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.
Cce Vs. Ashima Denims
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC416
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against Order-in-Appeal Nos.30 to 38/97 (19 to 27-AHD) Commr. (A) AHD dated 10.2.97. The respondent are processors of denim fabrics. The issue in dispute was whether the respondents were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 253/82.The impugned order held in favour of the assessee. Hence the present appeal.2. The facts material for determining the dispute are that Notification No. 253/82 exempted "cotton fabrics, falling under Chapter 52 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) when subjected to any process or processes specified in the Table hereto annexed, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.3. The table to the Notification listed 12 processes. Sl. Nos. 1 and 10 of the list which are relevant to the present dispute were as under. 10. Padding, that is to say, applying natural starch on one or both sides of the fabric," The exemption notification had the following proviso. "Provided that no such e...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Paul Merchants Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Del)357
1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the Act) is directed against the order, dt. 21st Nov., 2001, passed by the Tribunal, New Delhi in ITA 2089/Del/2001, pertaining to the asst. yr. 1995-96.2. Two main issues namely, (i) whether action under Section 147(a) of the IT Act, 1961, was validly initiated, and (ii) whether the assessed was entitled to claim depreciation @ 40 per cent on the vehicles which had been leased out by it to third parties, were raised before the tribunal.3. While allowing the appeal of the assessed, the Tribunal has noted that in the earlier assessment years as well as in the succeeding assessment years depreciation was being allowed to the assessed @ 40 per cent, which was done while completing assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act in the present assessment year also. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that no new information or material had come to the notice of the AO to form the requisite belief that inc...
Sudesh Vs. Amitabh Bhola and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi139; 101(2002)DLT440; 2003(67)DRJ114
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner and respondent 1 and 2 are co-owners of property No. A-23, Bunglow Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi which is stated to have been purchased by the wife of the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 30.4.1982. The building plans were sanctioned by respondent No. 3 MCD vide letter dated 8.3.1984 but thereafter in view of certain unauthorised construction the property was sealed under Section 345A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The property was directed to the desealed by an order of the appellate tribunal passed on 17.12.1991 in view of the owners giving an undertaking to carry out the rectification in the building in accordance with the rectification plan. However, after due proceedings the property was once again sealed in pursuance to the order dated 6.7.94 of respondent No. 3. The said order was set aside by the appellate tribunal vide order dated 15.2.1996 in view of the defect in service of th...
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Central Road Researc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT445
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners-Council for Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) and Central Road research Institute (CRRI) challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated March, 21, 2001 in O.A. No. 2576/1999 whereby the order dated July 23, 1999 of the second petitioner-CRRI was set aside and the petitioners were directed to consider the case of the respondents herein, applicants in the O.A., for faster track promotion under the 'New Recruitment and Assessment Scheme' (NRAS), and to take a decision thereon as per the criteria fixed by the petitioners. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:-2. The first respondent and the second respondent are possessed of Masters Degree in Economics. While the first respondent obtained the Masters Degree in the year 1974, the second respondent secured the same in the year 1975. The CRRI on the basis of the recommendations of a duly constituted selection committee appointed ...
M.L. Kamra Vs. Lt. Governor,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ560
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. By this Letters Patent Appeal the appellant challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated May 1, 2002 in Civil Writ Petition No. 6717/99. By that order the learned Single Judge declined to issue direction to the respondents to reimburse the medical claim of the appellant in connection with his coronary bypass surgery at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, and consequently dismissed the writ petition. The facts leading to the appeal are as follows:2. The appellant is employed as a Trained Graduate Teacher in the senior scale at Dau Dayal Arya Vedic Senior Secondary School, Naya Bans, Delhi. The school is an aided school within the meaning of Delhi School Education Act, 1973. On September 17, 1996, the appellant was diagnosed by the G.B. Pant Hospital, Department of Cardiology, New Delhi, as a case of tipple vessel disease (TVD). After the test, on September 19, 1996 he was discharged from the G.B. Pant Hospital as his condition was found to be stable....
Neer Bahadur Rana Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ302
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. The petitioner is facing trial for charges under Section 412 IPC. The allegation is that one Shammi and co-accused Raju had committed robbery in the house of the complainant and had stolen Rs. 50,000/-. In cash and some jewellery and a mobile phone belonging to the complainant. Shammi is in jail. Co-accused Raju has not been arrested. This petitioner who was arrested by the police in a case under Section 41, Cr.P.C. made disclosure statement that he purchased one mobile phone from Shammi and Raju for Rs. 1000/-. Mobile phone belonging to the complainant was recovered from his possession evidence is being recorded. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that even offence under Section 412 IPC, has not been made out. Charge has already been framed and the prosecution. 3. Considering that only one mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the petitioner I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 4. In the totality of the facts and circumstances. I admi...
Dilipbhai Ludwani Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT334TriDel
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that this is a fit case to be finally disposed ,of at this stage. Accordingly, I allow the present application and proceed to deal with the appeal.2. The appellants are one Shri Dev Shankar Sharma, one Shri Dilip Bhai Ludwani and one Shri Keshav Kumar Nachani. Penalties of Rs. 1 lakh, Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 10,000/- have been imposed on them by the Commissioner under Sections 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, respectively. 24 gold biscuits of foreign markings have been absolutely confiscated by the Commissioner under Section 126 of Act. Among the three appellants Shri Keshav Kumar Nachani claims to be owner of the confiscated gold biscuits and is challenging the absolute confiscation of the goods. All the three appellants are challenging the penalties on one or the other ground. There is a common ground for all the appellants. The Commissioner has passed the order in violation of the principles of natural justice. This ground has...
Kesar Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC652
1. The appellants are manufacturers of VP sugar, Molasses is their bye-product, which is stored in steel tanks. It is stated that, insofar as the sugar industry is concerned, the relevant period is November to October, which is called "sugar season" in the industrial parlance.During the sugar season 1997-98, the department through its officers checked the stock of molasses in the appellant's storage tank Nos, 2 and 3. Shortages of 2390.41 Qtls. and 1034.95 Qtls. were detected in tank Nos. 2 & 3 respectively, the two totalling to 3425.36 Qtls. On 30.10.98, the stock of molasses in tank No, 3 was cleared on payment of duty. On 31.10.98, the appellants also paid duty of Rs. 51,747.50 on the quantity of 1034.95 Qtls. of molasses found short in tank No. 3. On 23.11.98, the appellants filed with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise an application for remission of duty on the said quantity of 1034.95 of molasses, on the ground that the said quantity was lost due to...
Choksi Tube Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC306Tri(Delhi)
1. When the applications for stay came up for hearing it was agreed by both sides that appeals can be disposed of. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeals.2. The first appellant M/s. Choksi Tube Company Limited is manufacturer of Seamless pipes and tubes in its factory at Mehsana District of Gu-jarat. The second appellant Shri Hardik H. Medh was the Financial Controller and Secretary of the first appellant. Both the appeals are directed against same order. Accordingly, both appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The impugned order has confirmed a duty demand of about Rs. 2.6 lakhs on the first appellant and has imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on them. The issue that led to the duty demand is that certain customers of the appellants wanted some additional tests over and above the quality control tests of the appellants to be carried out on the pipes and tubes purchased by them from the appellants. The appellants recovered amounts towa...
Vidhyachal Air Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2006)3STR84
1. The main issue raised in this Appeal at the instance of the appellant is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the show cause notice.2. Initially, the show cause notice dated 7-12-1998 was issued relating to the period from 16-11-1997 to 2-6-1998. On going through the show cause notice it is seen that the demand covered by it is restricted to penalty. The demand under above show cause notice was dropped by the Deputy Commissioner vide Order, dated 27-12-1999. Thereafter, the Commissioner issued a further show cause notice invoking his power under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 which also contains only demand of penalty. Thereafter, the Commissioner passed the impugned order, dated 24-12-2001, which contains a demand of service tax as well as penalty. The appellant is justified in its contention that in the impugned order the Commissioner has gone beyond the show cause notice while demanding service tax.3. On the demand of penalty the learned Counsel for the appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »