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.
Krishna Mohan Beverages and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC442
1. This appeal of the assessee is against the denial, by the lower appellate authority, of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,07,421 on certain goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the period 29.12.95 to 9.2.96. (i) U.T. High Pressure Steam Jet Cleaning Machine (CET Heading 84.24) (ii) Compressor, stop valves, drive set, V-belt--all parts of a refrigeration system.4. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Steam Jet Cleaning Machine was not covered as capital goods under Rule 57Q ibid by reason of its classification under CET heading 84.24. He was, impliedly, relying on Clause (d) of Explanation (1) to Rule 57Q(1) as the rule stood at the material time. Insofar as the compressor and other components of the refrigeration system are concerned, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that they were not covered under the definition of capital goods, but he did not state any explicit reason. In this appeal against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants have raise...
Merino Panel Products Ltd. and Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC828
1. The common issue arising for consideration in these appeals is whether an appeal is maintainable under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the provisional assessment. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in his orders impugned in these appeals has taken the view that such appeal is not maintainable and they were dismissed as pre-mature.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that wording of Section 128 of the Customs Act, would not entertain any doubt regarding the maintainability of an appeal from the provisional assessment. Appeal is provided against any decision or order passed under the Act by an officer of the Customs lower in rank than the Commissioner of Customs.These provisions are pari materia with the provisions under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned counsel sought to place reliance on the following decisions in support of the contention of the appellants:Handigas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2000 (115) ELT 703 3. Learned...
Merino Panel Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT128TriDel
1. The common issue arising for consideration in these appeals is whether an appeal is maintainable under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the provisional assessment. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in his orders impugned in these appeals has taken the view that such appeal is not maintainable and they were dismissed as pre-mature.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that wordings of Section 128 of the Customs Act, would not entertain any doubt regarding the maintainability of an appeal from the provisional assessment. Appeal is provided against any decision or order passed under the Act by an officer of the Customs lower in rank than the Commissioner of Customs.These provisions are pari materia with the provisions under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned counsel sought to place reliance on the following decisions in support of the contention of the appellants :-Anchor Porcelain Works v. CCE, Rajkot. (4) Handigas Equipment Pvt. ltd, v. ...
Sambhav Spinning Mills Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC315
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 28.2.2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order of the adjudicating authority disallowing modvat credit of Rs. 2,56,409, but reduced the penalty from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000.2. The appellants availed modvat credit on steel channels, dia axle flow fan, air distributor plate, fresh air damper, return air tight door alongwith other items (not subject matter of appeal). They were served with a show cause notice for having wrongly availed the modvat credit on these items, and the adjudicating authority after getting their reply confirmed the demand on the ground that these items did not fall within the definition of capital goods under Rule 57-Q of the Rules and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on them. The adjudicating authority also denied the modvat credit on capacitor, starter of Rs: 30,120. But the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the same and this aspect of the order...
Shree Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC149
1. Appeal at the instance of the assessee it directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 30.12.2001.2. Appellant is manufacturing nylon yarn of various deniers including nylon yarn of 210 denier which is exempted from payment of duty vide different notifications during the years 1996-97 to 2000-2001. The period with which we are concerned is from October 96 to March 2001.The main raw material/input for the manufacture of nylon yarn is Caprolactam which is being procured by the appellants from the market on payment of excise duty. By certain process, caprolactam is converted into nylon chips from which 210 denier yarn is processed. Appellant was clearing nylon yarn 210 of denier without payment of duty as it was exempted. It, therefore, reversed credit taken on caprolactam. Under notice dated 22.5.2001 the appellant was required to show cause as to why the central excise duty amounting to Rs. 34,00,048 should not be demanded under proviso to Section 11...
Tej Quebecor Printing Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)84ITD684(Delhi)
1.Since common issue is involved in all these appeals, the same are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. The issue involved in these appeals relates to the levy of penalty under Section 271C for the financial years 1994-95 to 1998-99.2. The brief facts as gathered from the orders of lower authorities, statement of facts filed before the CIT(A) and the relevant materials placed before us are these : The assessee is a joint venture company incorporated in India between Tej Group of India and Quebecor World of Canada. The assessee-company employed Mr. Lester Garnett as Works Manager w.e.f. 1st Jan., 1995, as per the letter of appointment, copy of which is placed at p. 14 of the paper book against remuneration of 95,000 Canadian dollars per annum. In addition to the above salary, he was also allowed certain perks i.e., rent free accommodation, car with driver and servant. However, due to heavy losses, the assessee could not pay any salary to Mr. Garnett right...
V.V. Industries Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)78TTJ(Delhi)758
1. The following grounds are raised in this appeal directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) : "1. That under the facts of the case, the appeal has been decided ex parte against the principles of natural justice since no notice has been served and received by the assessee. 2. That under the facts of the case, there is no justification for disallowance of Rs. 5,109 under Section 37(2A) as entertainment expenses. 3. That the lower authorities grossly erred in facts in treating the additional sales-tax liability of Rs. 10,580 as in the nature of penalty and consequently grossly erred in law in disallowing the additional sales-tax of Rs. 10,580. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for disallowance of Rs. 6,292 out of travelling expenses under Rule 6D. 5. That under the facts of the case, the lower authorities grossly erred in law as well as on merits in adding Rs. 2,403 as PF and ESI on the ground of being paid during the year but allowed...
Bhai Sardar Singh and Sons Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR387(Delhi); 2003(66)DRJ603
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The petitioner claimant had filed this petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only) with the prayer to direct the arbitrator to file the Award dated 21.1.1990 in the Court. The respondent No.1-objector filed I.A. No. 3627/90 raising objections against the Award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The respondent-objector pleaded that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself and the proceedings and as such the Award was liable to be modified/set aside so far as it relates to the amount awarded in favor of the claimant-petitioner. It was stated that the counter claim of Rs. 196693.87 as awarded in favor of the respondent-objector may be sustained.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the objections filed by the respondent-objector, briefly stated, are that the petitioner and respondent had entered into an Agreement No. 8EE/HD-18/DDA-76-77 in respect of a work to be executed by the petitioner for ...
S.R. Rajappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ83
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents for performing their obligations stated to be contained int eh note dated 26.7.1997, notice dated 7.7.98 and for directions to transfer the flats in favor of the petitioners located at Nasirpur which are in their occupation. 2. The petitioners state that the issue of non-availability of residential accommodation was taken up and was recorded in the proceedings of the Government of Karnataka on 15.9.92 when it was decided that in view of this problem certain incentives to the staff at Karnataka Bhawan should be granted. A monthly HRA of Rs. 1,000/- was given till they were provided with official accommodation. The respondents proposed to purchase 25 quarters for the employees of the Karnataka Bhawan and a note was circulated dated 26.7.97 for the employees to communicate their preference for occupying these quarters located at Bindapur, Dwarka Extension. The second paragraph of the note prov...
Hindustan Foils Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC649
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 22/28.3.2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original in respect of the duty demand, but reduced the penalty from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 25,000 on the appellants.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The factory premises of the appellants was visited by the Central Excise officers on 15.11.91. The stock verification of the finished goods and raw materials was conducted by those officers and goods involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 91,875 were found short. Shri A. Bose, Commercial Manager accepted the shortage and debited the duty in the RG 23A Part II register, show cause notice was, however, issued to the appellants for payment of duty of Rs. 51617 in respect of the goods cleared without issuing gate pass and also for recovery of Rs. 40,258 which they had availed as modvat credit on the raw materials, cleared by them without payment of duty and without obtaining nec...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »