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.
iind Lt. B.S. Bamhrah Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2000
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)865
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of damages/compensation because he sustained severe injuries paralysing and de-capacitating him completely during the 4th Himalyan Car Rally when the Army service vehicle carrying him met with an accident. An amount of Rs. 43,32,270/- is in claim and since the suit has been filed as an indigent person, no court fee has been affixed. What has to be decided at this juncture is whether the suit is barred from being adjudicated upon, having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The relevant facts stated briefly are that the Plaintiff was commissioned on 24.12.1982, and according to him he was detailed for the said Rally in a follow-up vehicle to assist senior participating officers. On 25.10.1983 the accident occurred due to the alleged gross negligence and rash and hasty planning of the Defendants. A Court of Inquiry was held on 27.10.1988 which did not hold anyone responsible for the acci...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mineral and Metals Trading Corporation ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR252(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat , C. J.1. Heard.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question was referred for opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the assessment year 1972-73 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleting the addition of Rs. 32 lakhs from the total income of the assessed ?'The Assessing Officer was of the view that a sum of Rs. 32 lakhs received by the assessed was a revenue receipt and brought it to tax accordingly. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not agree with the aforesaid finding and holding that it was a capital receipt, deleted the addition. The Tribunal with reference to the materials placed on record held that the transfer of Rs. 32 lakhs from the State Trading Corporation to the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation is...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mineral and Metals Trading Corporation ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2000
Reported in: [2001]246ITR253(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.Heard.At the instance of the revenue , the following question was referred for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), for the assessment year 1972-73 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleting the addition of Rs. 32 lakhs from the total income of the assessed ?'The assessing officer was of the view that a sum of Rs. 32 lakhs received by the assessed was a revenue receipt and brought it to tax accordingly. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not agree with the aforesaid finding and holding that it was a capital receipt, deleted the addition. The Tribunal with reference to the materials placed on record held that the transfer of Rs. 32 lakhs from the State Trading Corporation to the Minerals and Metals Trading Co...
Ambala Coach Builders Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT713TriDel
1. These appeals have come before us on reference by a Division Bench of Two Members of this Tribunal. The reference has been made as that Bench was not in agreement with the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kamal Auto Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 558 (Tribunal). Based on that view, the following reference has been made to us - "(i) Whether in view of Note 3 to Chapter 87 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, the activity of body building of fabrication or mounting of structures or equipment on the chassis shall amount to manufacture of a motor vehicle falling under Heading Nos. 87.01 to 87.05 of the Tariff. (ii) Whether the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Ram Body Builders -1997 (94) E.L.T. 442 (S.C.) has been taken away by inserting Note 3 to Chapter 87 of the Tariff and the activity of building body on chasis shall amount to manufacture of motor vehicle falling under Head...
S.J. Vasania Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT189TriDel
Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Baroda, reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 580 (Tribunal), Damanwala Silk Mills Ltd. Surat v. C.C.E. Surat, reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 46 whereby the Tribunal held that Taspa Yarn' is classifiable under Heading 56.06 of the Central Excise Tariff and in the case of Pratik Crimpers v. C.C.E., reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 437, Hiten Crimpers v. C.C.E., Final Order No. 272/WZB/97, dated 22-2-1998 held that Taspa yarn is not classifiable under Heading 56.06 as 'Special yarn', the question of Law in respect of classification of Taspa yarn is referred to the Larger Bench.2. The appellants vide communication dated 22-4-2000 made a request to decide the appeal on merits. Shri R. Swaminathan, Consultant assisted on behalf of the appellants.3. The contention of the appellant is that the yarn in question is a man-made yarn obtained by the process cirmping and texturising of duty paid polyester yarn and nylon yarn. The yarn so obtained has slub ...
Indian Refrigeration Inds. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT731TriDel
1. The issues involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Indian Refrigeration Industries are whether the unit will be treated as a small scale unit for the purpose of availing exemption under notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 from the date of applying for the certificate or from the date of issue of the certificate by the competent authority; whether the exemption under SSI notification is available on the basis that other factory of the same manufacturer is registered as SSI unit and whether the extended period of limitation is invokable in the facts of the case. Shri C. Harishankar, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants have two units located at Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and Mathura Road, Faridabad; that the Collector Central Excise under order No. 16/91, dated 2-5-91 has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 6,10,788-87 and imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh-denying them the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 on the ground that they were not holding SSI registration certi...
Filtech Pharma Lab. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT372TriDel
1. The above appeals involve common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.E/Appeal No 2010/92-B has been filed by the assessees against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 13,70,487/- on Membrane Disc Filters (Filtering Apparatus) falling under CET sub-heading 8421.00 cleared during the period from September 1987 to December 1990 on the ground that the assessee was not eligible to the benefit of Small Scale exemption in terms of Notification No 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 since they were using registered Trade mark "PALL" or "ULTIPOR" of M/s Pall Process Filtration Ltd. UK, which is a foreign company not entitled to avail of SSI exemption under Notification No 175/86. The Collector has imposed a penalty of Rs.six lakhs on the assessees.2. E/Appeal No 4398/92-B has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who has set aside the order, dated 19-2-91 of the Assi...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Startron Video P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT177TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 4-7-1995 vide which Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed the order-in-original dated 12-9-1993 passed by the Assistant Collector disallowing the benefit of exemption Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 to the respondents.3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of two-in-one, car cassette players under the brand name 'Bush' and under their own name 'Star & Pioneer'. They filed two classification lists bearing Nos. 27 effective from 1-4-1991 and 29 effective from 25-7-1992 claiming full rate of duty on the branded goods and benefit of the Modvat credit on the inputs to be used in such branded goods and also full exemption up to the aggregate value of clearances of Rs. 20 lakhs simultaneously in respect of the goods manufactured under their own named. They were issued show cause notice dated 5-8-1992 by the Assistant Collector requiring them to show cause as to why the benefit of exemption...
Rose Island Engg. Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT504TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of C.I. Sleepers for the Indian Railways. They were charging the buyer at different prices depending upon whether one of the raw materials namely, pig iron, was supplied free of cost by the Railways. Duty on the C.I. Sleepers was also being paid according to the invoice price. The impugned order has held that duty was liable to be paid on value inclusive of the cost of free supply of pig iron. Accordingly, duty demand of Rs. 1,74,433/- has been confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Penalties amounting to the same amount under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act and Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules have also been imposed. In addition, interest also has been demanded. The appellants' contention all through has been that they were paying duty at the contracted prices and there was no intention to evade payment of duty. They also contend that the demand is time barred. The Commissioner rejected their contentio...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gehring India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT501TriDel
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad who has held that the claim, dated 13-3-1993 for refund of Central Excise duty paid on Honing Machines supplied to Ordnance Factories, due to price escalation by the supplementary invoice, dated 22-4-1993 has been filed within the statutory period of limitation. According to the Revenue, since the date of payment of duty is interlinked with the date of removal of the goods, the date of payment should be taken as 23-12-1992 when the goods were removed vide GP1 No. 7 and refund claim should have been filed on 23-6-1993, and the period of limitation cannot be computed from the date of payment vide supplementary invoice, and therefore, the refund claim is time barred.2. We have heard both sides. We note that the contract between the appellant and the Ordnance Factory at Kanpur included a price variation clause on account of customs duty and foreign exchange rate variation, that the DCS & D ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »