Delhi Court August 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.
Dolsun Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT624TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common order-in-original dated 19-7-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 20,25,533/- with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC and of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 173Q on appellant No. 1 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on appellant No. 2.2. The appellant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Company') is engaged in the manufacture of EPS Mouldings and corrugated boxes containers falling under Chapter 39 and 48 respectively of the CETA which were exempt from duty during the disputed period. The appellant No. 2 was working as factory manager at that time. The duty demand has been raised against them on three counts - (i) an amount of Rs. 13,19,175/- has been demanded on account of manufacture of liquid gum by them in their factory and consumption of the same captively in the manufacture of corrugated boxes which were fully exempt from payment of duty; (ii)...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shital International
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT113TriDel
1. Revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) holding "that process carried out by the appellant does not amount to manufacture and this does not attract duty. Knitted Pile Fabric of man-made textile fabrics (Artificial Fur Lining) being manufactured by the appellant is thus correctly classifiable under heading 6001.12 as unprocessed. Impugned order is set aside." Since the issue was broadly covered by a number of decisions, pre-deposit of duty was dispensed and with the consent of both the parties, the appeal itself was heard.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of Knitted Fabric of man-made Textile material (Artificial Fur Lining) classifiable under Chapter Heading 6001.12.3. On scrutiny of the records, Central Excise Officers observed that the assessee had declared Knitted Pile Fabrics/Fur Fabrics under Chapter sub-heading 6001.12 as dutiable and had paid Central Exc...
Jay Pee Auto Plast Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC529
10 (iv) With regard to admissibility of Modvat on 'Proforma invoice' I find that supplier of inputs i.e. M/s. Escorts Yamaha Ltd. duty paying impugned documents which bore on their top as 'Invoice/Proforma/lnvoice/Stock/Transfer/Ad-vice/Branch/Transfer/Adv ice/ and they boldly ticked all the said documents as 'Proforma Invoices'. This ticking/marking clearly establishes that these documents are not 'Invoices' otherwise the consignee must had ticked on these documents as 'Invoices' because option to tick 'Invoices' was readily available inscripted on the documents. Besides, the mentioning of note on all these documents as - 'Note-material being supplied for our own job work No. as per P.O.' also establishes that the status of these documents was not that of an Invoice' which is issued for sale of the goods under Rule 52A. This note proves that there was no sale of the goods but transfer of Raw Material for undertaking some job work. This motive establishes the status the documents some...
Nepc India Ltd. Vs. Indian Airlines Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT14; [2003]44SCL212(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This petition has been filed for the winding up of Indian Airlines Limited on the complaint that a sum of Rs. 54,24,625.96 remains outstanding towards transportation of passengers and luggage of persons holding tickets/airway bills of the Respondent. The Claims are predicated on an Interline Airlines Agreement dated 13th May, 1995. The Petitioner had drawn Bills on the Respondent commencing from February 1996 till May 1997. On the Petitioner's request for the clearance of outstandings bearing no fruition, the Petitioner caused a legal notice dated July 21, 1997 to issue to the Respondent. In reply thereto it was stated on behalf of the respondent inter alia, that in respect of the Respondent's claims against the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 103.53 lacs was due from the former to the latter. This sum was reduced by the Respondent to Rs. 77.65 lacs, and since the Petitioner `was still raising disputes', the Respondent finally offered to settle their claims at Rs. 55 lacs...
N.D.S.E. Housing Society Residents' Welfare Association Vs. Delhi Deve ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi46
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Whether any area which is being used as a park can be allowed to be used for marriage purpose, is the question involved in this petition. 2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The said society has been formed for the welfare of the residents of the New Delhi South Extension Part I housing society.3. The contention of the petitioners is that the land measuring 0.72 acres was earmarked for the purpose of green open land and reserved for district part layout and thus the user thereof could not have been changed. According to the petitioner, in complete violation of the building bye-laws, certain commercial activities are going on in the area. According to the petitioner, despite various protests, the concerned authorities are allowing the said park for use for parties/functions where loudspeakers are also played. It has been contended that even the said area is given for marriage purposes to the persons who are not residents of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kishan Lal (Huf)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR359(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (for short, 'the Tribunal'), dated August 23, 2001, deleting the interest charged under sections 234A and 234B of the Act.2. We find that while granting relief to the assessed, the Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. : [2001]247ITR209(SC) , wherein two decisions of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT : [1996]217ITR72(Patna) and Uday Mistanna Bhandar and Complex v. CIT : [1996]222ITR44(Patna) have been affirmed.3. In Uday Mistanna Bhandar and Complex : [1996]222ITR44(Patna) , while analysing the provisions of sections 234A, 234B and 234C vis-a-vis section 156 of the Act, it was held that notice of demand claiming interest can be issued only when there is an order in the assessment order for levying interest. This view has been upheld by the a...
Gold Tax Furnishing Industry Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)670
ORDER1. Admit.2. The following substantial questions of law are framed for adjudication :'1. Whether the income declared by the assessed of Rs. 65,50,000 could validly be assessed as 'income from other sources' instead of 'income from business' as declared by the assessed ?2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the disallowance of the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act in respect of the income of Rs. 65,50,000 declared under Section 132(4) of the IT Act at the time of search on 18th Feb., 1993?'3. Insofar as, proposed question No. 1 is concerned, in view of our order passed today in ITA No. 80/2002, dismissing Revenue's appeal against the deletion of interest charged under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act answer to the proposed question is of academic interest only and, thereforee, the proposed question cannot be said to be a substantial question of law.4. The appellant shall file within three months ten copies of the cyclostyled paper books, contain...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gold Tex Furnishing Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: [2005]276ITR164(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (for short 'the Tribunal'), dated August 23, 2001, deleting the interest charged under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act.2. We find that while granting relief to the assessed, the Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. : [2001]247ITR209(SC) , wherein two decisions of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT : [1996]217ITR72(Patna) and Uday Mistanna Bhander and Complex v. CIT : [1996]222ITR44(Patna) have been affirmed.3. In Uday Mistanna Bhander and Complex : [1996]222ITR44(Patna) , while analysing the provisions of Sections 234A, 234B and 234C vis-a-vis Section 156 of the Act, it was held that notice of demand claiming interest can be issued only when there is order in the assessment order levying interest. This view has been upheld by the apex cour...
Sidwal Refrigeration Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC142
1. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi dated 12-12-2001. The issue raised is whether Electric Control Panels (ECP) manufactured by the assessee and supplied to the railways have to be treated along with Roof Mounted Package Unit (RMPU) as one item falling under Chapter Heading 8415 as air- conditioning machines. The appellant has also raised a contention on the ground of limitation.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of air conditioners and parts thereof falling under Heading 8415 and Electric Control Panels falling under Heading 8537 of CETA 1985. The appellants manufacture and supply RMP Unit of air-conditioners to Indian Railways on the basis of the specification given by Railway Designs and Standardisation Organisation (RDSO). ECPs are also manufactured on the basis of the specifications provided by RDSO. Appellants were paying duty on RMPU under Heading 8415 as air-condition...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vikram Cement
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT200TriDel
1. These are appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting the benefit of Modvat credit to the respondents on Dust Collecting Bags for the period March-June, 1996 and on Conveyor Belts for periods prior to 16-3-1995.2. Ld. JDR represents the appellant/Revenue. There is no representation for the respondents in spite of notice.4. In the impugned order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit of Modvat credit to the respondents in respect of Conveyor Belts and Dust Collection Bags under Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal, cited hereunder :-Century Cements Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur [1997 (95) E.L.T. 655 (Tribunal)]A.C.C. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, 5. On a perusal of the grounds raised by the appellant, I find that there is no challenge to the reliance placed by the lower appellate authority on the aforecited case law. The appellant has not disputed that the T...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »