Delhi Court November 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Nestle (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT347TriDel
1. In these appeals at the instance of the Revenue, the common issue raised is whether the respondent assessee is liable to pay duty on glass scrap generated in its factory in the course of filling of tomato ketchup and sauces in glass bottles/jars etc. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of this Tribunal in CCE, Delhi v.Dhillon Kool Drinks & Beverages Ltd. 2001 (130) E.L.T. 475 (T) took the view that waste and scrap arising out of broken bottles through the process of filling/hand ling etc. neither generated in the course of manufacture of glass bottles nor it could be considered as a manufactured product. He, therefore, held that the scrap arising in the factory of the assessee is not dutiable. It is contended by the Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not taking into consideration the provisions contained under Rule 57F(18)(a) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is also pointed out that in the decision relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals) als...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. V.J.A. Flynn and Mr. Shyam Sunder Rastogi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ381; 2003(86)ECC129; 2003(159)ELT92(Del)
Sharda Aggarwal, J.1. Challenge in these two writ petitions CW.No. 4624/97, filed by V.J.A.Flynn and CW.No. 1985/2001, filed Shyam Sunder Rastogi, is to the validity of the show cause notice dated 2nd December, 1994, issued by the Collector of Customs under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, as to why the seized goods be not confiscated and personal penalty be not imposed on the petitioners. Since both the writ petitions arise out of common facts and a common show cause notice, we propose to dispose of the same by this order.2. A brief factual background of the case is as follows:3. On 21st June, 1994, the petitioner V.J.A.Flynn, holding an Australian passport and one Sadasivan Mudaliar, holder of a Fiji Passport were intercepted by Air Customs Preventive Officers at IGI Airport when they were trying to board a flight for Honkong Along with a large quantity of various types of coins of gold, silver, copper etc. The coins were suspected to be antiquities, export of which was prohibit...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Khanna and anr. Vs. Mtnl and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT507; 2003(66)DRJ576
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. This writ petition has been filed by Mr. Rakesh Khanna, petitioner No. 1, sole proprietor of M/s. Prabhat Press as also by Mr. Srikant Somani, petitioner No. 2, who happens to be a tenant of petitioner No. 1.3. Petitioner No. 1 earlier had Mr. Samit V. Gupta, as a tenant. Mr. Sumit V. Gupta was the subscriber of telephone No. 7458699 installed at the tenanted premises. He terminated his tenancy and vacated the premises in February, 2002.4. Petitioners have been served with a notice bearing No. CAO(TRN-I)O/S/P-7458699 dated 30.10.2002, issued by respondent/MTNL. By the said notice, they have been called upon either to make the payment of dues of telephone No. 7458699 of the tenant, Mr. Sumit V. Gupta or furnish particulars of the address of said tenant, failing which telephone connection of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, merely 7127973 and 7431849 would be disconnected.5. Mr. Apurb Lal, counse...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Bhawna Singh Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 103(2003)DLT155
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This writ petition involves a short question of law relating to the eligibility of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary). Respondent No. 3 i.e. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) gave an advertisement vide Advertisement No. 0002/98 for filling up of various posts in the Schools run by respondent No. 4, namely, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The essential qualifications for the said posts as advertised in the aforesaid advertisement are as under:'Essential: (a) Sr. Secondary or equivalent with 2 years teachers training course or equivalent from a recognised Board/University.OR (b) Degree in any discipline or equivalent with degree in Education or equivalent from a recognised University.OR(c) Professional qualification ETE from the DIETs run by SCERT, Delhi with 50% marks (45% in case of SC/ST/OBC).Note: The candidate should have passed the required language at Secondary or Senior Secondary level.2. thereforee a Corrigendum date...
Tag this Judgment!Vidya Securities Ltd. Vs. Comfort Living Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi214; 2003(1)ARBLR482(Delhi); 102(2003)DLT797; 2003(67)DRJ154
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only) has been filed with a prayer to restrain the respondent from giving or parting with the possession of the ground floor portion at A-3, Green Park, New Delhi, in which the restaurant 'Red Snapper' had been running to anyone else and further restraining the respondent from entering into any agreement/arrangement with anyone regarding the management of the said restaurant/outlet.2. The petitioner and the respondent herein had entered into the agreements dated 1.10.2001 and 26.11.2001 under which the respondent's restaurant/bar called 'red Snapper' at respondent's 'Sartaj Hotel' at Green Park, New Delhi was handed over to the petitioner for its management and administration for a total rental of Rs. 2,25,000/- per month. The respondent which owns the aforesaid Hotel was already running the said restaurant/bar but vide the two agreements mentioned above,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Parma Nand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Del)489; [2004]266ITR255(Delhi)
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'), by the Revenue, is directed against order, dt. 6th May, 2002, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi, in ITA No. 4048/Del/1996, for the asst. yr. 1990-91, By the impugned order the Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the CIT(A), whereby penalty levied on the respondent/assessed under Section 271D of the Act was deleted. 2. While affirming the said order and holding that the assessed has been able to prove that there was a reasonable cause for receiving the money in cash, the Tribunal has held as follows : 'Further, we find that there was a reasonable cause because the assessed was going to be directly benefited if the cheques issue to M/s Hindustan Engg. Products are cleared in time, as there was a discount @ 2 per cent for cash payment against the bills. The cheques issued by assessed were of dt. 4th April, 1989; 14th Sept., 1989; 21st Dec., 1989; 16th Jan., 1990, and 20th Feb., 1990, and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mrs. Baljeet Jolly
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Del)419
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, by the Revenue is directed' against the order, dt. 14th Feb., 2002, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' Delhi, in ITA No. 1185(Del)/94. The Revenue proposed the following questions, stated to substantial questions of law:'1. Whether, Tribunal was correct in law in deleting penalty for an amount of Rs. 3,16,601 levied under Section 271(1)(c) ?2. Whether order of the Tribunal deleting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was perverse in view of the' admission of assessed that amount received from alleged source at Bombay were not directly traceable to her ?'2. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming, the order passed by the CIT(A), deleting penalty levied on the assessed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty was imposed for alleged failure on her part to explain the source of a sum of Rs. 6 lacs, claimed to have, been taken as loan from one ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Mrs. Baliect Jolly
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN273(Delhi)
ORDERThis appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the revenue is directed against the order, dated 14-2-2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', Delhi in IT Appeal No. 1185 (Delhi) of 1994. The revenue has proposed the following questions, stated to be substantial questions of law :'1. Whether the Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'ITAT') was correct in law in deleting penalty for an amount of Rs. 3,16,601 levied under section 271(1)(c) ?2. Whether order of the ITAT deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) was perverse in view of the admission of assessed that amount received from alleged source at Bombay were not directly traceable to her ?'2. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), deleting penalty levied on the assessed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty was imposed for alleged failure on h...
Tag this Judgment!Sajan Dass and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Del)581; [2003]3ITR391(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal by the assessed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order, dt. 28th March, 2002, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi in ITA Nos. 1145/Del/97 pertaining to the asst. yr. 1993-94. The following questions, stated to be substantial questions of law have been proposed in the appeal memo :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 3 lacs received by the assessed/appellant is not in the nature of gift but is an income from undisclosed sources.'(2) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law on true interpretation of the provisions of law under Section 68 or under Section 69 in holding that as per the requirement of law the appellant has not discharged the burden on him in respect of the said transaction of gift and arriving at the conclusion which are not relevant to the issue ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: [2004]266ITR208(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated April 19, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), in I. T. A. No 6585/Delhi of 1996, pertaining to the assessment year 1992-93.2. The only issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether a part of the relief granted to the respondent/assessed under Section 80-I of the Act could be withdrawn by taking recourse of Section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal, by placing reliance on various decisions of the apex court and of this court has come to the conclusion, and rightly so, that since the question whether an assessed is entitled to deduction under Section 80-I or not, is debatable, the relief granted under the section could not be said to be a mistake apparent from the record, within the meaning of Section 154 of the Act.3. While interpreting the scope of Section 154 of the Act, the Supreme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »