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.
Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT428TriDel
1. The appellants are a manufacturer of Cement. They are entitled to take duty paid on capital goods installed in their factdry by way of Modvat credit. When such capital goods outlive their utility they are scrapped and removed. The iron and steel (waste and scrap) so obtained in the scraping of machinery, are sent to the appellant's Foundry Division for use as inputs in that Foundry Division. No duty was being paid on the condemned capital goods so removed as waste and scrap.Excise duty demand of over Rs. 33 lakhs was raised against the appellant for the period April 1994, to December, 1995 under show cause notice dated 1-4-97, by invoking the extended period (for recovery of short levy) permitted under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act. The impugned order has confirmed the duty demand and has further imposed penalty and raised demand for interest.2. The appellants submit that the demand was hit by the bar of limitation since the extended period permitted under the...
R.D. Exports Vs. Cc (General)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC650
1. Having examined the records and heard both sides, I find, the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, I allow the present application and proceed to deal with the matter. The appellants are in the second round of litigation before the Tribunal on the same set of facts. In the earlier round, the challenge before the Tribunal was against an order dated 2.3.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Customs House, New Delhi in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 22.2.2001. That was a show-cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act proposing to extend by six months the statutory period for issuance of show-cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Act for confiscating certain goods etc. The Commissioner, in adjudication of that show-cause notice, decided to extend the period by six months from 7.3.2001. But that order of the Commissioner was found to be violative of the principles of natural justice and accordingly,...
Anil Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT561TriDel
1. Shri Anil Kumar Gupta has filed these two appeals challenging the imposition of penalties of Rs. 1 lakh & 2 lakhs under Order-in-Original Nos. 10/98 & 61/98 both dated 26-2-98 respectively.2. Shri Alok Arora, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants, on a pilgrimage to Haridwar met some people distributing cloths to the poor; that he joined them and was thereafter introduced to one Shri Ramesh Chand, Manager of Lok Seva Sansthan, Haridwar; that while they were distributing cloths some foreigners approached them and asked whether they could distribute clothes if donated by them (foreigners); that Shri Ramesh Chand told the appellants that he would be made President of Lok Seva Sansthan at Saharanpur and to print letterhead of the Sansthan showing the address of his shop; that in August/September he was instructed to send signed letterheads to one Hasim All, stated to be the Asst. of a Clearing Agent at Kandla; that accordingly all the papers of Sansthan, i.e. registra...
H.G. Malik Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)85ITD79(Delhi)
1. The following grounds are raised in this appeal directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) ; "1. That on facts and in circumstances of the case, the declared loss of Rs. 16,695 under the head long-term capital gain arising on the sale of rights in DDA flat, ought to have been accepted and allowed as deduction. 2. That the authorities below, on facts, in law and on the grounds taken and basis adopted, went wrong to hold that the sale of rights in the DDA flat resulted in income under the head short-term capital gain as against income under the head long-term capital gain as claimed. The adverse finding, based on the erroneous view of the factual and legal position, deserves to be quashed. 3. That the determination of income under the head short-term capital gain at Rs. 49,235 deserves to be quashed and deleted and the declared loss of Rs. 16,695 under the head long-term capital gain deserves to be accepted and allowed as deduction." 2. We have heard both the parties and have al...
Seth Madan Lal Modi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Del)67; 101(2002)DLT408
D.K. Jain, J.1. In these two cross references, arising out of ITA No. 2969 of 1976-77, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) the following questions for our opinion:R.A. No. 1339(DEL)/1980-At the instance of the Commissioner: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in recalling its earlier order dated 30th August, 1978 and in directing that the matter regarding the taxability of the directors' remuneration for M/s. Modipon Ltd. should be decided afresh?' R.A. No. 546(DEL)/1978-79 -At the instance of the assessed:(i) 'If the answer to the question in R.A.No. 1339(DEL)/1980 is in the negative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that remuneration of Rs. 34,016/- from M/s. Modipon Ltd. accrued to the assessed during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74?'...
Precision Engineers and Fabricators Vs. Delhi Jal Board and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR606(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT129
C.K. Mahajan, J. I.A. No. 8589/2001 1. By way of the present application the applicant seeks condensation of delay in filing I.A. No. 8588/2001. Heard. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed. The delay in filing the I.A. No. 8588/2001 is condoned. I.A. No. 8588/2001 3. By way of this application the applicant/ respondent seeks recalling the order dated 18th May, 2001. 4. The petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 praying that the disputes between the parties be referred to an arbitrator as the request made to the Chief Executive Officer of the Delhi Jal Board was not acceded to and the respondents had failed to appoint an arbitrator. None appeared on behalf of the respondents on the date when the order was passed. Counsel for the applicant contents that during the pendency of the arbitration application, the Chief Executive Officer vide his order dated 13.9.200...
Twinkle Industries Vs. Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT898
C.K. Mahajan, J.I.A. No. 12785/2000 1. By way of this application, the defendant seeks condensation of delay of 540 days in filing the application being I.A. 12/35/2000 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 8.8.1997 and subsequent order dated 2.9.1998. 2. The applicant claims to have knowledge of the ex parte decree passed by this Court on 6.5.1999 when an inspection of the file was carried out. It was on this date that the applicant learnt that it had been proceeded ex parte on 8.8.1997 and an ex parte decree had been passed on 2.9.1998. The applicant contends that the application for setting aside of the ex parte order and the decree was sent to the defendant Corporation at Visakhapatnam for signatures. The application was signed on 6.7.1999. It was sent to the counsel for the applicant by post. The application is stated to have been received by the clerk of the counsel for the defendant who is stated to have misplaced the application and did not inform the coun...
Chand Begum and ors. Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT897
ORDERMahmood ali Khan, J.1. The petitioner No. 2 Rahis Ahmed is the younger brother of the father-in-law of the complainant. Petitioner No. 1 is the wife of petitioner No. 2. The allegation against them is that they had joined the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant in demanding Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle from the complainant and on her not acceding to their demands she was beaten up by them. APP has further submitted that after the registration of the case petitioner No. 2 was giving threat to the complainant. He further submitted that the notice was served on petitioner No. 1 for joining the investigation but she has not turned up. Mr. Saxena, APP further submitted that both the petitioners are required to join the investigation. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case I allow the application. In the event of the arrest of petitioners they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in t...
Poonam Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC52; 101(2002)DLT429
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. This petition has been filed as a public interest litigation. The issue involved relates to the emblem on registration plates of the vehicles. 2. Realizing the need to have stricter norms to ensure greater security against car thefts and the consequential crimes committed using stolen cars, the Government of India has amended Rule 50 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. New specifications are provided for high security registration plates. In this respect, the Government of India has issued four Notifications which are as under: '(i) GSR 221 (E) Notification dated 28.03.2001. (ii) S.O. 814 (E) Notification dated 22.08.2001. (iii) S.O. 938 (E) Notification dated 24.09.2001. (iv) S.O. 1041 (E) Notification dated 16.10.2001. 3. The first notification of 28th March, 2001 brought an amendment in Rule 50 of the Rules and set out the broad security fixtures of the new registration plates. The second notification dated 22nd August, 2001 brought into force the Motor Vehicles (New H...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Polo Singh and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR270(Delhi); 101(2002)DLT401; 2003(66)DRJ132
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Aggrieved by an order and judgment dated 21.3.2001 of the learned Single Judge dismissing appellant's objections and making the award dated 4.3.1998 rule of the Court, the appellant preferred instant appeal seeking reversal thereof.2. First, a resume of fact--The respondent/claimant was awarded construction work of 356 SFS houses, Category II at Madipur, Pocket III and 132 SFS houses, Category II, at Madipur, Pocket III, Grade II, by the appellant-Authority. The stipulated date for commencement of work was 17th of March, 1989. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 1,23,06,150/- and the tendered amount was Rs. 1,48,25,910/-. The work was to be completed within 15 months, on or before 16th of June, 1990. The respondent/claimant, however, failed to commence the work. The contract was eventually rescinded by the appellant-Authority on 21st of August, 1989. The reason for non-commencement of work, as stated by the respondent/claimant, is that the site was not handed o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »