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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. S.V. Electricals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT104TriDel
1. This is an application filed by the department for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The order passed by the Commissioner was received on 31-5-99 as per the department and accordingly appeal was required to be filed on or before 30-8-99, but appeal in the registry of the Tribunal was submitted only on 9-12-99. There is a delay of 4 months in filing the appeal. It was explained on behalf of the Revenue that the delay has been caused due to administrative reasons. The reason given in the application is neither convincing nor substantiated to condone the delay. The Supreme Court itself has taken the view administrative reason is not a sufficient ground to condone the delay.Accordingly, I am not convinced with the reason given by the department to condone the delay of 4 months.2. Thus, the COD is rejected. Consequently, appeal also is dismissed as barred by time....
Adler Metals and Packaging Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT563TriDel
1. As these two appeals - one filed by the Revenue and the other filed by M/s. Adler Metals & Packaging Pvt. Ltd. - arise out of a common order in Appeal No. P-9/93 dated 15-1-1993, involving the issue regarding availability of Notification No. 175/88 in respect of stainless steel bowls and inners for casseroles and hylos, the same are being disposed of by one common order.2. Briefly stated the facts are that assessee company manufacture stainless steel inners for casseroles, hylos, tiffin carrier, etc.; that in their classification list effective from 20-3-1990, they classified the said items under sub heading 7323.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act (C.E.T.A.) and claimed exemption under Notification No. 175/88-CE, dated 13-5-1988. The Assistant Collector, under Adjudication order No. 51/91 dated 24-5-1991, allowed the benefit of Notification in respect of Steel Bowl for detachable casseroles and tiffin carrier, but denied the exemption in respect of bowl to be e...
Priyesh Chemicals and Metals Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC118
1. The appellant M/s. Priyesh Chemicals & Metals imported in February, 1995 Zinc Ash which was liable to Additional Customs Duty (Counter-vailing duty) under Section 21 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975.The additional duty so leviable is equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India. Domestic production of Zinc Ash was liable to Central Excise Duty under Chapter 26 of Central Excise Tariff subject to the exemption under notification 19/88 during the period of import. The appellants eligibility to this exemption is the subject matter of the present appeal.2. The proviso to Notification No. 19/88 as amended by Notification No.27/91, contained the following condition: "Provided that no credit of duty paid on the inputs, used in the manufacture of said goods, has been taken under Rule 56A or 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944." 3. The appellant's claim to the exemption was rejected on the ground that the goods did not satisfy ...
Narmada Plastics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT486TriDel
1. These three Appeals arise from Order in-Appeal Nos.714-716-CE/BPL/99/1 dated 24-5-99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal allowing Revenue Appeals against the Asst. Commissioner's Orders allowing refund claims to the present appellants. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals filed before him by the Revenue for recovery of refund of Rs. 14,63,047/- sanctioned by the Asstt. Commissioner for the period 20-11-86 to 13-11-89 of duty paid on HDPE tapes/strips captively consumed in the manufacture of the final products of HDPE sacks.2. The matter was argued for the appellants before us by Shri R.Swaminathan, ld. Consultant and for the Revenue by Shri Mewa Singh, ld.SDR.3. Ld. Counsel explaining the facts submitted that HDPE tapes/strips were made out of HDPE/PP granules. They were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 5406.90. Fabrics made therefrom were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 5408. However, sacks made therefrom were classified under...
Vinitec Electronics Laboratory Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT412TriDel
1. The common issue arising for determination in these appeals is the classification of UPS systems manufactured by the appellants herein.The Revenue authorities have classified the goods under CET Chapter heading 8543 as against the assessees' claim for classification as Static convertors under Chapter heading 8504 and as a result of classification under Chapter heading 8543, demands have been confirmed on clearances during the period from July, 1995 to July, 1996.2.1. We have heard Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate and Shri Ashok Kumar, learned DR. The appellants have filed two Misc. applications.The prayer in E/M/10/2000-B is for permission to raising the following additional grounds of appeal: "The classification lists of the appellants filed till the year 1994-95 including classification lists w.e.f. 1-4-1995 had already been approved by the proper officer by classifying UPSS under heading No. 85.04. While filing their classification declaration w.e.f. 1-5-1995, it was again ...
Bharat Nidhi Limited Vs. Shital Prasad Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)485; 2000(54)DRJ1
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Plaintiff filed this suit inter alias alleging that it is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act and carries on business of investment and finance. V.N. Bhasin is the Secretary of company and is authorised to file the suit. By a letter dated 14th December 1974 the defendant requested the Board of Directors of plaintiff company for a loan of Rs. 2 lacs. In the Board's meeting held on 21st December,1974, loan in the said sum carrying interest @ 17% p.a. with monthly rest was sanctioned to the defendant. The plaintiff company thereafter advanced loan of Rs. 2 lacs to the defendant who in consideration thereof executed a promissory note dated 23rd December, 1974 and also a receipt dated 24th December 1974. It is alleged that the plaintiff had been issuing to the defendant on the expiry of every month the statement indicating the amount of interest due on loan amount. By a letter dated 8th January, 1976 it was brought to the notice of defendant b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR659(Delhi)
1. The point raised in this writ petition is fully covered by a decision of this court in CIT v. Arvind Construction Co. Private Limited [1992] 193 ITR 330. The controversy pertains to the assessment year 1982-83. Briefly the facts are that respondent No. 2 Delhi Automobiles Limited claims that Rs. 1 crore received on account of transfer of its rights in a hotel project is a capital receipt and not taxable. The case of the Revenue was that it is a revenue receipt and even if it was a capital receipt it was liable to be taxed as Short term capital gain. When the matter went in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal the majority of the members of the Tribunal ordered that the amount was not taxable.2. The appeal before the Tribunal was disposed of on December 31, 1991. The order was received in the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi VII, who had the jurisdiction over the assessee, on October 12, 1994. It is only the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi VII who could fi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: [2000]112TAXMAN355(Delhi)
ORDERThe point raised in this writ petition is fully covered by a decision of this court in CIT v. Arvind Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 330. The controversy pertains to the assessment Year 1982-83. Briefly the facts are that respondent No. 2, Delhi Automobiles Limited, claims that Rs. 1 crore received on account of transfer of its rights in a hotel project is capital receipt and not taxable. The case of the revenue was that it is revenue receipt and even if it was capital receipt, it was liable to be taxed as short-term capital gain. When the matter went in appeal before the Tribunal, the majority of the members of the Tribunal ordered that the amount was not taxable.2. The appeal before the Tribunal was disposed of on 31-12-1991. The order was received in the office of the Commissioner, who had the jurisdiction over the assessee, on 12-10-1994. It is only the Commissioner who could file a reference application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Income Tax Act...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR303(Delhi)
1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions said to be arising out of I. T. A. No. 3209/Delhi of 1992, 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 deleting the under valuation and in deferring the issue of valuation of closing stock of the assessed till the decision of a Special Bench in this regard 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that H.R.A. should be excluded for the purpose of computing disallowance under Section 40A(5) and Section 40(c) ?' 2. The petition pertains to the assessment year 1988-89 for which the relevant accounting period ended on April 30, 1987. At the outset, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the assessed ...
Cit Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN79(Delhi)
By this petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions, said to be arising out of IT Appeal No. 4802 (Del) of 1992, for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the direct cost method of valuation adopted by the assessed and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) does not require any interference ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribuanl was justified in holding that HRA should be excluded for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 40A(5) and section 40(c) ?'2. The petition pertains to the assessment year 1987-88 for which the relevant accounting period ended on 30-4-1986. At the outset, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessed that reference on a simi...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »