Delhi Court January 2002 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.
Ravi Kamal Meattle and ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)218; AIR2002Delhi184; 96(2002)DLT503
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common judgment the above three writ petitions are being disposed, as the parties, the premises and the questions arising, though relating to determination of rateable value for different assessment years, are common.2. Petitioners are Mr. Ravi Kamal Meattle, his brother, son and nephews. By writ petition No. 3218/98, petitioners sought quashing of the impugned notice dated 17.2.1995 as well as the assessment order bearing No. 589/97 dated 25.2.1997, by which the rateable value of premises No. 1, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi was determined at Rs. 12,42,000/- less 10% on the basis of market rent for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The petitioners also sought quashing of demand notice dated 11.3.1998 No. 3883 by which a sum of Rs. 6,33,226/- including the arrears of Rs. 4,65,551/- were demanded. The said writ petition had come up for admission on 15.7.1998, when counsel sought time to produce on record the orders passed in LPA. 158/97 titled Ravi Kamal Meattle an...
Harminder Kaur Vs. Sukhwinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)797; 97(2002)DLT863; II(2002)DMC114; 2002(62)DRJ742
S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. Heard. 2. In this case, the learned trial Court has formed an opinion that the respondent Sukhwinder Singh was earlier running a business in the n ame of Typographical Computers at J-3/242, Ground Floor, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi and thereafter it appears that same concern is converted into Graphitech Creations by Sukhwinder Singh as is evident form the photocopies of the visiting card of the petitioner and as is further evident from the photographs at pages 25 and 26 of the file. The respondent had not appeared despite service. In such circumstances, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Chitra Sengupta v. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta, 1987 Matrimonial Law Reporter 306, in support of her contention that the income of the husband being within his special knowledge, the husband should have disclosed his true and correct income. His failure to do so without giving good reasons entitles the Court to pre...
Dr. A.K. Garg and anr. Vs. Kailash Nath and Associates and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)45
D.K. Jain, J.Respondents No. 1 and 4 in the titled writ petition, in their respective applications, being CM Nos. 11681/01 and 12908/01 seek modification of the order, dated 5-10-2001, passed by this court, while disposing of petitioner's application (CM 9134/01). Since the modification/directions sought for in the applications are in substance similar, both the applications are being disposed of by this common order.2. To understand and appreciate the controversy raised in the applications, it would be necessary to note a few background facts.Respondent No. 1, a builder (hereinafter referred to as the vendor) had entered into an agreement dated 25-6-1991, with the petitioners (hereinafter referred to the vendees) for the sale of residential flat No. 2 on the 4th floor of the multistoreyed building known as Neelgiri Apartments, situated at 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The vendor and the vendees filed a statement in Form No. 37-I prescribed under rule 48L of the Income Tax Rules, 1962...
Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Patna
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT459TriDel
1. The issue in respect of classification of 'Dant Manjan Lal' is referred to the Larger Bench. While referring the matter to the Larger Bench, the Division Bench of the Tribunal doubted the correctness of the earlier decision in appellants' own case i.e. in E/A. No.2237/99-Mum. (Final Order No. C-I/4292/WZB/2000, dated 13-12-2000 [2001 (138) E.L.T. 218 (T)], which was followed by the East Regional Bench in E/A Nos. E/R-95-96/2000 (Final Order Nos. A/2035-2036/CAL/2000, dated 14-12-2000 [2001 (133) E.L.T. 792 (T)] whereby it was held to be classifiable under sub-heading 30.03 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The issue involved in the present case is in respect of classification of 'Dant Manjan Lal' for the period from June, 91 to May, 97 and the lower authorities held that the product, in question, is classifiable under Chapter Heading 33.06 of the Central Excise Tariff after relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appellants' own case i.e. M/s. Baidyanath Ayurved Bha...
Multi-tech. Computers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT593TriDel
1. Challenge in this appeal is against the Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. HKS (566) SVB/2001, dated 6-7-2001. This is the second round of the appeal between the appellant and respondent in respect of the very same issue.Vide Order dated 20-4-93 this Tribunal had set aside the Order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) dated 9-10-1991 for the reason that the basis on which 5% was directed to be loaded to the invoice price was not discernible from the Order-in-Appeal. The impugned order was, therefore, set aside and the matter remanded to the Assistant Collector/ Customs with the direction that the adjudicating authority shall issue a Show-Cause-Notice and the appellant will file a reply to the same. It is thereafter the Assistant Collector has passed order dated 29-3-2001 which was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. The appellant had imported certain parts which were required for manufacturing Modems fro...
Multi Tech Computers (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(103)LC241Tri(Delhi)
1. Challenge in this appeal is against the Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No HKS (566) SVB/2001 dated 6.7.2001. This is the second round of the appeal between the appellant and respondent in respect of the very same issue. Vide Order dated 20.4.1993 this Tribunal had set aside the Order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) dated 9.10.1991 for the reason that the basis on which 5% was directed to be loaded to the invoice price was not discernible from the Order-in-Appeal. The impugned order was, therefore, set aside and the matter remanded to the Assistant Collector, Customs with the direction that the adjudicating authority shall issue a Show-Cause-Notice and the appellant will file a reply to the same. It is thereafter the Assistant Collector has passed order dated 29.3.2001 which was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. The appellant had imported certain parts which were required for manufacturing Modems fr...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Prachi Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT165TriDel
1. In these five appeals preferred by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether a new distinct impugned product has emerged as a result of process of swaging undertaken by M/s. Prachi Industries on mild steel tubes so as to attract levy of central excise duty.2. Shri M.P. Singh, ld. DR, submitted that after the process of swaging undertaken by the appellants, a new and distinct product having different characteristics and use come into existence; that the steel tube/pipes after undergoing the process of swaging subjected by the swaging machine, looses their original characteristic and new product, in the form of decorative hollow profile (ornamental profiles) emerges; that as per definition of tubes/ pipes and hollow profile in the Explanatory Notes of HSN, the same include piece of a roller, kind used for water distribution in building as well as tubes for water or gas distribution; that the decorative hollow profile are for a decorative/ornamental uses, do not find use for distribu...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Shalaks Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT435TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal of the Collector (Appeals) vide which he has affirmed the order-in-original dated 27-8-1993/30-8-1993 dropping the duty demand on the strength of Tribunal's Order dated 31-1-1990.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Olemessa baby massage oil. They classified the product under sub-heading No. 3304 of the CETA and filed the Classification List which was approved provisionally. The Revenue, however, wanted the classification of the product initially un- der Tariff Item 14F(i) of the erstwhile Tariff and show cause notice was accordingly issued to the respondents demanding differential duty on that ground. However, the adjudicating authority held the classification under erstwhile Tariff Item 68 vide order dated 18-10-1984 and not under Tariff Item 14F(i). The respondents filed the Classification List w.e.f. 1-3-1986 classifying the product under sub-heading No. 1508.90 of new tariff and the ...
A.R. Co. Extruded Films Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT603TriDel
1. The appellants in this appeal are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting their appeal as time-barred without looking into the merits of the case.2. Examined the records. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise passed an order dated 16-2-2000 against the assessee confirming a demand of duty against them and imposing a penalty on them. The assessee did not receive any copy of the order. However, from the Central Excise Range Office, they came to know that some adverse order had been passed against them by the Joint Commissioner. When the Range Supdt coerced them to pay the duty and penalty amounts, they requested the Supdt. to issue a photocopy of the Supdt.'s office copy of the order, whereupon the Supdt. asked for deposit of an amount of Rs. 30/- for a photocopy of the order. The party deposited the amount on 7-11-2000. They received a copy of the Joint Commissioner's order on 5-3-2001. They preferred appeal against that order to the Commissioner (Appeals) ...
H.S. Mahadeva Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC204
1. The dispute raised in this appeal relates to valuation of Toyota Land Cruiser Prado imported by the appellant. The vehicle was purchased second hand by the appellant from the dealer at Dubai. The appellant sought assessment of the car to customs duty based on the transaction value. As against this, the impugned orders have assessed the goods at a much higher value based on the -price obtained through internet from the Parkers Guide.2. The appellant has contended that the valuation adopted by the lower authorities is against the relevant provisions under Section 14 of the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules. It is his submission that imported goods are to be assessed based on their transaction value. It has been submitted that, in the present case, the customs authorities had obtained the price of the very vehicle in question from its manufacturer, namely, Toyota. He has pointed out that the appellant's purchase price at Dubai compared favourably with the price worked out from t...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »