Delhi Court November 2002 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2002 Page 1 of about 228 results (0.022 seconds)G.K.N. Drive Shafts (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC709
1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee the issue coming up for consideration is whether there can be two prices in respect of sale of a product one for original equipment requirement and the other for spares requirement when the buyer is one and the same for the purpose of assessment under the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of front axle assembly (motor vehicle part) falling under sub-heading 8708 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are supplying the above goods to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUL) and to various other original equipment (OE) manufacturers in the present case we are concerned with their supply to M/s. MUL. On the basis of purchase orders placed by MUL the appellants supply front axle assembly for OE requirement at a lesser price compared to the price of the same goods supplied against spares requirement. Out of the total quantity supplied to MUL more than 90% would cover OE requirement...
Tag this Judgment!Uniworth Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT183TriDel
1. The appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (E.O.U.) engaged in the manufacture of textile fabrics (for export). Their unit is located at Raipur. As an E.O.U., they are entitled to procuring equipment and materials required for export production, duty-free, both customs and excise. They procured 1848 Kilo Litres of furnace oil from M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai without payment of duty, claiming exemption [Notification No. 1/95 dated 4-1-95]. The furnace oil so procured was sent to M/s. Uniworth Ltd., another E.O.U. located in the appellant's neighbourhood. That EOU has a captive power plant. Further, the appellant has been permitted to obtain electricity generated in that power plant of M/s. Uniworth Ltd. The aforesaid furnace oil procured without payment of duty by the appellant was sent to M/s.Uniworth Ltd. and utilized therein for manufacture of electricity supplied to the appellant. In the impugned order Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals) Raipur held that Not...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT114TriDel
1. In these 12 appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No.41/2001 dated 30-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I, the common issue involved is whether the Modvat credit is to be disallowed to all the appellants on the ground that the supplier of the inputs has taken the Modvat credit on fake and bogus invoices and utilized the said Credit towards payment of duty in respect of inputs supplied to the appellants.2. We heard Shri Naveen Mullick, Shri Kamaljeet Singh, and Shri V.K.Gupta, learned Advocates who appeared on behalf of different appellants. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants availed of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs received from the suppliers, that one of the supplier of inputs is M/s.Prerna Metal Industries; that the inquiries initiated against the said Prerna Metal Industry revealed that they had taken the Modvat credit on the strength of the invoices which were fake and bogus and were never iss...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Industries, Paper Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC200
1. In these 12 appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No.41/2001 dated 30.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I, the common issue involved is whether the Modvat Credit is to be disallowed to all the appellants on the ground that the supplier of the inputs has taken the Modvat Credit on fake and bogus invoices and utilized the said Credit towards payment of duty in respect of inputs supplied to the appellants.2. We heard Shri Naveen Mullick, Shri Kamaljeet Singh, and Shri V.K.Gupta, learned Advocates who appeared on behalf of different appellants. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants availed of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs received from the suppliers; that one of the suppliers of inputs is M/s. Prerna Metal Industries; that the inquiries initiated against the said Prerna Metal Industry revealed that they had taken the Modvat Credit on the strength of the invoices which were fake and bogus and were never i...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Metals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT249TriDel
2. Revenue filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order dated 17-01-2002.3. The contention of the revenue is that the Tribunal remanded the issue to the adjudicating authority on the ground that the technical report, relied upon by the revenue, is not supplied to the applicants and no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded by the revenue authorities. Even the show cause notice was not issued to the applicants. The contention of the revenue in the present application is that opportunity of personal hearing was given to the applicants and there was no necessity to issue the show cause notice while fixing the capacity of furnace under Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Therefore, the Tribunal committed error apparent on record while passing the final order.4. The Tribunal, while passing the final order, came to the conclusion that the impugned order is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice without providing an ...
Tag this Judgment!Hewlett Packard India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)80TTJ(Delhi)208
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 21st Oct., 1996, whereby payment of Rs. 70,00,000 made to M/s Blue Star Ltd. for elimination of competition has been held to be capital expenditure and hence disallowed for asst. yr. 1990-91.2. Briefly stated, the facts are the assessee-company was incorporated on 8th Nov., 1988, and has been engaged in the business of selling, marketing and distribution of various products of Hewlett Packard (in short, HP) in India. The assessee-company is a representative agent of HP products in India in respect of the following products : Prior to the assessee acting as representative agent of the HP, M/s Blue Star Ltd. (in short, M/s BSL) was engaged in the selling/distribution and marketing of various products of HP in India.In order to ensure its monopoly status and eliminate any competition in its business, the assessee-company entered into an agreement with M/s BSL on 7th Aug., 1989. The assessee has filed a copy of t...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Singh Anand and ors. Vs. State Bank of Patiala
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ191
S. Mukerjee, J. 1. The plaintiff are the landlords of the suit premises being 3718 sq. ft of Commercial Space located at the New Block of building NO. 28, K.G. Marg, New Delhi. By way of present suit, the plaintiff has sought ejectment of the defendant bank, and also claimed relief of damages of Rs. 2,97,400/- for two months period being September and October 1989, and for a decree of damages from the date of institution of the suit i.e. for the period November 1989 onwards, and till the delivery of possession back by the bank.2. Vide order dated 10.1.91, the following issues were framed:-i) Whether the Suit premature and not maintainable?-OPD ii) Whether the notice of termination is illegal, invalid as alleged?-OPD (iii) Whether the Amendment Act No. 57 of 1988 is unconstitutional and void?-OPD iv) Whether the suit is not properly valued for purposes of Court Fees and jurisdiction? If so, what effect?-OPD v) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount on account of damages...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Ajay Ved Parkash Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi342; 102(2003)DLT699; 2003(66)DRJ682
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This order will dispose of IA. 9293/2001 filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151, CPC, and Sections 247, 266, 268 and 295 of the Indian Succession Act; and IA. 2202/2002 filed on behalf of respondents 2 & 3 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151, CPC and Sections 268 and 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (hereinafter 'the Act').2. Facts in brief are: that petitioner filed this petition under Section 276 of the Act for grant of Probate (Letters of Administration) in respect of the Will dated 12th August, 1999, executed by his mother Smt. Sneh Ved Prakash (hereafter, 'the deceased'). It is, pleaded that through this last legal and valid will of the deceased property No. S-370, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-11007 (hereinafter 'the suit property'), devolved upon the petitioner and his brother Shri Ajit Ved Prakash in equal shares. That his brother Ajit Ved Prakash died on 27.10.2000 and his share in the suit property, therea...
Tag this Judgment!Wazirpur Bartan Nirmata Sangh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 103(2003)DLT654
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Benevolence in administration is a necessity but this benevolence has to be balanced against the rights of the residents of a town specially when dealing with one commodity which can never increase which is land.2. The validity and legality of the policy of the respondents for removal and relocation of jhuggi dwellers who squat on Government land unauthorisedly and are ultimately allotted parts of land acquired for planned Development of Delhi has to be decided in the present proceedings. This became a necessity in view of the fact that the land was being acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act for planned Development of Delhi at public expense for public purpose. This very land was being utilised to relocate persons who had squatted and trespassed on public land and refused to move from the original place. In order to dear those areas such persons were provided land which had been so acquired.3. In this public interest litigation the problem aro...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Sunny Uppal Vs. the Appropriate Authority (income-tax Deptt.) and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Del)248; [2003]261ITR446(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. An order, dated 30 November 1996, passed by the Appropriate Authority under Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), directing pre-emptive purchase of a residential house bearing No. 22/78 Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi is under challenge in this writ petition.2. Material facts, leading to the filing of this petition are as follows:On 12 August 1996, the petitioner entered into an agreement with respondents No.2 to 4, for purchase of the aforementioned 1 1/2 storeyed property, built on a plot admeasuring 2255.55 sq. yds for a consideration of Rs. 2.76 crores. As per the agreement, the vendors, respondents No.2 to 4 herein, were paid a sum of Rs. 30 lacs by way of earnest money; a further sum of Rs. 51 lacs was to be paid within fifteen days from the date of grant of no objection certificate by the Appropriate Authority, and within ninety days of the receipt of all necessary and requisite permissions, no objections and clearances, the balance sale consider...
Tag this Judgment!