Delhi Court May 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.
Press Metal Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC80
1. Appellant herein manufactures "Roladeck" (brand name) panels out of steel sheets/strips purchased from Steel Authority of India Ltd. Steel sheets and strips so purchased are fed into cold forming mill and converted into corrugated sheets. These corrugated sheets are cut into sizes as required by the customers. The customers use the sheets cleared from appellant's factory in making bodies for light commercial vehicles. Appellant used to declare these goods as flooring panel, side panel, etc. in their classification list falling under Chapter 72 attracting Central Excise duty at the rate of Rs. 365.00 per metric tonne. While the goods were being cleared by the appellant pursuant to this classification list, which was approved by the department, show cause notice dated 13-2-1991 was issued stating that the 'Roladeck', flooring panel, side panel, etc. were manufactured according to the customers, specification for use in motor vehicles manufactured by M/s.TELCO, Pune, M/s. Bajaj Tempo ...
Stefab (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT86TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Stefab India Ltd. is whether the Washing Machines manufactured by them are classifiable under Heading No. 84.51 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as claimed by them, or under Heading 84.50 as Ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned Order dated 23-5-1996.2.1 Shri M. Chandrasekharan, learned senior Counsel, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture machines for washing (stone washing, enzyme washing, acid washing) dyeing, bleaching, etc.; that these machines have been since 1985 described as industrial Washing Machines and were classified under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and Heading 84.51 of the Present Tariff; that a show cause notice dt.19-10-93 was issued to them for changing the classification of washing machines to Heading 84.50 and for demanding duty short paid during the period April 1993 to September 1993 on the ground that the washing machine were mainly supplied to hote...
Afl Developers Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Smt. Veena Trivedi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)492; AIR2000Delhi354; 86(2000)DLT132; 2000(54)DRJ709
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this application the plaintiff is seeking direction to the defendant, to deposit/return Rs. 35 lacs in terms of the order dated 6th May, 1997 and to sign plans etc. to enable the plaintiff to secure permission from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for raising additional construction on the second floor in premises No. B-25, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi (for short suit property). The defendant has filed a reply opposing the application. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of the above application briefly are: that the plaintiffs filed the suit against the applicant/defendant for perpetual and mandatory injunction, restraining the defendant, her employees, agents, servants etc. from in any manner interfering or causing obstruction in the ingress to and egress from the first floor of the suit premises, as well as for mandatory injunction, for directing the defendant to remove iron gates from the area, leading from the ground floor to the first floor of the suit premis...
Polo Amusement Park and anr. Vs. India Trade Promotion Organisation an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT90; 2000(54)DRJ252
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner company, which runs an amusement park by the name and caption of Fun 'N' Food Village, Kapeshera, has filed this writ petition, aggrieved by the tender conditions framed by respondents 1 and 2 in respect of development and setting up of the amusement park at the Pragati Maidan, New Delhi. At present, an amusement park by the name of 'Appu Ghar' is being run at Pragati Maidan. 2. Petitioner's case in brief is that it is a company, which has been successfully running the amusement park under the name of 'Fun `N' Food' at village Kapeshera. It has the expertise and the resources for successfully, setting up and running the proposed amusement Park at Pragati Maidan. However, the respondents have devised and designed the terms and condition of the tender, so as to exclude fair competition. The terms and conditions of the tender enquiry are such so as to render ineligible a company like the petitioner, who are otherwise fully capable of developing and...
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT175; 2000(54)DRJ711
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. A short but interesting question which arises for adjudication in this writ petition is whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') was required to record reasons while admitting additional grounds of appeal.2. Factual position is almost undisputed. A request was made for admission of additional grounds in the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos. 5858/98, 7583/ 97, 7042/99, 5331/98 and 5382/97 relating to the assessment years 1991-92 to 1995-96. The assessments in question were made under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). Tribunal passed the following order;'After going through the request for admission of additional grounds of appeal filed by the Department hearing both the sides, going through case laws as well as written submissions made in this regard, we admit the additional grounds of appeal sought to be admitted by Department and treat these appeals as part-heard to come up for hearing on 28th April...
Delhi Acrylic Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Appeals), New Del ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ99; 2002(144)ELT24(Del)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The only question that needs adjudication in this writ petition is whether the Deputy Commissioner of Customs-respondent No. 2 was justified in seeking enforcement of the bank guarantees in respect of an order passed under the Customs Act 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. A brief reference to the factual aspects as highlighted by the petitioner would suffice. A Bill of Entry No. 313965 was filed by the petitioner with the respondent No. 2 on 14th January, 2000 seeking clearance of certain goods. On 20th January, 2000 goods were cleared on provisional assessment basis against payment of Customs duty on furnishing of a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,91,568/-. On 3rd February, 2000 two more Bills of Entry Nos. 314434 and 314435 were filed. On 14th February, 2000 as in the earlier case, goods were cleared on provisional assessment basis on furnishing of bank guarantees of a total sum of Rs. 12,85,322/- (Rs. 6,94,232/- + Rs. 5,91,090). Show cause notice was...
Haryana Acrylic Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (A)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT28; 2000(56)DRJ131; 2000(70)ECC690; 2002(144)ELT503(Del)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. The only question that needs adjudication in this writ petition is whether the Deputy Commissioner of Customs - Respondent No. 2 was justified in seeking enforcement of the bank guarantees in respect of two orders passed under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. A brief reference to the factual aspects as highlighted by the petitioner would suffice. A Bill of Entry No. 311874 was filed by the petitioner with the Respondent No. 2 on 23rd October, 1999 seeking clearance of certain goods. Show cause notice was issued in respect of the said bill of entry by the Respondent No. 2 on 19th November, 1999. Petitioner sought for certain information on 23rd November, 1999 in regard thereto. On 15th December, 1999 goods were cleared on provisional assessment basis against payment of Customs duty on furnishing of a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,31,555/-. On 27th December, 1999 another Bill of Entry No. 313508 was filed. On 20th January, 2000 as in th...
N.G. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ355; 2000(70)ECC693; 2000LC665(Delhi); 2002(144)ELT512(Del)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The only question that needs adjudication in this writ petition is whether the Deputy Commissioner of Customs Respondent No. 2 was justified in seeking enforcement of the bank guarantees in respect of an order passed under the Customs Act 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. A brief reference to the factual aspects as highlighted by the petitioner would suffice. A Bill of Entry No. 312970 was filed by the petitioner with the Respondent No. 2 on 7th December, 1999 seeking clearance of certain goods. On 13th January, 2000 goods were cleared on provisional assessment basis against payment of Customs duty on furnishing of a bank guarantee of Rs. 97,033/-. Show cause notice was issued in respect of the said bill of entry by the Respondent No. 2 on 22nd March, 2000. Petitioner sought for some time for inspection of documents etc. on 24th March, 2000. On 31st March, 2000 Respondent No. 2 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 97,033/-and directed the enforcement of ...
Anita Shinh Chauhan and ors. Vs. Kedar Nath and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT12; 2000(54)DRJ627; (2000)126PLR55
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This order will dispose of plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC). The defendants have filed a reply pleading that the amendments are intended to delay the proceedings, and are not necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition of the House No. 6199, Gali No. 1, Block No. 1, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (for short suit property) alleging therein that plaintiff No. 1 is widow of late Sh. Sunil Chauhan, (son of defendant No. 2) and plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are their minor children. The defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, are grandfather, father and brother respectively of Sunil Chauhan, husband of plaintiff No. 1; that there was a joint Hindu family consisting of the defendants and plaintiff No. 1's husband who died on 25th April, 1996. The plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit p...
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Del)81
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C. J.A short but interesting question which arises for adjudication in this writ petition is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') was required to record reasons while admitting additional grounds of appeal.2. Factual position is almost undisputed. A request was made for admission of additional grounds in the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA Nos. 5858/98, 7583/97, 7042/99, 5331/98 and 5382/97 relating to the assessment years. 1991-92 to 1995-96. The assessments in question were made under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Tribunal passed the following order :'After going through the request for admission of additional grounds of appeal filed by the department hearing both the sides, going through case laws as well as written submissions made in this regard, we admit the additional grounds of appeal sought to be admitted by department and treat these appeals as part-heard ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »