Delhi Court May 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner Of Customs Vs. Havell'S India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC678
'In the instant case guideline has been set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v Commissioner of Customs reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.). In para 80 of the judgment it has been decided : "It is sufficient in the present case to observe that the drawings and designs which were imported by the appellant were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 49.06 and the tariff itself providing that the import of the same is free, the said drawings and designs were not dutiable articles, and, therefore, no customs duty was leviable thereon even as a part of the passenger baggage". Thus, even if the item has been brought as baggage item, the same is not chargeable to duty. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.' 2. The facts of the case in brief are that there was technical collaboration between M/s. Schiele Industrieswerke "Gmbh, West Germany and M/s. Havell's India Pvt. Ltd. Under this collaboration agreement the foreig...
Francis Wacziarg Vs. Rajesh Lajras
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)118; 98(2002)DLT224; 2002(64)DRJ490
K.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-accused seeks quashing of complaint case No. 29/2001 and setting aside of judgment dated 30th May 2001 passed in Criminal Revision No. 49/2001 by an Additional Sessions Judge and order dated 2nd June 2001 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate in the said case.2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are these. Respondent-complainant is an employee of Find Agencies Pvt. Ltd., A-58, Nizamuddin East. On 17th January 2000 he filed a complaint under Section 500 IPC against the petitioner who is a director of the company alleging that he was issued a chargesheet dated 22nd November 1999 and therein the petitioner has made defamatory statements against the respondent with intention to harm or knowing or having reasons to believe that such statements will harm his reputation. The chargesheet was got written from someone in Hindi by the petitioner and a copy thereof was also sent to Labour-cum-Conciliation officer...
Md. ShahabuddIn Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT732
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The petitioner, who was a student of M.Phil(Arabic) at the Centre of Arabic and African Studies School of Language, Literature and Cultural Studies, Jawahar Lal Nehru University, is aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondents under clause (7) of Academic Ordinance No.13 declining to extend the period for submission of his dissertation,which was to be submitted by the end of 27thJuly,1999. According to the petitioner, he had fallen sick in the month of June and July, 1999 and as such could not get his dissertation work typed out and compiled within time frame. One of the reasons was that Arabic computers were available only at few places. The petitioner applied for grant of extension for submission of his M.Phil on medical grounds, but it was refused primarily for the reason that he had submitted medical certificate from a private doctor. His request for reconsidering the decision was also declined in spite of the fact that later he had submitted medical certifi...
Ankit Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. Vs. Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT470
Sharda Aggarwal, J.1. M/s Ankit Leasing & Finance Company Ltd., the plaintiff was approached by defendant No. 1 for purchase of certain assets at prices to be finalised by defendant No. 1 and/or the supplier nominated by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 offered to take on lease the assets so purchased by the plaintiff. At the request of defendant No. 1, plaintiff purchased one 1500 KW Brown Boweri Low Inlet Pressure Small Steam Turbine with Alternator (type DGSS-HF-24/4-AB 710/2) and the defendant No. 1 took on lease the said machinery vide lease agreement dated 14th June, 1994. Under the Agreement, defendant No. 1 was to pay to the plaintiff monthly Installments of Rs. 86,778/- from 16th June, 1994 to 16th November, 1996 and monthly Installment of Rs.1,78,444/- from 16th December,1996 to 16th May, 1997 i.e. total 36 Installments. The lease agreement was for three years commencing from 16th June,1994 and ending or 15th June,1997. As per the terms of the lease agreement, defendant No. 1...
Director of Income-tax Vs. Paper Products Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR1(Delhi)
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dated October 4, 2001. The brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated. The assessed has imported a certain number of printing machines from Rotomac (SPA), Italy, in February, 1987. It had earlier entered into an agreement dated October 9,1986, with the Italian company for erection, assembly and commissioning of these for which a remittance of US $ 50,000 was to be made. The asses-see made an application under Section 195(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking no objection for the remittance without deducting any tax at source (TDS).2. The Assessing Officer observed that the activity of the Italian company falls under Section 9(l)(vii) and be taxed as fees for technical services.3. The Assessing Officer further observed that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Italy does not have any specific article on the taxation o...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Vs. Mahavir Strips (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT175TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether the demand of Central Excise duty against M/s. Mahavir Strips (P) Ltd. is barred by time-limit specified under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Respondents nor was there any request for adjournment. We observe that in the past also, no one had appeared on behalf of the Respondent. In fact the notice sent to them has been returned by the Postal Authorities with the remark "Factory closed". Accordingly, we take up the appeal for disposal after perusing the records and hearing Shri Ashok Kumar, learned Departmental Representative.3. The respondents manufacture steel tubes and pipes availing exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 202/88-CE., dated 20-5-1988. The Additional Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No.94/98, dated 21-10-98, denied the benefit of the Notification No.202/88, confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 14,...
Cc (Acu) Vs. Magnum Solution P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC421Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, preferred by Revenue, the issue involved is whether the software for the knitting, weaving and designing imported by M/s.Magnum Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is eligible for the exemption from payment of duty under notification No. 11/97-Cus, dated 1.3.1997.2. Shri R.D. Negi, learned SDR, submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 14/98 dated 9.11.1998 denied the benefit of the Notification No. 11/97-Cus on the ground that the Notification (Srl. No. 173) excludes software required for operation of any machine working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine and that as per Note 5(e) to Chapter 84, machines performing specific function other than data processing machine are to be classified in the Heading appropriate to their function; that Commissioner (Appeals), however, under the impugned Order, allowed the appeal filed by the Respondents following the decision in the case of BPL Mobile Communications Ltd. v. CC 2000 (40) RLT 249...
Manek Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC425Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals are against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad confirming a demand of duty of Rs. 1,10,88,407/- against M/s. Manek Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (appellants in Appeal No.E/808/2001) after classifying their product "Bleach - 9" under Central Excise Tariff Heading No. 38.02, imposing on them a penalty equal to duty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, imposing another penalty of Rs. 50 Lakhs on them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, confiscating 23,450 kgs. of the said product (seized under Panchnama dated 19-11-98) under Rule 173Q with option for redemption thereof on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh and imposing a penalty of Rs. 25 Lakhs on the Company's Director, Shri D.V. Patel (appellant in Appeal No. E/809/2001) under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. M/s. Manek Chemicals (P) Ltd. (for short, "M/s. MCPL") were engaged in the manufacture and clearance of what they called "Washed Clay" and "Bleach - 9", which they c...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Vardhman Polytex Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC222
1. Order-in-appeal No. 382/CE./CHD-II/2001, dated 24-10-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh which is impugned in these appeals, related to two issues. One relating to the addition of the amount attributable to purchase tax and the other relating to deduction of sales tax payable from the price of the yarn while fixing its assessable value. The Commissioner held that the amount equal to purchase tax was required to be included in the assessable value and accordingly confirmed duty demand of over Rs. 6 lakhs. He also fixed penalty at an amount equal to the duty. In respect of sales tax, he held that the deduction was due towards sales tax payable and quashed the demand of over Rs. 11 lakhs.2. Both sides are aggrieved with the above orders. The assessee with the addition of purchase tax and Revenue with the deduction of sales tax. Hence these appeals.3. Purchase tax was in respect of purchase of cotton, raw material for spinning of yarn. It is the submission of...
Mercury Rubber Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC216
1. M/s. Mercury Rubber Mills, Sonipat are manufacturers of Transmission & Conveyor Belts. They pay duty on these goods @ applicable to sub-heading No. 4010.90 2. The issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is the valuation of the goods for the purpose of assessment to Central Excise duty on ad valorem basis. The appellant claimed refund of part of duty originally paid on the ground that duty had been paid on the gross value of the goods which included freight. It was claimed that freight was not to form part of the assessable value, and the duty already paid which is attributable to the amount of freight was to be refunded to the appellant. This claim has been rejected in the impugned order on the ground that the appellant's price at the factory gate was inclusive of freight and other elements and no deduction was permissible from the sale price at the factory gate. The impugned orders have placed reliance on the order of this Tribunal in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »