Delhi Court November 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.
Bhupendra Kumar Bhaumik Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN886(Delhi)
Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, J. By this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of sub-section 1C of section 54E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as introduced by the Finance Act, 1992, praying that the words and figures '29th day of February, 1992' in the said section be struck down and instead the words and figures '31-3-1992' be substituted.2. The Finance Act, 1992, by amending section 54E(1) of the Act, withdrew the exemption from tax in respect of long term capital gains from the assessment year 1993-94. Under this provision, as it stood prior to the amendment, exemption from tax in respect of long term capital gains was allowed under section 54E(1) to the extent the net consideration was invested or deposited in any specified asset prescribed in that section within a period of six months from the date of transfer.3. Section 54E(1) of the Act prior to the amendment of 1992 stood...
NaraIn Dass P. Godhwani Vs. Nenu Mal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT815
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.Civil Misc. (M) No. 294/2002 & C.M. 579/2002 :1. Against an order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had also filed an application for stay of execution of the order of eviction. When the matter came up for hearing before the Court on 3.6.2002, the Tribunal passed an order staying dispossession of the petitioner subject to his filing an undertaking before the Additional Rent Controller that in the event of the petitioner's failing before the Rent Control Tribunal, he shall hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within one month from the date of the order passed in appeal. This order has now been challenged by the petitioner by way of the present petition.2. A perusal of the order shows that the Tribunal had satisfied itself that there were grounds for stay of dispossession of the petitioner in execution of the order of eviction, h...
D.C.M. Engineering Products Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC643
1. M/s. D.C.M. Engineering Products have filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Shri S.C. Kamra, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture unmachined iron castings using sand moulds and cores in their foundries; that for the preparation of sand moulds, they prepare resin coated sand by coating the resin on the sand; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order No. 23-28/CE/CHD-II/2001 dated 28.2.2001 confirmed the demand of duty in respect of resin coated sand and directed Asst./Deputy Commissioner to work out the amount of demand and to intimate the same to the appellants within a period of 30 days. The Ld. Advocate further mentioned that on going through the said order, they noted that the Commissioner had inadvertently mentioned market rate instead of taking the assessable value determined by them on the cost construction methods; that accordingly, they brought the mistake to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner who was directed to ...
Agrawal Steel Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC438
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 11.6.2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original dated 21.11.96 of the Deputy Commissioner.2. The appellants were sought to be disallowed modvat credit of Rs. 1,43,963 availed by them in the month of April 95, through a show cause notice dated 3.11.95 issued by the Superintendent on the ground that the invoices issued by the Branch Sales Office of the SAIL did not contain details of the manufacturer such as Invoice No., date, duty paid, etc. in terms of Notification dated 4.7.94. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings, by holding that all the requisite details had been supplied by the appellants, through the order-in original dated 21.11.90. But the Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed that order by observing that the invoices-cum-challans were completed subsequent to the availment of credit and the authenticity of the photo-copy of the same was a mat...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vishwa Organics P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC648
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 25.2.2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has reversed the Order-in-Original dated 9,7.99 of the Joint Commissioner confirming the duty in respect of reprocessed goods, on the respondents of Rs. 1,50,514 with penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC and of Rs. 15,000 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. The learned Counsel for the respondents has at the outset raised preliminary objection that the appeal of the Revenue is legally non-maintainable, on the ground that the appeal memo does not bear the signatures of Shri Dheeraj Rastogi, Deputy Commissioner (Review) who has allegedly filed the appeal and the appeal is not accompanied by any authorisation order passed by the competent authority in favour of Shri Dheeraj Rastogi authorising him to file the appeal.3. On the other hand, the JDR has not been able to refute both the grounds raised by the Counsel for the non-ma...
Sunder Singh and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT80TriDel
1. This is an application for rectification of mistake, filed by the Advocate on behalf of the Applicants M/s. Sunder Singh & Co. (P) Ltd. Section 35Q of the Central Excise Act only provides the appearance by the Advocate on behalf of the Appellants/Applicants. As such the ROM application cannot be filed by the Advocate. It has to be filed by the applicants himself. Accordingly the present application is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed....
Videocon Narmada Glass Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC317
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of glass TV shells (panels and funnels) for colour picture tube and is having its plant at Bharuch, Gujarat According to the appellant, it is the only plant in India which is manufacturing the above product except Samcor who has recently started producing funnels. These products are purchased by BPL, JCT, LG, Samtel who make complete picture tube and sell the same to all colour TV manufacturers like Samsung, Phillips, Videocon etc. The appellant has been importing Strontium Carbonate, one of the chemicals used as basic raw material for the manufacture of its product. Under Notification No. 70/2001 dated 26-6-2001 Govt. of India imposed anti-dumping duty on Strontium Carbonate originating in and exported from China P.R. and imported into India @ US $ 213.37 PMT. This imposition of duty was pursuant to the recommendation of the Designated Authority in his final finding under Notification dated 15-6-2001. In the final finding the Designated Authority ha...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kesar Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT165TriDel
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. In the impugned order the Commissioner gave a specific finding that the department has not placed any evidence on record to disapprove the assessee's contention that the Ethyl Alcohol produced by them is not excisable because it is not suitable for using as fuel in spark ignition engine either by itself or in combination with any other substance. Therefore, it is not classifiable under Heading 2204.00 of Central Excise Tariff. The finding of the Commissioner is based on the report of the Chemical Examiner.3. The contention of the Revenue is that Ethyl Alcohol is classifiable under Heading 22.04 of Central Excise Tariff. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.M. Shankar Rao Mohite Patil S.S.K. Ltd. v. C.C., Aurangabad, reported in 1998 (102) E.L.T. 115 (Tribunal) and the Tribunal in this case held that Ethyl Alcohol made of 94-95% alcoho...
Sh. Abdul Rasool Virji Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ307a
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The subject matter of the dispute is plot No. A-1, Maharani Bagh measuring 1800 sq. yards now known as 6, East Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi in respect of which perpetual lease hold rights were granted to one Shri N.R. Pillai. The property was constructed upon, Mr. N.R. Pillai passed away on 31.3.1992 and prior to his demise has executed a Will dated 13.3.1978. In view thereof the property was mutated on 28.5.1993 in favor of the two sons of the deceased owner. Probate was also granted on 16.11.1993.2. The said two sons of the owner entered into an agreement of sale in favor of the petitioner in respect of the property in question on 16.1.1994 for a total consideration of Rs. 3 crores and permissions was granted by the Competent Authority. The respondent in terms of the perpetual sub lease deed dated 17.4.1965 made a demand towards provisional un-earned increase of Rs. 2,23,84,725/- on 4.9.1995. The petitioner aggrieved by the same filed CWP No. 3948/95 bef...
Kitab Kaur Kod Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT381
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The petitioner by this writ petition assails the order bearing No. AC(N-W)/F&S;/2001/3370 dated 22.10.2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order'). By the impugned order, the Assistant Commissioner cancelled the license bearing No. 2463/81 of the petitioner for the alleged contravention and offences committed by the licensee.3. Suspension order cum show cause notice bearing No. AC-NW/F&S;/20017713 dated 4.5.2001 had been issued earlier, by which the license of the petitioner was suspended. Petitioner had assailed the said order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Food and Civil Supplies). Learned Commissioner (Food and Civil Supplies), vide its order dated 10.5.2001, quashed the suspension and directed that the petitioner be allowed to operate the kerosene oil depot (KOD) till final decision was taken on the show cause ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »