Delhi Court October 2003 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.
S.T.L. Exports Ltd. Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT179TriDel
1. M/s . S.L.T. Exports Ltd. have filed this appeal against the order-in-original No. 6-8/03 dated 30.1.03, by which the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of customs duty and imposed penalty.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants are a 100 per cent Export Oriented Unit and are engaged in the galvanising of black M.S. pipers; that they were getting M.S. pipes/zinc without payment of duty under Notification No. 1/95-CE dated 4.1.95 and were also importing zinc without payment of customs duty under Notification 53/97-Cus dated 3.6.97; that a Trade Notice No. 23/94 dated 17.4.94 was issued by the Indore Commissionerate, wherein it was mentioned that galvanisation of M.S. pipes does not amount to manufacture within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, that they had cleared galvanised pipes in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) without payment of Central Excise duty as galvanisation does not amount to manufacture; that two show cause notices dated 24...
Jagdish Glass Works Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC78
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of glass and glassware. The final product of the appellants such as lamp shades and glass tumblers were liable to excise duty whereas the chimneys and laboratory-ware were exempted from payment of duty. On 26.11.1992, officers of the excise department visited the factory of the appellants and seized the private record from the possession of one Shri Sunil Agarwal, partner of the appellant firm.The scrutiny of the private record shows that the appellants had cleared various items of glass and glassware, which were liable to central excise duty to different customers. But, in the statutory record, neither there was any entry for such removals or these goods were removed under guise of exempted goods. After issuance of show cause notice, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed a p...
Dow Chemical Co. Vs. Designated Authority, Ministry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC243
1. Notification No. 120/2002-Customs dated 31.10.2002 imposing anti dumping duty on import of Flexible Slabstock polyol of moleuclar weight 3000 to 4000 originating in or exported from U.S.A. Japan, Singapore and European Union and the final finding of the Designated Authority under Notification dated 19th September, 2002 which led to the imposition of anti dumping duty are under challenge in this appeal at the instance of Dow Chemical Co. Ltd. USA, an exporter.2. Under Notification dated 31.10.2002 anti dumping duty at the rate of 1597.49 US$ PMT has been imposed on the imports of the goods mentioned above from the appellant. Even though several contentions are taken in the Memo. of Appeal challenging the notification as well as the final finding, at the time of hearing Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is pressing only one contention, namely, failure on the part of the Designated Authority to make verification at its unit at USA.3. Appellant would conten...
Cce Vs. Dwarikadhish Spinners Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT134TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the benefit of the Notification No. 1/95-CE dated 4.1.1995 to the respondents in respect of the goods in question (detailed in the show cause notice) used for the manufacture of false ceiling erected to reduce the space volume to effectively control the conditions for humidity and temperature for producing good quality of cotton yarn.2. I have heard both sides. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the adjudicating authority recorded specific finding that the goods in question had been utilized by the respondents to put up false ceiling in order to reduce the space volume to effectively control the conditions for humidity and temperature for producing the goods quality of cotton yarn. This finding had been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the face of this findings it is difficult to observe that the goods were not brought in the factory in connection with t...
Mandovi Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC286
1. As the issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Mandovi Metals Pvt. Ltd., is in very narrow compass we stay the recovery of the duty and penalty and take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture M.S. Ingots which were chargeable to Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that they had entered into a contract with the Government of Goa for uninterrupted power supply; that however, the State Government informed that the use of power would be restricted from 1st to 10th of every month; that on approaching the High Court the State Government was directed to restore the supply power as per the contract; that, however, the normal power supply was never restored and the same remained erratic; that consequently they were compelled to stop production and could manufacture Ingots only whenever there was power available; that they applied for abatement of d...
Smt. Meena W/O Late Shri Jagdish Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Its ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)340; 108(2003)DLT116; 2004(2)SLJ347(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the change of policy of wait listing on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner, who was an employee of the respondent died on 24.4.1996. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 16.8.1996. The petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was entertained by the respondent and same was approved on 31.10.1996. At page 32 of the paper-book is the Office Memorandum of the respondent. The same is reproduced below :'Office of Chief Engineer (New Delhi Region)-2Central Public Works DepartmentNo. 25/21/96-Construction-1(A) Dated : 31.10.1996OFFICE MEMORANDUMSub :- Appointment of Smt. Meena on CompassionateGrounds.---------Ref:- In exercise of powers of Head of Department as per Ministry of Urban Development Memorandum No. 170(1)/79-EW.01 dated 5.6.79 declaring the Chief Engineer as Head of Department of his Region and in exercise ...
Black Diamond Glassware P. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Lata Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)318; AIR2004Delhi88; 108(2003)DLT129
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order of he Civil Judge, Delhi, in Suit No. 596/1995 dated 25th January, 1997, dismissing the application of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 12th September, 1996 by which the defense of the petitioner was struck off.2. In order dated 29th July, 2002, it was recorded that the petitioner had made an offer to pay 50 times the cost of Rs. 200/- imposed, that remained unpaid. The matter was then listed on 27th May, 2003, when no one was present. Thereafter the matter was again listed on 25th July, 2003, when nobody appeared for the respondents - Kusumlata Gupta and ORs. The matter was again listed for 22nd September, 2003, when again no one appeared for the respondent. It was adjourned to 24th September, 2003. Thereafter the matter has been on board for regular hearing, but nobody has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondents. 3. Facts of the case leading to this petition are that vide order dated 12th...
Shri B.S. Tomar Vs. Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewells Corpo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)333; 108(2003)DLT127
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule.2. This writ petition, inter alia, challenges the order of the respondent whereby the respondent has imposed a penalty of deduction of Rs. 11, 000/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner retired on 31.1.1999 and received a charge-sheet in September, 1999 for an act purported to have been committed in the year 1986 i.e. 13 years prior to his retirement. Following was the charge :'1. That a ban on recruitment of work charge staff was imposed by the Corporation vide letter No. 1978-2050/Est.91/Admn.5 dated 23.1.1985. It was specifically mentioned therein that any officer violating these instructions will be personally held responsible for making payment of salary and allowances to the employees thus recruited. A copy of these instructions was again sent to all the Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers of HSMITC with this office letter No. 29937-30017/Admn.V dated 29.09.1987 for compliance of the ...
Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. Vs. Additional Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)173
ORDERK.C. Singhal, J.M.The issue arising out of this appeal relates to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the CIT under section 263 pertaining to assessment year 1998-99.2. The brief facts of the case are these : The assessed had claimed deduction under section 80-IA at Rs. 2,47,87,500. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was seen that the credit side of the P&L; a/c included the interest income of Rs. 3,01,04,374 from customers on delayed payments, Rs. 4,76,739 on account of interest on margin money deposits and Rs. 5,58,568 on account of interest on deposits with Maharashtra State Electricity Board and interest on other deposits amounting to Rs. 75,29,794 totalling Rs. 3,86,69,475. The assessed was asked to explain as to how it was entitled to deduction under section 80-IA in respect of the aforesaid interest income. After considering the submissions of assessed in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Govincla Choudhary & Sons : [1993]203ITR8...
Gavs Laboratories (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)307
ORDERR.K. GUPTA, J.M.:This is an appeal by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to upholding the penalty under section 271B relating to assessment year 1996-97. During the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noticed that the assessed has not filed complete audit report though the accounts of the assessed were audited in time. Some of the annexures to be enclosed with the audit report were not enclosed while filing the audit report along with the return of income filed on 29-11-1996. The notice under section 271B was issued to the assessed and in reply it was stated that the accounts were audited in time and the report was also filed along with the return under section 139(l). However, assessing officer was not satisfied with the reply because some of the annexures were not enclosed with the audit report. thereforee, he treated the audit report as incomplete and levied a penalty of Rs. 95,918.2. assessed preferred an appeal before the Commission...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »