Delhi Court October 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.
Van Oord Acz by Vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Del)515
By the CourtCM No. 9785 of 2002 in CW No. 3708 of 2002By this application the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to permit remittances in terms of order dated 4-3-2002, passed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), New Delhi, respondent No. 1 herein, under section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The grievance of the petitioner is that despite furnishing of requisite documents/information, in terms of para 11 of the said order, the first respondent is not passing any order on its applications dated 29-5-2002, 20-8-2002 (two) seeking permission to remit Euro 2,217,860.84, Euro 6,53,032.49 and Rs. 43,708,599, respectively without deduction of tax at source.2. The application is resisted by the respondents mainly on the ground that on the one hand the petitioner is challenging the jurisdiction of the first respondent to be its assessing officer, and on the other is seeking enforcement of the order passed by the same offic...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lucky Plast Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT66TriDel
1. This ROM petition is filed in respect of the Final Order dated 8-1-2002 passed by this Bench [2002 (142) E.L.T. 141 (Tri.)]. In this order, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed on recording the findings in details on the merit of the case. The only issue raised in this petition is that the above order is passed ex parte notwithstanding the fact that Sh. Bipin Garg, Advocate was present in the Court for the respondents and he had requested to be heard for them. The other point raised is on the merits of the findings arrived at in the order Sh.Bipin Garg, Advocate representing the petitioners is present today. I have heard him as also Sh. S.C. Pushkarna, JDR for the Revenue. The ld.counsel submits that on the date of the hearing of the appeal i.e.8-1-2002, he had filed a letter in which he had stated that he has been authorised to appear on behalf of the respondents and the Vakalatnama was awaited and that the Bench, however, did not accept this and proceeded to decide the case on th...
M.C.D. Vs. Ram Kishan Khandelwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT169
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The meaning and effect of the word 'made' in Section 126(4) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 has given rise to these four petitions.2. All the writ petitions relate to the same property owned respondents 1 to 3 being property No.B-100, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and retable value has been fixed at different values w.e.f. 1.4.95, 1.4.96, 1.4.97 and 12.6.98 respectively.3. The factual matrix is very brief. The assessment order was passed on 15.3.1999 which was diarised in the dispatch register on 31.3.1999 and was posted on 6.4.99. The question which arose for consideration before the appellate authority was whether the said order could be said to be 'made' on or before 31.3.1999 in view of the provisions of section 126(4) of the said Act. Section 126(4) of said Act is quoted as under:-126. Amendment of assessment list.- (4) No amendment under sub-section(1) shall be made in the assessment list in relation to- (a) any year prior to the year commencing ...
Balber Prashad JaIn Vs. Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: 101(2001)DLT1
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule.With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner registered himself under the Vth SFS Scheme for allotment of category III flat in 1981. In 1990 the petitioner submitted an application for allotment of a flat in pursuance to the invitation extended by an on 30.11.1990 the petitioner was declared successful for allocation of first floor category III flat in Mukherjee Nagar under SFS scheme and that the estimated cost was to be Rs.5,17,500/-. The payment had to be made in terms of said allotment being the first four Installments.3. The petitioner paid 1st Installment in time but the second Installment was delayed by the three months. The 3rd Installment was again stated to have been paid in time and the 4th Installment was not paid by the due date of 10.2.1992 and an request for an extension to pay the amount by three months was made by the letter dated 6.2.1992. However, the payment was not ev...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC125
1. Revenue has preferred this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.406/98 dated 2.12.98 in which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the modvat credit to the respondents, M/s. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. I heard Shri. H.C. Verma Ld. DR for the revenue and Shri M.P. Devnath Ld. Advocate for the respondents.2. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had allowed the modvat credit of Rs. 58,657 on the ground that the credit was taken by the respondents within six months from the date of issue of Notification No. 28/95 dated 29.6.95 imposing restriction regarding availment of credit within six months from the date of invoice. This issue stands decided by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. v. CCE Indore, 2002 (81) ECC 465 (SC) : 2002 (50) RLT 129 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court was considering the question whether the limitation of six months imposed with effect from 29.6.95 is applicable to...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sterling Rubber Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC121
1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.385/2002 dated 30,4.2000/8.5.2002 in which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the modvat credit in respect of rejected duty paid final products received back by respondents namely M/s. Sterling Rubber Products. When the matter was called, none was present on behalf of the respondents nor there was any request for adjournment of the hearing in spite of the notice. I also observe that when the matter was posted for hearing earlier on 11.9.2002, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents, I, therefore, take up the appeal for hearing after perusing the records and hearing Shri H.C. Verma, learned Departmental Representative.2. In this case, the respondents manufacture "Bromo Butyl Rubber Stopper" and "Latex Rubber plugs" classifiable under sub-heading 4014.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Scrutiny of RT 12 returns revealed that they had taken the modvat credit on the said goods which were cle...
Emm Jay Travels and Exports P. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC108
"As per the statutory provisions contained in Section 11B ibid, as made applicable to service tax provisions, the 'relevant date' in the instant case is the date of payment of duty. Deputy Commissioner has wrongly interpreted the relevant date. Accordingly, it is seen that refuna claim has been erroneously sanctioned which was not maintainable. Accordingly, out of total sanctioned refund of Rs. 19.816, the amount sanctioned as refund in respect of service tax paid on or before 6.1.98 repeat 6.1.98 either paid or on tickets cancelled is clearly barred by limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Doaba Co. Sugar Mills, 1988 (18) ECC 157 (SC) : 1988 (37) ELT 478 (SC) held as under: 'But in making for refund before the departmental authority, an assessee is bound within four corners of statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder must be adhered to. The Authorities functioning under the ...
Gtc Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT169TriDel
1. During the material period (April, 1994), the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of machine-rolled cigarettes (CSH 2403.11 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985) using "cut tobacco" (input) procured, from the market by paying duty @ Rs. 50/- per Kg. prescribed under Notification No. 356/86-C.E., dated 24-6-86 (as amended) and by following the procedure prescribed under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Under another Notification No.355/86-CE., dated 24-6-86, cigarettes manufactured out of duty-paid cut tobacco were exempt from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the duty of excise (leviable under the Central Excises and Salt Act) already paid on "cut tobacco" used in the manufacture of such cigarettes. However, such exemption was available only to cigarettes cleared for home consumption. The following proviso was added to Notification No. 355/86-CE. by the amending Notification No. 69/94-CE., dated 15-3-94 :- "Prov...
Lucky Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT99TriDel
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of rolled products such as bars, rods of iron arid non-alloy steel, round bars, CTD bars etc. These goods are presently classifiable under Chapter Heading 72.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Prior to 1986 they were classified under Tariff Item 25 of the first Schedule to the Old Tariff Act. These goods are manufactured from re-reliable materials from ship breaking and from open market. The issue raised in these Appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to exemption under Notification No. 208/83-CE., dated 1-8-83 as amended. The Appeals are directed against the findings of the Collector that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the notification.2. Apart from the submissions on merits, the appellants contended before us that the Department has wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation in their case and that the demand is barred by limitation. In the case of M/s. Steel Rolling Mill the de...
Dynamic Laminates (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT205TriDel
1. M/s. Dynamic Laminates (India) Ltd. have filed the present appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 168/CE/CHD-I/2002, dated 30-4-2002 under which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their refund claim.2. Shri Rajesh Chibbar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, being registered with the DGTD, were not availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE, dated 28-2-93; that after the amendment of the said Notification by Notification No. 125/94-CE, dated 31-8-94 they became eligible to claim the benefit of Notification No.1/93; that as the amendment was not noticed by them, they did not avail the benefit of Notification No. 1/93; that they filed a claim for the refund of excise duty on 9-8-85 for the period from 7-2-95 to 31-3-95; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Order No. 77/95, dated 1-12-95 rejected their refund claim on the ground that Notification exempted goods up to the aggregate value of first clearance of Rs. 75 lakhs and they had already effected clearanc...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »