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.
Gopal Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Del)259; [2003]263ITR306(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Counsel for the respondent has taken me through the order passed by the CIT at p. 43 of the paper book as also the assessment order Annexure 'C'. From a perusal of these orders it would appear that the ground taken by the assessed of the delay in filing of returns being attributable to the CBI having seized account books, does not appear to be tenable and convincing ground, so as to justify waiver of the penalty and interest. It is noted in the assessment order that the assessed was not found to be maintaining books of accounts. It was discovered in the survey carried out that the assessed was not maintaining books of account. Rather the delay in filing is stated to be on account of making the accounts at its own convenience. As regards the seizure of books of account by the CBI, it is urged that if the assessed was earnest, he could have obtained inspection of the seized books and records and taken details and filed returns. Moreover, in view of the limited scope...
Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC345
1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Indian Airlines Ltd., is whether the exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 19/94-Cus. dated 1.3.94 provided to Kerosene is available to Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) imported by them.2. Shri Manoj Arora, learned Advocate, submitted that the Revenue has demanded Customs duty on ATF which had remained in the fuel tank of the air craft on arrival at Calicut from foreign destinations; that under Notification No. 19/94-Cus, Customs duty is exempted in respect of Kerosene falling under Heading 27.10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act; that according to Explanation I to the Notification Kerosene means any hydrocarbon oil (excluding mineral colza oil and white spirit) which has a smoke point of eighteen millimetres or more and is ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps."; that ATF is nothing but superior Kerosene which satisfies the definition of the Kerosene given in Explanation I to the Notification...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Punjab Fibres Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT85TriDel
1. The issue raised in this appeal is the availment of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 5/98, dated 2-6-98 and 5/99, dated 28-2-99. These exemptions were subject to the condition that the yarn utilized in the manufacture of cabled yarn is duty paid. The ld. DR submits that in the present case cabled yarn is produced from lycra yarn as well as textile yarn. While lycra is duty paid, textile yarn manufactured in the appellant's own factory and captively consumed is without payment of duty. He, therefore, submits that the appellant was not eligible for the exemption. The ld. DR also points out that to avail of the exemption, the assessee should fulfil all the conditions required before claiming the same. He relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Remedies (India) Pharmaceuticals v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi [1998 (101) E.L.T. 344 (T)] in support of this contention.2. As against this, the ld. Counsel for the appellants points out that the issue i...
Onward Novell (India) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Airport)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT709TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Onward Novell Software (India) Ltd. the issue involved is whether the Manuals imported by them are to be assessed along with Softwares imported by them.2. Shri Sandeep Sehgal, Regional Sales Manager of the Appellants, submitted that the Appellants are a joint venture company with the object to make available the latest Novell Software products to the organizations in India; that they have been duplicating Novell products in India under the licence from Novell Inc.; that, however, some of the products are being imported by them from Novell, U.S.A.; that software was being duplicated in India and the manuals of these duplicated software are being imported as they could not get the quality printing of the manuals in India. He, further, submitted that the software products cleared and the manuals under each Bill of Entry have nothing in common since the manuals imported were of a different product and software product that were imported had nothing to do wi...
Shri Balaji Lining Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT460TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order-in-appeal, dated 26-2-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the learned SDR on the stay application as well as the appeal filed by the appellants. The learned Advocate for the appellants states that his client is a small-scale unit which coated fabrics with LDPE on job work basis. He was under the impression that his goods are not excisable as the same were not marketable. He cited the decision in the case of CCE, Baroda v. United Phosphorus Ltd. reported in [2000 (117) E.L.T. 529] in support of his argument. He also states that since he was under the bona fide belief that the goods are not exisable, extended time limit for demand of duty does not apply in his case, in view of the decision in Bihar Foundry & Engg. Works v. CCE, Patna reported in [1999 (107) E.L.T. 779 (T) = 1998 (29) RLT 470 He also pleads that his client is not in a position to pay the...
Himalya International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC637
1. The dispute in the present appeal is about the rate of duty applicable to goods which are cleared from EOU without obtaining the permission of the Development Commissioner. In the present case, the period of dispute is July, 1999 to November, 1999. Under the impugned order duty has been imposed at the rate mentioned in proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act.2. The duty demand is being contested before us relying on the decision of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kuntal Granites (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Belgaum [2001 (132) E.L.T. 214] and Circular No.618/9/2002-CX, dated 13-2-2002. During the hearing of the stay petition, Id. Counsel for the appellants pointed out that 'B' Bench of this Tribunal has also allowed Appeal No. E/E/739/2001-B [Treasure Tech. Electronics v. CCE Delhi - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 398 (T)] on the same issue.3. Both Tribunal's decision in the case of Kuntal Granites and circular of the Board are based on the decision of the Apex Court in the ca...
Kalyan Agro Indus. Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT725TriDel
1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Kalyan Agro Industries Ltd. is whether rebate of duty of excise is admissible to them in terms of proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act.2.1 Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture non-alloy steel ingots/billets chargeable to Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order has disallowed the abatement for the following periods holding that the intimations regarding closure were not received/were not given prior to the closure - 2.2 The learned Advocate, further, submitted that on 24-10-92, the furnace was closed at 1820 hours on receipt of closure notice from the Punjab State Electricity Board and intimation for closure was sent under their letter dated 24-10-97 on 25-10-97 under Postal Certificate; that the same has been delivered to the authorities on 25-11-97; that they cannot be held responsible for the...
Electra (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)84ITD103(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of CIT(A), Meerut dated 29-5-1997 pertaining to 1994-95 and 1995-96 assessment years.2. No one appears for and on behalf of the assessee-appellant but after perusing the material on record and having heard the learned DR, it was considered appropriate to dispose the present appeals ex parte qua the assessee-appellant on merits. 1. That the learned CIT (Appeals) and Assessing Officer erred in law and fact by making the adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) where the notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) has been issued. Hence the addition made under Section 143(1)(a) is illegal, uncalled for arbitrary where the notice under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) has been issued. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was no legal warrant to make addition of Rs. 4,29,267 more particularly when the assessment was made as a scrutiny assessment with the issue of notice under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). 3. T...
Kunal Ramchandani Vs. Ramchandani Enterprises and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ194
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. Defendant No. 2 has filed this application under Section 151 CPC alleging that in terms of the order dated 22nd January 2002 after making sustained efforts he has been able to find a franchisee, namely, M/s. De Ornate, a sole proprietary concern of Mrs. Neha Batra having office at C-45, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi who is willing to use Shop No. M-36B situated in Greater Kailash Part - I market under franchisee agreement (copy Annexure 'A'). It is prayed that defendant No. 2 may be appointed as Receiver of the said shop with an authority to enter into said franchisee agreement.2. Plaintiff who is the son of defendant No. 2, has not opposed the prayer as made in the application. However, defendant No. 3 has contested the application by filing a detailed reply.3. Present application has been filed in a suit filed by the plaintiff alleging that Smt. Sushila Ramchandani, his grand mother was the tenant in shop No. M-36B under Inder Nath Chawla on a monthly rental of Rs. 600/-. ...
In Re: Electronics Ltd. (In Liqn)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ402
Vikramajit Sen, J.C.A. 402/2001. 1. This application has been filed on behalf of fifty-two persons who are ex-workmen/ex-officers of the Company praying that they be imp leaded as party to the liquidation proceedings and be heard therein. The application, which has been filed on 5.3.2001, has been moved through Shri Rakesh Tiku, Advocate. From a perusal of the file it is evident that all these persons have already been heard. Application is accordingly allowed. Fifty-two persons whose names are contained in Annexure 'A' shall be deemed to be the parties to the present proceedings. Keeping in view the stage at which the present petition is, filing of fresh Memo of Parties etc. is dismissed.C.M. 450/2001. 2. M/s. Electronics India (In Liquidation) was ordered to be wound-up in terms of Order dated 20.5.1998 passed by Anil Dev Singh, J.3. CA 450/2001 was filed in March, 2001 under Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules praying for the maintenance of status quo in respect of several quarters in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »