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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.C. Sahni (Huf)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)163CTR(Del)602
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.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 the Tribunal, Delhi, Bench-B.-'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applied to both an individual and an HUF, '2. Factual position essentially is as follows:The assessed is Hindu undivided family (hereinafter referred to as '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.K. Sahni and Shri K.L. Sahni, who had their own family members also. Shri B.K. Sahni was the Karta at the relevant time. The family owned a house at 23, Aurangzeb 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 Khas, New D...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Paper Products Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR651(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the directions given by this court in I. T. C. No. 38 of 1977 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), the following question has been referred for opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' (in short 'the Tribunal'), along with the statement of case :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were legally correct in cancelling the assessment made under Section 147(b) withdrawing the relief of Rs. 2,97,8G8 under Section 84 which was wrongly allowed in the original assessment ?'2. The factual position as detailed in the statement of case is as follows :The assessed is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacture of paper and packing material. The original assessment for the assessment year in question, i.e., 1966-67, was completed by the Income-tax Officer on October 23, 1970, on a total income of Rs. 14,47,186. Relief under Section 84 of the ...
Bombay Tubes and Containers Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT388TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of aluminium collapsible tubes which were liable to pay Central Excise duty under Item 27 of Central Excise Tariff. The plastic caps for such collapsible tubes were purchased by them from the market and collapsible tubes Were sold along with the plastic caps. The impugned order has demanded duty in respect of collapsible tubes after including the value of the plastic caps also. In addition to the duty demand of over Rs. 1 lac, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- also has been imposed. Hence this appeal.2. The appellants have requested for transfer of the case to Bombay vide their letter dated 04.09.2000. However, on perusing the records and considering the case law on the subject, we find that the price of plastic cap is not liable to be included in the assessable value of the collapsible tubes. This position remains confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Civil Writ No. 1930 of 1984 [1990 (45) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.)] filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutt...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Steel Strips Alloys
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT785TriDel
1. Revenue has filed an application that a point of law arises out of Tribunal's Final Order No. A/461/99-NB, dated 3-6-99. The Tribunal in the impugned order in para 5 had held - "5. Having regard to the above findings of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and observations of this Tribunal and the decisions of this Tribunal in the cases cited above, I find no infirmity legal or factual in the impugned order and therefore, uphold the same. In this view of the matter, the appeal is rejected".2. Revenue has submitted that the following question of law arises out of the findings of the Tribunal: "Machine, Machinery, Plant, Apparatus, Tools or Appliances etc. used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance in or in relation to the manufacture of final products are ineligible for Modvat credit under the exclusion clause of Explanation to Rule 57A. Froundary Flux, IRL, Mix, Refractories and Mortar etc. are used as part of the furnace. Therefore, ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Samcor Glass Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT126TriDel
1. These are five Appeals filed by the Revenue involving common issue and therefore, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Issue relates to Modvat credit on Rubber Sleeves and Wool Felts, whether they are eligible 'inputs' or not in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is to be considered in these Appeals. It was brought to my notice that earlier the Commissioner has passed an order holding that they are not eligible 'inputs'. Aggrieved by this order, the party has come up before the Tribunal by way of Appeal and as per the Tribunal's Final Order Nos. 345 and 346/2000-NB, dated 19.04.2000 reported in 2000 (40) RLT 56 (CEGAT) holding that Rubber Sleeves and Wool Felts used for polishing and giving fine finish to the glass shells are eligible 'inputs'.3. In view of this settled position and the issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in the very party's case, I hold that they are eligible 'inputs' and accordingly, Appeals f...
U.P. State Bridge Corporation Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT290TriDel
1. The issue involved in the present appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 2-12-1999 passed by the Commissioner confirming the duty demand of Rs. 91,92,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 20% and imposing penalty of Rs. 92 lakhs on them, centres around the question whether they are entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification Nos. 36/94, dated 1-3-1994 and 51/95 dated 16-3-1995 or not.3. The appellants, U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. (owned by the U.P. Govt.) are engaged in the construction of flyovers, bridges etc.They got contract for the construction of Arterial expressway corridor project from the J&K Government in the year 1994. The J&K Government also provided them, a dedicated facility in the form of land free of cost near Bag-e-Bahu for the purposes of casting of the beams to be used in the construction. They accordingly did casting of the beams at that place and later on brought the same to the site of the construc...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Vimal Alloys Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT796TriDel
1. This is an application filed by Revenue stating that a point of law arises out of Tribunal's Final Order No. A/273-276/99-NB, dated 6-4-99.The question of law is formulated to read as : " Whether use of oxygen/acetylene gases for the purpose of cutting larger pieces of scrap into smaller pieces for feeding the same in the furnace for manufacture of Steel ingots/Steel castings will amount to use in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products".2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of products of Iron & Steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing Modvat credit. The respondents took Modvat credit on oxygen/acetylene gas used for breaking/cutting of bigger pieces of scrap of iron and steel into smaller pieces for the manufacture of final product i.e. steel ingots. The Department alleged that Modvat credit was not admissible on oxygen/acetylene gases. Accordingly,...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Pragna Metal Label Mfg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT83TriDel
2. We have heard Shri S.N. Singh, SDR who submits that the matter is covered in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay v. Bimb of Side Division, 1999 (110) E.L.T. 963 (Tribunal).3. We have carefully considered the matter. The respondents M/s. Pragna Metal Label Mfg. Co. were engaged in the manufacture of printed aluminium labels and for their use they were preparing photographic plates on which the design of the label to be printed was sensitised.This master plate having the image of the label was used again and again. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in the impugned order had held that they should be classifiable under heading No. 84.82 which cover ball or roller bearings. We consider that this is obviously a typing mistake and what the Appellate Authority meant was heading No.84.42 which cover machinery, apparatus and equipment for tubes, settings etc. We consider that the goods in question were in the nature of ...
Lakh Raj Agarwal Vs. Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)334; 89(2001)DLT392; 2001(75)ECC517
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. (Oral)1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board dated 21.12.1976.2. The charge against the appellant is that during the year 1969 the appellant without the general or special exemption from the Reserve bank of India received in India otherwise than through an authorised dealer payment amounting to Rs.15,000/- from a person resident in India and thereby contravened the provisions of section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.3. The Assistant Director of Enforcement by his order dated 31.12.1976 held the appellant guilty of the charge leveled against him and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- for the contravention of the provisions of section 5(1)(aa) of the Act.4. Against that order an appeal was preferred to the Chairman, Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board. The order passed by the Assistant Director was upheld in the appeal.5. This appeal has been filed under Section 54 o...
Gupta Textile Mills Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(57)DRJ485
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Petition under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 being Suit No.2566-A/96, was filed by Gupta Textile Mills against Union of India alleging that the parties had certain disputes relating to A/T No. T2/T3/101/0092/23.5.90/063 dated 7th December 1990 and respondent No. 2 was appointed as arbitrator to resolve those disputes. Respondent No. 2 has made the award on 12th July, 1996. It was prayed that respondent No. 2 be directed to file the award Along with entire record of the proceedings being arbitration case No. 9-B/95 in court and thereafter award be made the Rule of Court. 2. Sh. Shiv Khurana appearing for said Gupta Textile Mills made statement that the award had since been filed in Suit No. 1587-A/97 which was fixed for 28th October 1998. Subject to the Registry confirming if the award filed in the said case pertained to this petition, this petition was ordered to be attached with the file of Suit No.1587-A/97 by the concerned Joint Registrar ...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »