Delhi Court August 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.
Alka Locks (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT193TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Alka Locks (P) Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the product -Handle Lugs. The appellants had sought classification of the same under subheading No. 8308.00 of the Central Excise Tariff; while the Department had classified the same under sub-heading No. 8302.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants accepted the classification of the goods in question under subheading No. 8302.00 of the Central Excise Tariff w.e.f. 01.04.1991 but for the period 01.04.1990 to 31.03.1991, to which the present proceedings relate, they pleaded that their classification lists had been approved by the Deptt. under sub-heading No. 8302.00. They had not collected the higher duty from their customers and they should not be asked to pay the differential central excise duty of 5% Adv. as demanded in the present three show cause notices dated 29-10-1990, 07.04.1991 and 19.07.1991. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad had held that the different...
Bu and Cu Block Residents Welfare Association and ors. Vs. Dda and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi165
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. Civil Writ Petition No. 6666 of 1999 has been filed by BU-Block Residents Welfare Association and 18 other residents by way of Public Interest Litigation. 2. There is a plot measuring 2.5 acres (approx.) located in BU/CU Block Pitampura, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the disputed plot, for short). This plot has been allotted to respondent no.8, namely Akhil Bhartiya Samajodhan Samiti for purposes of running a school. The petitioners have challenged the allotment of this disputed land to respondent no.8 by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA, for short) primarily on the ground that as per the Zonal Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as ZDP, for short), the disputed land falls under the 'Recreational Zone' namely, 'Neighborhood Park/Green Belt'. Civil Writ Petition No. 5862 of 1999 is filed by CU-Block Residents' Welfare Association praying for identical relief. Accordingly, both these writ petitions were heard together and...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax New Delhi Vs. S.C. Sethi and A.N. Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ578
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard. These two references have been made under Section 27(1) of the Wealth- tax Act, 1957(in short the 'Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (in short the 'Tribunal'). Since identical questions are involved, the two cases are taken up together for disposal. The common question referred for opinion of this Court is as follows: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the firm in which the assessed was a partner which had been buying brass articles, getting them nickle or silver plated from parties doing job work and thereafter soldering and engraving such articles so as to make them fit for export as fancy articles, was engaged in the processing or manufacturing of goods as to qualify the assessed for exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?' 2. Factual position which needs to be noted is as follows: assessed is a partner in...
The Commissioner of Income-tax New Delhi Vs. M/S. R.G. Govan and Co. D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Del)436; [2000]246ITR701(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ. 1. At the instance of revenue, following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(in short the 'Act') for opinion of this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', (in short the 'Tribunal'): 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that a penalty u/s 273(a) was not livable on the assessed for the assessment year 1961-62?' 2. The background facts necessary for disposal of the reference are essentially as follow : assessed is a Private Limited Company which at the relevant, point of time was doing business as contractors for unloading of foodgrains from ships at Bombay Port and transport of the grains from the port to various Government Depots. For the assessment year 1961-62, relating to the accounting period ending 30th June, 1960, a notice of demand under Section 18-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the 'old Act') was issu...
The Commissioner of Wealth-tax Delhi Vs. Soma Wanti Sethi N.D.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(53)DRJ6
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ. 1. All these references involve a common question which has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' (in short the 'Tribunal') under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957(in short the 'Act') for opinion of this Court: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no addition could be made to the net wealth of the assessed on account of disclosure of Income-tax made by the firm in which she was a partner even though the provisions of Voluntary Disclosure Act, 1976 with particular reference to Section 13(2) read with Section 8(1) of the said Act were not complied with and as such, disclosure could not be accepted?' 2. The relevant assessment years are 1965-66 to 1969-70. The valuation date in each case was 31st March of the relevant year. assessed is an individual. She was a partner in a partnership firm styled M/s Gulab Singh Sethi & Sons. Said firm made a declaration under the p...
Usha Beltron Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: 2002(144)ELT537(Del)
ORDERArijit Rasayat, C.J.1. The only question that needs adjudication in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the excise duty component as indicated in the price bid made by it, at the rate of 18% or 16%.2. For adjudication of this case, a brief reference to the factual aspect would be necessary.Petitioner, a public limited company, is engaged in the manufacture of Polyethylene insulated Jelly Filled (PIJF) cables. In response to an advertisement for supply, inter alia, of PIJF cables, petitioner participated in the tender and has been supplying PIJF underground cables to Telecom Centres of Ministry of Telecommunication. The price indicated and accepted as per the general conditions of contract was that the excise duty is to be separately indicated. This is evident from the following clause in the tender document:'9.2 The prices of the goods shall be quoted ex-factory. Excise duty, Sales Tax and other statutory taxes payable shall be quoted separately item wise.' ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R.G. Govan and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: [2000]113TAXMAN51(Delhi)
Pasayat, CJ.At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' ('Tribunal').'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that a penalty under section 273(a) was not livable on the assessed for the assessment year 1961-62 ?'2. The background facts necessary for disposal of the reference are essentially as follow :The assessed is a private limited company which at the relevant point of time was doing business as contractors for unloading of food grains from ships at Bombay Port and transport of the grains from the port to various Government Depots. For the assessment year 1961-62, relating to the accounting period ending 30-6-1960, a notice of demand under section 18A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 was issued requiring the assessed to pay Rs. 2,42,842 as advance tax. On ...
Vls Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ151
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Three orders of attachment issued under Section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) are subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. The said orders were issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax', (Central) Circle-II (in short DyCI), purportedly to protect the interest of revenue and after obtaining prior approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), (in short the Commissioner). Total amount covered by the three orders aggregates to Rs. 23.52 crores and were in respect of shares of and security deposit with M/s Sunair Hotels Ltd, and balance due from M/S Television (Eighteen) India Ltd.2. Filtering out unnecessary details, petitioner's case is as follows:Petitioner company was incorporated in January, 1986 with the name of Vardhman Leasing and Services Ltd. The name was changed to VLS Finance Ltd on 8-9-1994. Petitioner, inter-alia, carries on the business of leasing, hire purchase, providing loan and finance to other corpora...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. S.C. Sethi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Del)606
Arijit Pasayat, C J.Heard.These two references have been made under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'). Since identical questions are involved, the two cases are taken up together for disposal. The common question referred for opinion of this court is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding, that the firm in which the assessed was a partner which had been buying brass articles, getting them nickel or silver plated from parties doing job work and thereafter soldering and engraving such articles so as to make them fit for export as fancy articles, was engaged in the processing or manufacturing of goods as to qualify the assessed for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?'2. Factual position which needs to be noted is as follows : assessed is a par...
Colour Chem. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT555TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in original dated 17-5-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.2. The issue relates to benefit of Notification No. 53/88 dated 1 March, 1988. Whether items i.e DERMAFILL CC-20 and DERMAFILL CC-21 are exempted in terms of Sr. No. 9 of the above notification is an issue to be considered herein.2. Show Cause Notice has been issued proposing to deny the benefit of Notification No. 53/88 vide Sr. No. 9 and apply the rate of duty as applicable vide Sr. No. 42 of the said Notification 53/88 of Central Excise. The relevant entries in the said notification are as under : -_____________________________________________________________________________"0.9 3905.10 Homopolymer and copolymer resin 20% or emulsions based on acrylic and/or vinyl Ad valorem 3905.20 monomers_______________________________________________________________________________"42 39.01 to 39.15 All goods, other than poly urethanes fal 20% ling under s...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »