Delhi Court July 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.
Rnc Freight Movers and ors. Vs. Cc, (icd)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(105)LC688Tri(Delhi)
1. In these six Appeals, arising out of two impugned Orders, both passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the facts involved are inter-related and as such all the appeals are being disposed of by one single Order.2.1. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Bajaj Machine Tools filed four shipping bills all dated 21.10.1995 under claim of Drawback for export of High Speed Steel (HSS) TOOLS. On the basis of specific information that Bajaj Machine Tools were claiming drawback by exporting 'cheap cast iron drills' by misdeclaring the same as 'HSS tools', the DRI Officers detained one container at Mumbai Port which was found on examination to contain metal drills. The second container which had already been shipped to Dubai on 2.1.1995, was received back from Dubai at Mumbai on 26.11.1995 and was found to contain metal drill. M/s. Geo Chem Lab, after analysis of the samples, opined that the samples were of cast iron. The Officers searched the business premises of M/s. Chatrath International,...
Sh. Dharamvir Singh Vs. Sh. Brahmjeet and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ799; 99(2002)DLT337; 2002(64)DRJ196
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The appellant had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of injuries allegedly suffered by him on 14.11.1989 in a road accident. His claim petition was dismissed by the learned MACT for want of proper prosecution vide orders dated 27.7.1998 in as much as the appellant had failed to produce evidence in support of his claim inspire of repeated opportunities given to him. The application for review of the orders was also dismissed vide orders dated 16.12.1999. The appellant challenges the orders dated 27.7.1998 by which his evidence was closed and the petition was dismissed as well as orders dated 16.12.1999 by which his review application was rejected.2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. I have gone through the Trial Court Records.3. A perusal of the Trial Court record shows that the appellant-petitioner had filed his claim petition on 1...
Smt. Bimla and ors. Vs. Sh. Sukhvinder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT427; 2002(64)DRJ198
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. The appeal is directed against an order dated 23.11.2000 passed by learned MACT by which the appellant's application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC was dismissed and the prayer for restoration of the petition which was dismissed in default on 02.12.1993 was declined. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellants petitioners being the legal heirs of deceased Ajmer Singh had filed a petition under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation on account of death of deceased Ajmer Singh IN a road Accident on 29.12.1982. . The petition was filed in the year 1983. The appellants-petitioners led their evidence and the petition was listed before MACT for respondent's evidence and final arguments on 2.12.1993 on which date it was dismissed in default as none appeared on behalf of the appellants. On 29.4.1994 the appellants moved an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC p...
Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Co. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Del)440
Judgment D.K. Jain, J.At the instance of the assessed, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi, Bench 'B' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question, arising out of ITA No. 1988 (Del) of 1975-76, pertaining to the assessment year 1966-67, for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Income Tax Officer's order under section 154, dated 31-1-1974, raising an additional demand of Rs. 1,82,571 was valid in law ?'2. Briefly stated, the material facts are :During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1966-67, besides other income, the assessed derived income from dividends and royalty also. In the original assessment for the relevant assessment year, completed on 29-8-1970, the effective rate at which tax was levied on income from dividends and royalty was calculated as...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sujjan Singh Chadha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR121(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi) has referred the following question, arising out of I. T. A. No. 2150 (Delhi) of 1974-75, pertaining to the assessment year 1967-68, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the cash credits of Rs. 19,692 in the account of Smt. Amrit Kaur in the books of the assessed for this year stood satisfactorily explained by the assessed in view of the disclosure made by Amrit Kaur under Section 24(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965 ?'2. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed. We have, accordingly, heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned standing counsel for the Revenue.3. Briefly stated, the background facts are :The assessed, an individual, carries on business in sugar mill machinery parts. The relevant previous year ended on June 30, 1966. During the course of assessment proceedings for the relevant asses...
Cit Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN20(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), arising out of IT Appeal No. 2660 (Delhi) of 1975-76, pertaining to the assessment year 1973-74, for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 8,403 claimed by the assessed as messing expenses on its constituents was not entertainment expenditure within the meaning of section 37(2B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in allowing a deduction for the same as business expenditure for the assessment year 1973-74'.2. The assessed remained un-represented.3. Since answer to the question referred is concluded by the decision of this court in CIT v. Rajasthan Mercantile Co. Ltd. : [1995]211ITR400(Delhi) , affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Patel Br...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Shree Jai Jagdambe Plastic Indus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC823
1. Revenue have filed these appeals being aggrieve d by the impugned orders passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). As the issue in both the appeals is the same they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had held, "I find that the adjudicating authority has himself held in the impugned order that P.U. Foam Block covered in cotton cloth which has been shaped in a way that these pieces, which are held together by a special cover can be adjusted to assume such shapes as can be used both as a sofa or as bed depending on requirement or convenience. It is clear from the above that item manufactured, is to be used in sofa-cum-bed and not exclusively as cushion or mattress and therefore, merits classification under 9401.00 as claimed by the respondent. This being so the classification of the item merely on the ground that it can also be used otherwise can not be the basis for classification under chap...
Khemka Adhesive Tapes (P) Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT163TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture BOPP Self Adhesive Tape falling Chapter Heading No. 3919.00. On 5-11-94, a fire broke out in the godown in their factory at Faridabad resulting in the loss of 245C/Box of BOPP Self Adhesive Tape, K-2 Quality which were stored in the godown. They wrote a letter dated 7-11-94 to the Assistant Commissioner in which they informed him about the fire accident and also stated that the finished goods valued Rs. 4,70,282/- were destroyed. In another letter dated 1-7-95 addressed to the Commissioner, they informed that the destroyed goods involved duty of Rs. 94,056.40. They requested that the amount of duty involved in respect of the destroyed finished goods may be remitted under the proviso (1) to Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Along with their letter, they also enclosed the copies of necessary documents relating to the fire accident, intimations sent to the Central Excise Authorities and the claims made with the other agencies.2. The Commissioner of Cent...
Commr. of Cus. (Acu) Vs. Hotline Wittis Electronics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT305TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs. In the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs held that the respondents made import of parts of Tuners for use in the manufacture of T.V. Tuners hence, they are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 25/99-Cus., dated 28-2-99.3. The contention of the Revenue is that respondents made import of all the components of T.V. Tuners, except Integrated Circuit and Jumper Wire. The respondents declared all items, the individual components, under the respective headings and claimed the benefit of notification.The contention of the Revenue is that in view of Rule 2(a) of Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, the goods imported are to be treated as T.V. Tuners as all the goods taken together attain essential characteristics of a Tuner.4. The contention of the respondents is that they had imported certain parts, and main parts such as, Integrated Circuit is no...
Swastik Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Saurashtra and anr.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC45
The appellant had approached DRT-I, Delhi with a prayer for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151, CPC for incorporating certain facts which the appellant has specifically mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his application for amendment. Paragraph 6 of the amendment relates to a legal plea as to whether the alleged debt is one covered by the provisions of the Act in question. Paragraph 5 relates to certain allegations as to how the cheque came to be issued. Learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, after hearing the contesting parties, merely held that a perusal of the records shows that similar application containing same facts was filed on 12.4.1999 and the same was dismissed and, therefore, the present application was not maintainable and, accordingly, dismissed the same.But, as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for the appellant and conceded by learned Counsel for the respondent Bank also, the earlier application for amendment was vague and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »