Delhi Court July 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.
Bathla Time Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT316TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturer of wall clocks, timepieces and wall clock cabinets falling under chapter 91 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 31-12-1991 their factory premises were visited by the Central Excise Officers. On verification of the stock held in the factory premises at that time it was found that 4950 pieces valued at Rs. 5,19,750/- of wall clocks complete in packed condition were in excess than the recorded quantity of this item in their RG 1 Register. Further 4390 pieces valued at Rs. 2,23,890/- of wall clocks cabinets were found short. This stock taking was conducted in the presence of Shri Mahinder Bathla, Partner of the unit. The excess quantity of wall clocks was seized. The Central Excise Officers again visited the unit on 2-1-1992. They verified the stock of quartz clock movements - one of the inputs in the manufacture of clocks. On verification, 18,903 pieces involving Central Excise Duty of Rs. 36,002.98ps. were found short.2. The proc...
Indian Shaving Products Ltd. and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC386
1. The impugned proceedings in this case were taken on the ground that the appellants had under-valued the goods at the job worker's end resulting in short payment of duty and was charged for having wilfully mis-stated and suppressed the facts with intent to evade payment of duty. This resulting in under-valuation of the goods manufactured by the appellants through alleged hired labour. The facts in brief are: (a) M/s. Indian Shaving Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to ISP) has its own manufacturing facilities for certain types of shaving products and also engages job workers for assembling, sealing and packaging of certain other shaving products. They supplied all necessary components and packaging material for manufacture of final products by job workers. Amongst the job workers are M/s. G.M. Enterprises (GME), Bhiwadi, Rajasthan, M/s. Krishnan & Associated Engineers (KAE), New Delhi and M/s. G.S. Enterprises (GSE) Bhiwadi Rajasthan. M/s. KAE had been in the manufacturing bus...
Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT214TriDel
1. The facts before us as narrated by both sides are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were working under the Modvat Scheme. Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules allowed the credit of duty of excise or the additional duty paid on the goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. The credit so allowed is to be utilised towards payment of duty of excise leviable on the final product. Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules provides that the manufacturer can take credit in respect of the inputs received under the duty paying documents. Prior to 29-6-1995 the manufacturer who receives the inputs under the cover of valid duty paying documents had the freedom to take the credit without any limitation of time under Rule 57G. Rule 57G was amended by Notification No. 8/95-C.E.(N.T.), dated 25-6-1995 and a proviso was introduced in the rule to the effect that no credit is to be taken after six months from the date of issue of any duty paying...
Mahavir Woollen Mills Assessed Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Del)267; [2000]245ITR297(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C. J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) challenging an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-C (in short, the Tribunal). According to the assessee, the following question needs to be adjudicated: 'Whether the seized papers, in question constituted to be 'books of account' or 'document' for the purpose of Section 158(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which defined, 'undisclosed income.'2. Factual position as noticed by the Tribunal is as follows: On 16.11.1995, search operations were carried out under section 132(1) of the Act at the business premises of the concerns of a group known as Mahavir Woollen Group which included four assessees including the appellant and at the residential premises of the partners also. During the course of search, certain incriminating documents were found and seized. In response to notices under Section 158BC of the Act, all the four assessees filed returns declaring tha...
Parkash Ram Kumar Vs. Smt. Victoria
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC372
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. An application for divorce was filed under Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act 1869 (in short the 'Act') by the husband on the ground of adultery. Accepting the prayer a decree for divorce has been passed and has been sent to this Court for confirmation under Section 7 of the Act by learned Additional District Judge, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'TrialJudge').2. Stand set out in the application before the learned District Judge are as follows:- 3. Sh. Parkash Ram Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') married Victoria (hereinafter referred to as his 'wife') on 18th October, 1975 as per Christian rites. Three children were born to them from the wedlock. They had been living peacefully till about 1987. In the month of November 1987 differences arose between them because respondent No.2 Robin started visiting respondent No. 1. Robin used to stay in the house of respondent No.1's brother and subsequently developed friendship with respondent No. 1....
Gurmit Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ159; 2000(72)ECC573
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. By this Criminal Revision Petition No. 25 of 2000, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, Special Courts NDPS Act in Sessions Case No. 201 of 1999 arising out of FIR No. 192 of 1999 under Section 15 of NDPS Act, Police Station Timar Pur. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of commission of the offence he was below the age of 16 years and, thereforee, is entitled to the benefit of Section 5 of the Juvenile Justices Act.2. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the prosecution, are that on 11.4.1999 at around 2.15 p.m. the petitioner along with two other persons was apprehended near Sindhi Baba Mandir, Outer Ring Road, Delhi with 15kg. of Poppy Husk in their possession. Three separate FIRs one against each of the three accused were filed. The petitioner after being arrested in FIR No. 192 of 1999 applied for grant of bail under , Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was granted bail t...
indo Tex Prints (Overseas) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT779TriDel
1. The appellants are the independent processors of textiles. They filed an application dated 15-12-1998 with reference to the Notification No. 42/98-C.E. (N.T.) dated 10-12-1998 for the purpose of fixation of annual capacity under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II vide his Order-in-Original dated 3/4-2-2000 fixed the annual capacity of production of the appellants at Rs. 753.84 lakhs. In order to arrive at this annual capacity of production, the Commissioner has taken into account the galleries at each end of each of the five chambers of the Hot Air Stenter used by the appellants in the process of heat setting and drying of the fabrics. In this context, the Commissioner in his order has relied on the Trade Notice No. 22/99 dated 12-3-1999 issued by the Commissionerate on the strength of the Board's instructions F. No.341/4/99-TRU dated 27-2-1999.2. This appeal is against the afore...
Anshupati Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT203TriDel
1. This is a case of demand of duty on alleged shortage of yarn found at the time of physical verification of the stock.2. The appellants are manufacturing the yarn. Single ply yarn as it appears at the spindle stage is dutiable. In the instant case, this yarn is captively consumed by the appellants in the manufacture of double yarn, the department at the time of physical verification of the stock found that there was shortage of 68.996 MT valued at Rs. 82,00,389.00 involving duty of Rs.18,86,089.47. The department alleged that the appellants should pay duty to the above extent on the quantity of yarn found short. In reply to the SCN, the appellants submitted that in terms of Trade Notice No. 70-CE/94, dated 07.06.1994 RG-1 stage of various goods was specified; that in the instant case, the appellants had obtained permission from the Asst. Commissioner to retain the duty paid yarn; that the appellants converted single ply yarn into multi-folded/doubled yarn; that in the process shorta...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. U. Prints
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT264TriDel
1. This application filed by the Commissioner of Customs prays for grant of time for implementing final order Nos. 1574-75/99-A dated 5-11-1999 passed by this Tribunal in the captioned appeals.2. We have perused the final order (supra). The said order was passed confirming the orders of adjudication passed by the Commissioner, but reducing the redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 1.2 lacs and Rs. 1 lac respectively. No time limit was stipulated in the order of the Tribunal. The present application has been filed on the ground that the Department's appeals for enhancing fine and penalty vis-a-vis the orders of adjudication are pending before the South Regional Bench of the Tribunal and on the further ground that their application for reference in the matter is pending before the High Court of Delhi. It is also stated that they are intending to file a stay application also before the High Court against the final order ibid.3. We have heard learned SDR, Shri P.K. Jain for the applicant and...
isgec Covema Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT548TriDel
1. This is an application for stay of recovery and dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty.2. Arguing the stay petition, Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, ld. Advocate submits that the applicant entered into an agreement with M/s. Shree Am-bica Sugars Limited for erection of a 70 tonnes per hour capacity bagasse fired steam boiler; that the erection contract was given to sub-contractor of the applicant; that the department alleged that the boiler erected at site was goods; that the applicant was the manufacturer and since it was goods, the department demanded Rs. 76,81,542.00 as duty and imposed equal amount of statutory penalty.3. Ld.Counsel submits that the boiler was not 'goods', looking to the size and its erection. He submits that the boiler was embedded to the earth and, therefore was not 'goods' for the purpose of levy and collection of duty. He submits that even if the boiler is considered as goods, it was using bagasse (agricultural waste) for producing heat energy. He submits ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »