/80 by Delhi Bench-C) have referred the following questions, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), for opinion of this Court: ITR No. 20/80'1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payment of Rs.35,000/- in respect of assessment year 1976-77 represented capital expenditure and not payment as hire charges?' '2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs.35,000/- made by the assessed to the family of the deceased was an admissible deduction in computing the income of the assessed for the assessment year 1976-77?' ITR No.325/80'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payment of Rs.16,521/- made by the assessed to the family of...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. M/S Dalmia Industries Ltd. and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)969; 2001(57)DRJ877
ORDERKHAN, (J) 1. Respondent is co-owner of land measuring 5060 Sq.metres comprising Khasra No.253/2 min., 563 & 564 in village abadi (Firni) of Bijwasan, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. Consolidation proceedings were taken in this village vide Consolidation Scheme 218 dated 2.5.1975 under East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 along with Delhi Land Reforms Act resulting in land being declared within village abadi (Firni) and making it entitled to benefit of Appellant's Notification dated 24.8.1963 exempting it from building regulations contained in Sections 332 to 336, 342 and 347 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMCA). 2. It transpires that Respondents 1-2 proposed to construct a building complex on this with the agreement of other co-owners and obtained Gaon Sabha permission for this as also that of GOI under Section 22 of MRTPA. But Appellant resisted this on the plea that Respondent's land was not covered by exemption Notification dated...
Mohd. Miraz @ Munna Vs. State (Not of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)437; 90(2001)DLT702
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. A person accused of an offence, which involves life imprisonment or jeoparding his personal liberty, has a fundamental right of free legal assistance at State expense. This fundamental right is implicit in the requirement of reasonable, fair and just procedure prescribed by Article 21 of the Constitution of Indian. The exercise of this fundamental right is not conditional upon the accused applying for free legal assistance so that if he does not make an application for free legal assistance the trial may lawfully proceed without adequate legal representation being afforded to him. On the other hand the magistrate or the Sessions Judge before whom the accused appears is under an obligation to inform the accused that if he is unable to engage the services of a lawyer on account of poverty or indigence, he is entitled to obtain free legal services at the cost of the State. The conviction reached without informing the accused that they were entitled to obtain free leg...
Cit Vs. K.L. Ahuja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: [2001]116TAXMAN835(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of revenue, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D 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 Commissioner had no jurisdiction under section 263 to cancel the Income Tax Officers order dated 28-2-1977 passed under section 154 ?'2. Brief reference to factual aspects would suffice :The assessee, who was an employee of the Central Government, joined the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC), a public sector undertaking, where he was permanently absorbed. On his retirement from Central Government service, he received a sum of Rs. 9,714 towards commuted value of 1/3rd of the pension due to him plus a sum of Rs. 19,429 as terminal benefit calculated at twice the amount of the commuted value of pension. Accounts officer while paying terminal benefits ded...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sushila Mittal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR531(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN445(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' (in short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that Section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable to the case of the assessed ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,327 made on account of reversionary value of the land in arriving at the fair market value of the property in question ?' 2. The factual position, as indicated in the statement of case is essentially as follows :That Tulsi Ram Arun was the assessed and the present respondents are his legal heirs. The late Tulsi Ram Arun was assessed in the status of an individual. For the assessment year 1972...
Electrical Instrument Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)77; [2001]250ITR734(Delhi); [2001]116TAXMAN807(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to a direction given by this court on an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the unsigned and unverified return filed on August 13, 1973, was validated by the issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The factual position, which is almost undisputed, is as follows :The assessed filed an unsigned and unverified return of income relating to the assessment year 1973-74 on August 13, 1973. It was accompanied by copies of the trading account, profit and loss account, capital accounts and balance-sheet together with a detailed statement of depreciation, all duly signed by a partner of the assessed. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on December 24, 1973, posting the mat...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »