Delhi Court September 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.
A.K.S. Bearing Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT124TriDel
1. The facts in this case are that the appellants were paying duty on the end products and taking Modvat credit on their inputs. On 01.04.1999 they opted for availing the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 8/99 dated 28.02.1999 and as per the provisions of Rule 57H(7) they were required to pay an amount equivalent to the credit allowed to them in respect of inputs lying in stock or used in the finished goods lying in stock on 01.04.1999. Accordingly, the total liability under this Rule was worked out to Rs. 1,17,871/-against them which they were liable to discharge. Out of this amount, they expunged the balance of Rs. 224.68 lying in their RG 23A Pt. II. The balance of the liability amount was paid by them by making a debit entry of Rs. 1,17,646/- in their PLA. They however, contended that under this Rule there was no liability to pay any duty in cash and accordingly filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,17,646/-which has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Exc...
Lml Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT373TriDel
1. Today these two appeals are posted for hearing Stay Applications.For the reasons recorded below, the recovery of penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, are stayed and both the appeals are taken up for final hearing with the consent of both the sides.2. Shri R. Santanam, Ld. Advocate, submitted that M/s. LML Ltd. manufactured certain electronic components which were supplied to their scooter unit; that they had classified these goods as Motor Vehicle Parts under heading 87.14 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act right from the commencement of production; that they had filed classification lists effective from 21.03.1990 which was approved by the department; that again they filed the revised classification lists effective from 02.03.1992; that they had also filed classification declaration under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules on 09.03.1998; that the Adjudicating Authority has classified these goods under Chapter 85 of Central Excise Tariff, confirmed dema...
Dhanpothowar Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1103; AIR2001Delhi65; 88(2000)DLT836; 2001RLR243
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the decision of competent authority, i.e., Lt. Governor, who is the Chairman of D.D.A. to grant more time to deposit the amount by the respondent-Societies, the petitioners have presented the present writ petition. Pursuant to the offer of respondent-DDA to allot land to the cooperative societies in the year 1982 in Delhi. Cooperative societies were formed and in all approximately about 1600 societies were registered. Out of these 1600 societies, broadly speaking, the petitioners have contended that the case which presently pertains to the societies which are from Seriall Nos. 1200 to 1400 except one society which is respondent No. 4, whose Seriall number is 1168. 2. Mr. Sumit Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently, contended that once the offer of allotment was made by the respondent no.1-DDA pursuant to their letter dated 18.12.1995 in which it was specifically mentioned that the amount to be deposited in terms of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi Iv Vs. M/S. Hans Machoo and Co. Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1108; 88(2000)DLT344; [2001]247ITR79(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. These two applications involve identical question and are, thereforee, being disposed of by this common order. At the instance of revenue following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' (in short the Tribunal) for opinion of this Court: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the deductions of Rs. 95,012/- and Rs. 43,808/- in the computation of the assessor's income from business for the assessment year 1972-73 and 1973-74 respectively?2. Factual position as set out in the statement of case is as follows: For the Assessment Year 1972-73 and 1973-74 disallowances were made while computing assesses income from business in respect of damages paid. assessed was a sole selling agent for sale of sugar of Ajudhya Sugar Mills, a concern of M/s. Lakshmi Ji Sugar Mill Co.P. Ltd., Agency agreement wa...
M/S. Connoisseur Catering Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Sports Authority of In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ARBLR323(Delhi)
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11th August, 2000, vacating the ex parted interim order of injunction dated 23rd March, 1999 by which the respondent the original defendant was restrained from interfering in running of the restaurant by the plaintiff/appellant under the aegis of the respondent in awahar Lal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi and from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff and undertaking any demolition proceedings. 2. In the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant it was averred as follows: Pursuant to the Notice published by the respondent the appellant's offer of Rs. 62,500/- per month for running the open-air Cafeteria at Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium was accepted by the letter dated 29th September, 1996 sent by the respondent. That as per the notice inviting tenders' (NIT) Contract was to be awarded up to 31st March, 1999 but an assurance was given in the Meeting by the functionaries of the respon...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. K.C. Sahni (Huf)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR299(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) by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-B, (in short the Tribunal) 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 54 of the Incometax Act, 1961 applied to both an individual and a HUF.'2. Factual position essentially is as follows: The assessed is Hindu Undivided Family (in short, HUF). Its original Karta K.C. Sahni died in 1967. His wife also died in 1970. For the assessment year in question, i.e., 1973-74, the members of HUF were B.N. Sahni and Shri K.L. Sahni, who had their own family members also. Shri B.N. Sahni was the karta at the relevant time. The family owned a house at 23, Aruang-zeb Road, New Delhi. It was sold for Rs. 15 lakhs by a deed of conveyance dated 26.5.1972. Subsequently on 15.5.1973, the assessed purchased another property at Hauz Kha...
Mahabir Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT496b
ORDERCrl. M. No. 1635/20001. Allowed subject to just exceptions. Crl. Rev. No. 352/2000Notice. Learned counsel for the State accepts notice. Admit. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have been taken through the record of the case and also gone through the judgment under challenge. A perusal of the same shows that there is no infirmity in the conviction. I, thereforee, uphold the order dated 1.9.2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No. 20/2000. However, on the question of sentence, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been sentenced for a period of three months on account of having been found guilty under Section 279 IPC with a fine of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner has also been sentenced for a period of three months for an offence under Section 338 IPC with a fine of Rs.500/-. Learned counsel submits that this was an accident and the...
Dcw Home Products Vs. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ362
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction praying that the first defendant be restrained from invoking/encashing two bank guarantees dated 17th February, 2000 executed by the second defendant towards the workers dues until the completion/transfer of the lease in favor of the first defendant by the Government of Tamil Nadu in terms of the agreement between them. The plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the CPC) for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from invoking/encashing the said two bank guarantees. The first defendant has filed the reply to the application opposing the same, inter alia, on the grounds that suit itself is not maintainable as essential conditions for claiming such injunction against encashment of Bank Guarantees namely, fraud or irretrievable loss and injury are not made out. The second an...
Ravinder @ Ravi and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ825
R.S. Sodhi, J.Notice. Learned Counsel for the State accepts notice.1. This application is filed on behalf of the appellants seeking the application of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the facts and circumstances of their case. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that against the same judgment and order one of the accused has already been admitted to the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and, thereforee, in this case, which is much milder the appellants may be admitted to the same, benefits of Probation of Offenders Act,2. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants as also learned Counsel for the State.3. Crl. Appeal No. 373/99 is taken on Board. Crl. A. No. 373/99:4. The learned Counsel for the appellants does not challenge the conviction of the appellants and, thereforee, I up hold the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellants vide order dated 28.7.1999 in Sessions Case No. 444/96 arising out of FIR No. 204/...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hans Machoo and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Del)93
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.These two applications involve identical question and are, thereforee, being disposed of by this common order. At the instance of revenue following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') for opinion of this court '.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the deductions of Rs. 95,012 and Rs. 43,808 in the computation of the assessor's income from business for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 respectively ?'2. Factual position as set out in the statement of case is as follows.For the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 disallowances were made while computing assessor's income from business in respect of damages paid. assessed was a sole selling agent for sale of sugar of Ajudhya Sugar Mills, a concern of M/s Lakshmi Ji Sugar M...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »