Delhi Court July 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.
C.M.i. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC319
1. In these three appeals, filed by M/s. C.M.I. Ltd., the issue involved is whether the end cutting of insulated wires and cables are classifiable under Heading 74.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma, learned Consultant, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal in their own case as reported in CMI Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi- has settled issue by holding that scrap of wires and cables is not excisable goods Shri M.P. Singh, learned D.R., submitted that after the amendment of the definition of waste and scrap in Note 8 to Section XV of the Tariff, waste and scrap means any metal waste and scrap from the manufacture or mechanical working of metals, and metal goods definitely not usable as such because of breakage, cutting up, wear or other reasons. He submitted that scrap of wires and cables is nothing but metal scrap which satisfy the definition given in Note 8 to Section XV and as such is excisable.3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides...
Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)85ITD86(Delhi)
1. These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue relating to assessment year 1992-93. In the assessee's appeal following grounds have been raised :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding that the assessee-company is assessable in relation to the rental income from Scindia House under the head 'Income from Property' and not under the head 'Income from business' as claimed by the assessee which is contrary to the ITAT Order in ITA No. 5151/for the assessment year 1982-83 and ITAT order dated 29-4-1993 for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee-company is not entitled to the expenses incurred for carrying on the business disallowed by the Assessing Officer as under:- 1/6th for repairs. Rs. 15,37,907(b) Claim for house tax was not to be allowed as from house property' Rs. 1,00,000(c) Legal charges Rs. 3,38,398(d...
Mrs. Anita Gupta Vs. the Vice Chancellor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT488
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Order dated 1.3.2002 and Notification dated 27.2.2002 issued by the respondents closing down the Programme Study Centre No. 0745(P) which was being run by the petitioner under the name of M/s Softtach Computer City at Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi.2. The case, as set up by the petitioner, is that the respondents are the officers of Indira Gandhi National Open University established under an Act of Parliament for advancement and dissemination of learning and knowledge in Communication Technology. To achieve its object the University through its Regional Centres have engaged the services of various private centres for imparting Computer education to the students. The petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s Softtach Computer City, was engaged by the respondents and in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.9.1999 was awarded the status of Work Centre for the Certificate in Compu...
Sh. Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT631; 2002(64)DRJ479
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction to the respondents to allow him to return to Bangkok in Thailand to attend to his ailing wife and minor child. Petitioner is an Indian citizen is the holder of Indian passport number Z1110596. Petitioner's case is that he had gone to Bangkok in the year 1990. He got married to one Ms. Yuwanda Phanhoub, a thai girl and from whom he begot a son. Petitioner claims to be living in Bangkok with his wife and son. Petitioner submits that he came to India only in the year 1991 and thereafter had not travelled to India at all, except the present visit on 20.2.2002. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents declined permission to the petitioner to return to Bangkok on the ground that there was a LOC (Look Out Card) issued for him.3. Show cause notice in the petition had been issued on 12....
Shri Dinesh Kumar Vs. Delhi Financial Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT584
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondents from auctioning the petitioner's residential house bearing No. 8115, Kharia Mohalla, Roshnara Road, Sabji Mandi, Delhi and restrain them from taking possession of the said property. The petitioner inter alias also sought quashing of the proceedings initiated under Section 29 as well as a writ restraining the respondents from recovering the amounts from the petitioner in respect of the loan advanced and from taking any other coercive steps pursuant to the notice dated 13.12.1997 and 17.4.1998 issued by the respondents.2. Counsel for the parties have been heard.The relevant facts as also the respective submissions are noted:-Petitioner claims to have applied for a loan of Rs. 8.60 lacs. in October, 1996. Respondents sanctioned the same and Rs. 7.60 lacs was disbursed to the petitioner. The r...
Cannon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(150)ELT61(Del)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The petitioner herein is an exporter of acrylic shawls. On 1.4.1997 the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Government of India, issued a handbook of procedure of Exim Policy from 1st April 97 to 31st March 2002. Policy was framed for the benefit of the exporters. The relevant contents of policy to give benefit to the exports are as under: 'However, wherever the Policy provisions have been modified to the disadvantage of the exporters, the same shall not be applicable to the consignments already handed over to the Customs for examination and subsequent exports up to the date of the Public Notice. Similarly, in such cases where the goods are handed over to the customs authorities before the expiry of the export obligation period but actual exports take place after Expiry of the Export Obligation period, such Exports shall be considered within the export obligation period and taken towards fulfillment of export obligation.' 3. A further Policy Ci...
R.S. Gupta Vs. R.C. Bhagat and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT494
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. Petitioner is a tenant in the first floor of the property in suit. By an agreement dated 1st April, 1993, the premises was let to the petitioner by respondent No. 2, wife of respondent No. 1. The premises was let for purposes of residence on a rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Initially, the period for which the premises was let was 24 months, however, the same could be extended by mutual consent of the parties. In July, 2000 the respondents filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the premises was required bona fide by the respondents for themselves and for the members of their family dependant upon them. While the premises was let by respondent No. 2 it was submitted in the petition that respondent No. 1 was the owner of the property and respondent No. 2 had been added as a party to the petition as the premises was let by her. It was alleged in the petition that the respondents were in possession of two bedrooms and a drawing room on the...
Deputy Cit Vs. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd..
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Del)165
ORDERS.K. Yadav, J.M.This appeal is preferred on behalf of the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92 on a solitary ground that he has erred in interpreting the provisions of section 115J, sub-section (2) of the Income Tax Act and directing the assessing officer to allow the carry forward of losses to be set off in subsequent years as claimed by the assessed- company.2. The facts in nutshell borne out from the record are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessed has claimed that an amount of Rs. 46,58,692, Rs. 1,04,19,537 and Rs. 97,82,170 for assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 respectively be allowed to be carried forward. These are the amounts which were determined as income under section 115J for the respective years. The claim of the assessed before the assessing officer was that the benefit of that amount which was paid under section 115J in earlier years should be allowed in carry forward o...
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT477TriDel
1. Arguing the case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1,75,32,250/- in one case and Rs. 67,70,933/- in the other case and penalty of an equal amount Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Id. Counsel submits that the applicants manufactured various types of motor vehicles and paid duty on ad valorem basis. Sometimes in March, 1998, the applicants decided to offer additional amount to the dealers as special rebate of Rs. 1,000/- to 2,000/- per vehicle on different models which was allowed by the applicants. This amount was allowed from the sales price of the vehicle. This amount was credited to the dealer's account. The applicants decided to accept this amount as deposit from the dealers and credited the same to the dealer's reserve fund on which interest at a rate of 10% was to be paid and the amount was to be refunded when the agreement with the applicants came to an end. He submits that this amount has been claimed as a discount which has been denied by the authorities below and p...
Sunder Singh and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC18
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-Original dated 24.8.2001 vide which the Commissioner had confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty as detailed in the order itself against the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of compressors, its accessories and other items such as refrigeration equipment, ice cans, condensers etc. They were liable to pay duty only on the compressors, condensers and cooling coils in view of the Notification No. 80/62-CE dated 24.4.1962 exempting the parts of the refrigeration and air-conditioning machinery and appliances from duty They were, however, issued show cause notice dated 16.4.1986 for indulging in the under-valuation of the compressors and diverting its price towards the price of the accessories with the intention to evade payment of duty.Since the dispute related to the correct determination of the value of the compressors, a Cost Accountant was appointed with the consent of the appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »