Delhi Court November 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.
Friends Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN94(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.This is an appeal by the assessed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), challenging the order, dated 17-8-2001, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in IT(SS)A No. 49/Delhi/96, pertaining to the block period ending 17-11-1995. According to the appellant, the impugned order involves the following substantial questions of law:'1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT is correct in assessing amount of Rs. 14,88,784 under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without invoking provisions of section 158BD of Income Tax Act, 1961 because 'Annexure A- 11 ' was not found in search at the premises of the petitioner and the petitioner has disowned this paper from the very beginning 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case assessment order is invalid it being under section 158BC instead of 158BD which is separate and independent charging section 3. Whether on the ...
Marvel Vinyls Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC223
1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority dismissing the refund claim of the appellants as time barred.2. The learned Counsel has contended that since the deposit was made during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, it should be taken as pre-deposit of the amount and as such, after the decision of the Tribunal in their favour, the appellants were not required to move an application for the refund of the amount within the specified period of limitation. He has also stated that while debiting the duty amount, the appellants had mentioned in their record that they would claim the refund as and when the appeal is decided in their favour by the Tribunal. The Counsel has placed reliance on the ratio of law laid down in Wazir Steel Industries v. CCE, 1997 (95) ELT 45 wherein it has been observed that where payment of duty had been dep...
Ashok Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC595
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Ashok Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. is whether duty of excise is payable by them on the duty paid machines received back and cleared after repair.2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants cleared one machine namely AMC CNC Turret Punch Press Model Proteus under Invoice No. 289 dated 7.3.95 to M/s. Asiatic Electronics Industries; that since the said machine was not able to perform the desired function as per their requirement, the customer returned the machines to the Appellants on 27.11.95; that on receipt of the machines they had filed a declaration in the form D3 with the Central Excise Department; that after seeking ex tension of time for retaining the said machines in their factory, they cleared the same to another customer with certain modification without payment of duty under Rule 173 H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the present demand of duty has been made against the clearance of the said m...
Gaurav Exim (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT752TriDel
1. These are 11 applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Customs duty and penalty.2. Shri M. Chandrashekhar, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the demand of duty has been confirmed and penalties have been imposed on the ground that prime quality tin and nickel were imported, concealed in the consignment of Aluminium scrap, from abroad and the quantity was also mis-declared; that the main contention of the importer and others is that mistake was committed at the end of foreign supplier. He, further, submitted that the Commissioner under the impugned Order ordered confiscation of metal and scrap contained in 40 containers valued at Rs. 9.23 crores; that further, the Commissioner has ordered confiscation of metals valued at Rs. 5.5 crores (including the value of trucks) seized from godowns; that the Commissioner has allowed redemption of the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 4 crores and Rs. 2.5 crores respectively; that the total duty involved is Rs. 2,32,74,...
Special Tools P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC150
1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 23.5.2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-Original of the adjudicating authority. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants claimed modvat credit of the disputed amount in respect of the defective goods which they cleared from their factory after removing the defects to the customers, who had earlier sent them as defective goods. They were served with the show cause notice for the recovery of the amount which they had illegally claimed as modvat credit, but they in reply had stated that the processes carried out by them on the defective goods was the same which they adopted earlier at the time of manufacture of the goods. The adjudicating authority did not accept their version and denied the modvat credit. That order was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). But the appellants challenged its correctness before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its Final Order dated 3...
G.K.N. Drive Shafts Inds. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT279TriDel
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of automobile parts. These parts are sold to Maruti Udyog Ltd. At the time of clearance of the parts the appellants discharges central excise duty. The present case relates to claim for refund of duty on the ground that prices were reduced retrospectively by their buyer, Maruti Udyog Ltd. It is submitted that price and duty have been paid by Maruti Udyog Ltd. only on the basis of the reduced prices. That refund application was rejected by the Central Excise authorities on the ground that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that duty paid by the appellant had not been passed on. Para six of the impugned order takes as under :- "6. I have carefully considered the matter. The refund claim arose because of retrospective reduction of prices by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., buyer of the goods supplied by the appellant with regard to duty paid on the differential value. The period covered is of 1998-99 when no price list was submitted. The appellant has arg...
Naresh Kumar Beri Vs. Bharat Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: 108(2003)DLT758
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT.2. Since the point involved in this case was short, the matter has been heard with the consent of the parties and disposed of by this order.3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,250/- with interest @ 9% p.a. in favor of the appellant as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No. 3. The appellant in this appeal claimed enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the disability suffered by the appellant and the mental pain, shock and agony which he had to suffer for almost two years when he was confined to bed and would continue to suffer throughout his life. A few facts relevant for deciding the appeal are :-In a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving ...
Chaudhary Transport and Co. Vs. the Motor General Finance Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR681(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT654; 2004(72)DRJ132; 2004(1)RAJ332
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT.2. As the matter is short and only a pure question of law is involved in the case, it has not been deemed necessary to call for the Trial Court file and with the consent of the parties, matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Additional District Judge whereby it is held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply for condoning the delay in filing application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award. Since there was delay in filing the objections and after holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply the objections were dismissed being barred by time. To hold that Section 5 of Limitation Act does not apply to condone delay in filing the application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the learned Additional District Judge has relied upon judgment of this Court in N.K. Construction Company Ltd. Versus DDA 2...
Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)199; [2004]266ITR559(Delhi)
ORDER1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge order dt. 24/25th July, 2003, passed by the CIT, Delhi XIII, New Delhi, whereby the securities furnished by the petitioner in terms of our order dt. 25th March, 2003 in CWP No. 7030/2002 have been rejected.2. Mr. Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the CIT was not justified in rejecting the same as the securities furnished in the form of immovable properties, belonging to the wife of the petitioner, were very sound. Learned counsel would submit that even if the stand of the CIT that the agricultural land was under acquisition was to be accepted, the petitioner was prepared to give an undertaking to this Court that in the event of M/s Bansal Commodities succeeding in their writ petition and the Department were to refund any amount to them, the compensation in respect of these lands may be received by the Department.3. Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand...
R.K. Malhotra and ors. Vs. the Friends Central Government Employees Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ122
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. Late J.L. Malhotra, brother of petitioner, R.K. Malhotra, was enrolled as a member of the Friends Central Government Employees Co-operative House Building Society, Surya Niketan, Delhi. His membership was terminated on account of consistent defaults, but on account of the order of this Court dated 3.2.1989 his membership was restored and his name was included in the waiting list of the society. By the order of this Court in a draw of lots held on 1.3.1989 he was allotted Plot No. 147 in the year 1989. It may be pertinent to mention that J.L. Malhotra died on 14.12.1988 even before the order of draw of lots had been passed, but this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court. Otherwise his name would not have been included. J.L. Malhotra had nominated his mother, Lalita Devi, as a nominee. She had applied for substitution before the society and the Court. Smt. Lalita Devi also expired on 27.7.1990 and her name was not substituted by the High Court. The petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »