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.
Asstt. Cit Vs. Leela Associates
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)298
ORDERPhool Singh, J.M.This appeal, preferred by the revenue, is directed against Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 29-7-1997, relating to assessment year 1994-95. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal :'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals)-II, N. Delhi, has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,000 made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained investment in purchase of ball-bearings.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in admitting evidence in contravention of the provisions of rules 46A of Income Tax Rules. '2. During assessment proceedings the assessing officer noted that there was a search in which ball-bearings of various sizes and 186 in number were detected. The assessed was asked to produce the vouchers of ball-bearing during search but assessed vide letter dated 24-2-1997, informed that ball-bearing lying at the premises were old one ...
Vishal Metal Casting P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT455TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Vishal Metal Casting P. Ltd., the issue involved is whether abatement from payment of Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act is available to them.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Non-steel Ingots in respect of which Central Excise duty was paid under the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that during the period from 1-9-97 to 31-3-98 their factory remained closed during the varying periods on account of disconnection of the power, periodical power cuts, shortage of raw materials, break-down in the furnace, etc.; that a show cause notice dated 5-6-98 was issued to them for demanding differential duty on the basis of the annual capacity of production determined by the Commissioner; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order has confirmed the demand of duty without allowing abatement claimed by them and has also imposed an equivalent amount of penalty under Ru...
Ratan Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT436TriDel
1. These are two applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty and penalty as under :-(i) M/s. Ratan Inds. P. Ltd. Rs. 1,37,79,835/- (duty) Rs. 1,37,79,835/- (penalty) 2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture cast articles of iron & steel, cast iron Bull Cart Hubs, Crankshaft connecting rod, M.S. Steel casting and non-alloy steel ingots; that under the impugned Order the demand of duty has been confirmed and penalty has been imposed on both the Applicants by denying the benefit of Notification No. 76/86-CE., dated 10-2-86 in respect of Bull Cart Hubs for the period from 1-4-97 to 30-6-2002; that Notification No. 76/86-CE. exempts the following parts of animal drawn vehicles :- that exemption under this notification is available to Hub being part of the wheel; that it is a settled law that part of part is also a part and as the exemption is available to wheel the same is applicable to hub also. The learned Advocate also menti...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Chandhok Textiles (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT597TriDel
1. In this appeal at the instance of the Revenue, the challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut.The complaint of the appellant is that the Commissioner while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee failed to take into consideration the effect of Explanation-II of Notification 42/98 dated 10-12-98. The relevant explanation reads as follows : "Explanation II. - Unless otherwise specified in any rule made under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act 1944 (1 of 1944), for the purposes of this notification the goods shall be deemed to have been manufactured or produced with the aid of a hot-air stenter, if they are cleared from a factory where a hot air stenter is installed, irrespective of whether it is in use or in working condition, or is otherwise." 2. It is the contention of the appellant that since the hot air stenter was installed by the assessee during the relevant period, duty liability will be there irrespective of whether it was in use o...
Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC84
1. The appeal of M/s. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited, Udaipur is directed against duty demand of over Rs. 3.6 lakhs. The ground for confirming the demand is that the appellants had collected certain amounts towards insurance charges while selling their goods, but had not spent these amounts fully on insurance, rendering the excess collections towards insurance charges liable to excise as additional consideration. The appellant's explanation is that amounts were correctly collected towards insurance and differential amounts arose because the appellants insured the goods with insurance Cos. Only for half their value and risk for the rest of the goods was borne by appellants themselves. It has been explained that the amount retained by them constituted the insurance premium attributable to the risk borne by them i.e. 50% of the value of the goods. It is their contention that providing insurance is a separate activity from manufacture and that an amount representing the insurance risk can...
Smt. Basant Kaur and ors. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ803; 101(2002)DLT470; 2003(66)DRJ119
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Petitioners are the relatives of the husband of the complainant. Petitioner No. 1 is the mother-in-law of the complaint while petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are married sisters-in-law of the complainant.2. Marriage took place about 25 years back. Perusal of the complainant shows that she was being treated with cruelty and being harassed for having brought insufficient dowry right from day one. However, she continued upbringing her children and living in her matrimonial house for 24 long years. However, she left the matrimonial house on 22.7.1991 along with her children. She filed an application for maintenance. The incident that took place on 22.7.1991 ropes in the conduct of husband and his highhandedness. It is alleged that her husband turned her out of matrimonial house with the threat that he would kill her and her children and her parents and remarry some other girl.3. This is a case which manifestly demonstrate how Section 498A IPC can be misused and abused. Woman liv...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Through Its Commissioner Vs. Shri Raji ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT481; 2003(66)DRJ115; [2003(97)FLR129]
Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. This petition can be disposed of as the ground taken by the petitioner/Municipal Corporation of Delhi is that award being without jurisdiction being void ab initio as the dispute inter se the parties has not been referred to by the appropriate authority and thereforee, the reference was void ab initio and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said reference. It was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Bajaj that the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court had not been appointed by the Central Government nor the powers under the Industrial Disputes Act have been delegated to the said tribunal and hence the award was without jurisdiction and per se void ab initio.3. Another contention which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Labour Court has erred in passing an award on the basis of the affidavit filed by the workman that he had worked for 240 days in a year. In support of her contention, sh...
Gian Chand Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ566
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. The petitioner has submitted this application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. A case under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC has been registered against him. The petitioner has working as a consolidation officer of village Kanjhawata & Pooth Khurd, Delhi in June, 1996. Notification under Section 14(1) of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 was issued in 1988 and 1993 in respect of these villages and the consolidation committees were constituted in 1996. The consolidation scheme in respect of both the villages was prepared in 1996 and 1998. It is alleged that the petitioner is complicity with other revenue staff sanctioned farm houses in proposed Latdora and outside in violation of the Government instructions; on acceptance of illegal gratification recorded mutation entries on the basis of sale deeds executed and registered in Mumbai; in contravention of ...
S.K. Vohra Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC158
1. In this application, the appellant prays for waiver of pre-deposit of an amount of penalty of Rs. 60,000 and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal. This application is in an appeal preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, confiscating certain quantity of foreign origin gold biscuits and Indian currency of Rs. 35,000 under Sections 111, 120 and 121 read with Section 123 of the Customs Act and imposing a penalty of Rs. 60,000 on the applicant under Section 112.The gold biscuits were admittedly seized from the applicant's possession, and so were the currency notes. Statements were recorded from the applicant and a few other persons under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The applicant stated, inter alia, that they had purchased the gold biscuits under proper bill from M/s. Raj Jewellers, Coimbatore and that the goods were lawfully acquired. He also claimed that the Indian currency of Rs. 35,000 was liquid cash meant for petty expenses.However, the statement...
Jbm Auto Components Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC637
1. In this application, the prayer is for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of an amount of duty of Rs. 36,222 and an amount of penalty of Rs. 50,000.2. Certain quantity of excisable goods manufactured by the applicants was intercepted in transit by the officers of central excise on 26.2.99. Five invoices were produced by the applicants to the officers.Two of these invoices were dated 19.2.99, two other invoices dated 25.2.99 and the fifth was dated 26.2.99. The goods covered by the 5 invoice was released forthwith to the appellants. The department alleged that the goods covered by the other 'pre-dated invoices' were being clandestinely removed. The allegation was denied. In adjudication of the dispute, the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the applicants under Rule 173Q, apart from confirming demand of duty to the extent of Rs. 36,222 on the seized goods (covered by the four 'pre-dated invoices') provisionally released.3. Ld. Consu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »