Delhi Court February 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.
Mr. Naresh JaIn Vs. Mr. Krishna Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)459; 97(2002)DLT770; 2002(62)DRJ777
Sharda Aggarwal, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of the plaintiff's application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present application are that the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance for Agreement to Seel dated 25th September, 1995 with regard to property No. 58, Block 'B' Derawal Nagar, Delhi situated in the lay out plan of Dera Ismail Khan Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Delhi for a total consideration 63,50,000/-. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff before the formal execution of the agreement as advance money to the defendant on 23rd September, 1995. Another sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid on 24th september, 1995 and a further sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid on 25th September, 1995 towards part payment of the sale consideration. The plaintiff had thus paid in all a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- on three dates against receipts. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendant, wh...
B.L. Wadehra Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Finance
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN591(Delhi)
ORDERThe petitioner filed this petition as PIL making grievances against the act of Central Board of Direct Taxes in having issued Circular No. 742, dated 2-5-1996 and subsequent extension thereof by Circular No. 765, dated 15-4-1998. Prayer has been made accordingly to quash Circulars Nos. 742 and 765 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.2. During pendency of the petition, the learned counsel for the respondent brought to Court's notice that by Circular No. 6 of 2001, dated 5-3-2001 Circular Nos. 742 and 765 have been withdrawn with effect from 31-32001.3. The respondents were further directed to place on record additional information. On 18-5-2001, affidavit of Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Under Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi, was filed disclosing various reasons justifying withdrawal of the said circulars.4. In view of the fact that during pendency of the petition, grievances for which petitioner came ...
P.C Malhotra (Huf) Vs. Wto
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN799(Delhi)
ORDERThe only question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether in view of rule 1BB as also the amendment carried out in the Schedule III appended to the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the valuation has to be done afresh by the valuation officer. It appears that the said question is now covered by decisions of the Apex Court in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons : 1995ECR425(SC) and the Division Bench of this court in Brig. Gurbux Singh v. CWT : [1998]230ITR166(Delhi) .2. In view of the aforementioned decisions, the impugned cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly and the respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to carry out the valuation in terms of the aforementioned rules.3. Writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of....
Star Neon Singh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC226Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed these appeals against the orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The appellants are manufacturing NEON light sign boards. The proceedings in Appeal No. ST/1/2001-D started with the issuance of show cause notice to the appellants for getting themselves registered under the provisions of Service Tax Act, 1994 on the ground that the appellants are providing taxable service known as advertising service.The adjudicating authority directed the appellants to comply with the necessary requirement of service tax including themselves registered, filing quarterly returns and payment of service tax timely including the pending payments. The appeal filed by the appellants was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The proceedings in Appeal No. ST/20/2001-D were initiated with the issuance of show cause notice to the appellants for not filing the returns from Jan., 97 to Oct., 98 under the provisions of Service Tax Act for imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,...
Steel Industries of Hindustan Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT209TriDel
1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 during the material period. Under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZP read with the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 3A, they were entitled to abatement of duty on a proportionate basis for any continuous period of not less than 7 days of non-production of products, subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed in clauses (a) to (e) of the said sub-rule. On 31-3-98, they submitted to the jurisdictional Commissioner an application for abatement of a total amount of duty of Rs. 5,97,914/- for the following periods totalling to 96 days :- The Commissioner by order dated 12-4-2001 rejected the claim and directed the party to pay the duty if not already paid. Hence th...
Ganeshwar Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT654TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture V.P. Sugar and Molasses falling under Chapter sub-heading Nos. 1701.31,1701.39 and 1703.10. A fire accident was caused in sugar godown No. 3 and 3A located in their factory premises on 8-2-97. The fire accident caused extensive damage to 19,577 qtls. of sugar stored therein. The damaged sugar was salvaged and reprocessed etc. However, the final loss was accounted for to 11,350.55 qtls. of V.P. Sugar involving the Central Excise duty of Rs. 9,64,796.75. The party was issued a show cause notice dated 24-7-97 in which it is alleged that as per report of the District Fire Officer, Padrauna the fire accident took place due to careless smoking of Biris/Cigarettes which caused extensive damage to 19,577 qtls. of V.P.Sugar. It is alleged that the party failed to avoid fire accident in the said godown which was quite avoidable and was caused due to carelessness. In this way they have clearly violated the provisions of Rules 49 and 223A of the Central Excise Rules,...
Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC421Tri(Delhi)
1. Order-in-Original No. MP (Demand-34/99) 19/2000, dated 27-11-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee M/s. Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. 2. The appellants are having two manufacturing units - a distillery at Captainganj and a chemical factory at Barabanki. In their distillery the appellants manufacture Ethyl Alcohol-Denatured (for short SDS). The SDS is stock-transferred to their Barabanki unit where it is wholly consumed in the manufacture of specified chemicals. Under the impugned order, the differential duty demand of Rs. 14,89,61,104.00 has been confirmed by the Commissioner on the entire quantity of SDS transferred from Captainganj unit to Barabanki unit during the period from April, 1994 to December, 1999. Aggrieved by the above, the assessee has filed the present appeal.C. No. VI (MP) Demand (12)ADJ-116/98/3149, dated 26-3-99-SCN No.12/COMMR-AUD-99/26-3-99 4. Excise duty was levied on SDS f...
Clutch Auto Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)(103)LC416Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, the appellants are aggrieved by denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,91,184/- on diesel Power Generating set [in short, DG set] under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944 on the ground that the substantive conditions under Rule 57R read with Notification No.27/94-CE(NT) dated 17.6.1994 were not fulfilled.3. The DG set under reference was procured by the appellants from M/s.TIL Ltd., Pondicherry under a higher (sic) purchase agreement with a financial company viz. M/s. PNB Capital Services Ltd. The item was procured under invoice dated 31.3.1996 issued by M/s. TIL Ltd. and installed in the appellant's factory on 30.4.1996. The credit of duty paid on the DG set was taken by the appellants on 13.5.1996. the department, by show-cause notice, proposed to disallow the credit, alleging that the credit was taken in contravention of the provisions of Notification No. 27/94-CE(NT) ibid and further proposed to impose penalty on the appellants as also to levy interest under Ru...
Binani Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT577TriDel
1. M/s. Binani Cement Ltd, have filed the captioned appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20th June, 2001 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) holding as under: "In the present case, the capital goods falling under Chapter Heading 84.74 were admittedly received during the period 23-7-96 to 31-8-96 when they were specifically excluded from the ambit of Rule 57Q in terms of Notification No. 14/96-C.E. (N.T.), dated 23-7-96. Once they were ineligible from taking of Modvat credit on the date of receipt they can not under any circumstances become eligible on the date of taking credit as the question of eligibility arises with reference to the law prevailing at the time of receipt of the goods as mentioned above and can not be postponed to a later date. Hence the aforesaid Modvat credit could not have been taken by the appellants and has correctly been denied- No case law has been brought on record to say that amendment made by Notification No. 25/96-C.E. (N.T.), dated ...
Rajbir Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ297CAT
1. Challenge in this O.A. is directed at the action of the respondents, reducing retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.96, the pay scale of the applicants from Rs. 5000-8000/- to Rs. 4500-7000/-.2. Heard S/Shri G.D. Bhandari and A.K. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the applicants and respondents respectively.3. The applicants (57 of them) are working as Chargeman and Sr.Chargeman (Technical Staff) in Army Ordnance Corps. On the recommendations of Dev Nath Committee, some restructuring in the grades of technical staff had been introduced. This was followed by the introduction of a four tier grade structure, adopted by the Fourth Pay Commission. However, in the respondents' organisation two categories of Chargeman had been combined to one grade of Rs. 1400-2300/- instead of Rs. 1400-2300/- and 1600-2660. This was contested by the applicants in their representation before the Fifth Central Pay Commission, which recommended for the adoption of 'uniform four grade structure' in all organisations. They ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »