Delhi Court December 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.
Embassy Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT314TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugned order-in-appeal dated 20-6-2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty as detailed therein on the appellants.2. The duty demand has been confirmed against the appellants after serving show cause notice on them for having removed 2,631 pairs of shoes involving duty of Rs. 2,58,496/- in a clandestine manner during the years 1997-98 and 1998-99.3. The learned Counsel has contended that there is no evidence on record to prove that removed pairs of shoes were finished goods and marketable; rather those were odd pairs in a semi-finished condition which were not marketable. He has also contended that the duty demand raised is time-barred as extended period could not be invoked against the appellants who had already informed of the material facts to the Department. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the ...
Tab India and ors. Vs. Indian Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC116
1. Heard Counsel. This is an application for transfer of records of O.A. 372/98 decided by the DRT, Delhi on 25.1.2001, but presently with DRT-II, Delhi to DRT-III, Delhi. According to the learned Counsel for the applicants, two applications, namely, M.A. 65/2002 and M. A.76/2002, have been filed for setting aside the ex parte final order, and the original records are necessary. She points out that now the jurisdiction over the subject-matter of these applications has been transferred from DRT-II, Delhi to DRT-III, Delhi, and hence this application for transfer of the records.2. This Tribunal has, by Circular dated 4.6.2003, given the following directions to the Debts Recovery Tribunals: "(i) Prepare Recovery Certificate in terms of the final order, unless there is any stay by a Court against such preparation; and (ii) Send records in disposed of cases to the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal if the jurisdiction with reference to the subject-matter of the O.A. has been subsequently ch...
Cpt. Satyvir Met. Asstt. Vs. Chief of Air Staff
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT246; 2004(74)DRJ426; 2004(3)SLJ24(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Mr. S.M. Dalal, amices Curiae is discharged from appearing appearing in this matter as Mr. Narender Kaushik, Advocate states that he is the Counsel engaged by the petitioner. Petitioner who is present in Court also states that he would like the matter to be argued by Mr. Narender Kaushik.2. Rule D.B.The petitioner has filed this writ petition inter alias praying to quash the charge sheet dated 16th July, 1996 and 31st December, 1996 and subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioner. This Court on 25th September, 2003 noted that the petitioner was enrolled in Air Force as Met. Assistant on 26th March, 1984 and thereafter he was placed in low medical category. On 16th July, 1996, he was alleged to have reported late on duty for which he was charged. He filed his redress of grievances which was rejected. However, it was contended by the petitioner that he was given excuse duty on this day. In support of his submission, he has filed Annexure VII (at page 30) whic...
Nb. Sub. (Mt) Umesh Kumar Tyagi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)396; 108(2003)DLT727; 2004(72)DRJ417; 2004(2)SLJ360(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule D.B.This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for a writ of mandamus for giving a direction to the respondents to write fresh ACR for the year 1996 and to get the petitioner assessed by a Promotion Board for promotion to the post of Naib Subedar after taking into consideration his fresh ACR for the year 1996 and for further direction that in case petitioner is found fit for promotion, he shall be given seniority and shall be promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar w.e.f. the date when batch mates of the petitioner/were promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar.2. In short the controversy which has emerged in the writ petition is on account of the ACR for the year 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was given an ACR 'high average' in 1996 by an officer with whom the petitioner has worked for 39 days only. This fact has been admitted by the respondent in their comments on non-statutory complaint of the petitioner whi...
Marina World Shipping Corporation Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports (P) Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)2CompLJ50(Del); [2004]54SCL312(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present winding up petition is filed by the petitioner against the respondent company contending, inter alia, that the respondent is indebted to the petitioner in view of the foreign award passed in the arbitration proceeding between the parties, and that the respondent has failed and neglected to pay the said debt in spite of service of the statutory demand notice on it. Before filing the present petition, a statutory demand notice, as provided for under Section 434 of the Companies Act, was issued by the petitioner to the respondent. In the said notice issued by the respondent on 29 September, 2001, the petitioner called upon the respondent to make payment of the dues under the foreign award, dated 26 September, 2000. It was stated in the said notice that in accordance with the terms of the charter-party agreement, dated November, 1994, between the petitioner and the respondent an amount of US $ 47,506.42 fell due as demurrage which was claimed and, since ...
Jangra Engineering Works, Lalit Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC45
1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common Order-in-Original vide which the adjudicating authority had confirmed the duty of Rs. 20,67,735 with equal amount of penalty and interest thereon against the firm appellant No. 1 and further imposed penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 on firm appellant No. 2 and also of this much amount on Bishan Sharma the appellant No. 3, partner of the firm Appellant No. 1 and Lalit Sharma, partner of the firm Appellant No. 2, as detailed therein.2. The duty has been confirmed on the firm appellant No. 1 M/s. Jangra Engineering Works (in short JEW) for having manufactured and cleared the excisable goods (fire extinguishers) during the period 1.4.96 to 5.5.98 under the invoices of the firm appellant No. 2 M/s. Lalit Engineering Works (in short LEW) at their premises No. 4/1, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, without payment of duty on those goods and availed he benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93 illegally. The penalty of the amount equal...
Cce Vs. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC193
This is an application by the Revenue for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order No. 432/03-NB(B) dated 12.6.2003 in the matter of Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. One of the mistakes, apparent from the record as submitted by Sh. V. Valte, learned S.D.R., is that the total amount of MODVAT Credit disallowed to the assessee company, was Rs. 3,31,325 and no order has been passed in respect of balance amount of MODVAT Credit. We also heard Sh. Devinder Sharma, Head (Indirect Taxation), who submitted that they are not disputing the disallowance of entire amount of MODVAT Credit. We, therefore, allow the ROM application on this count and order that in para 2.2 of the Final Order No. 432/2003-NB(B) dated 12.6.2003 in place of figure Rs. 3,31,325, figure of Rs. 4,06,139 is to be read. It has also been mentioned in the application that the Tribunal had not taken into consideration the penalty imposed on M/s. Vam Organic Chemical Ltd. for wrong availment of MODVAT Credit. We observe that...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Siddhartha Tubes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC235
1. The Revenue has filed this Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.351/2003 dated 31.3.03 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand of duty and penalty imposed on M/s. Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. 2. Shri P.M. Rao, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that when the Central Excise Officer verified the finished products manufactured by the respondents on 4/5.12.98, they found shortage on 12492 pipes of various sizes weighing on 247.442 MT valued at Rs. 40,97,316; that the Additional Commissioner under Order-in-Original No.137/2001 dated 13.2.01 confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 6,14,597 and imposed a penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act besides imposing another penalty of Rs. one lakh under Rule 173 Q read with Rule 92 of the Central Excise Rules, that however, on Appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the Appeal observing that the physical verification was conducted on the basis of weighing the standard pipes and not car...
Om Petro Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cc (icd)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT220TriDel
1. The appellants imported two consignments of what was declared as 'Furnace Oil' and sought clearance thereof under Bills of Entry No.214699 dated 9.9.99 and No. 215058 dated 17.9.99 at ICD. Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The goods were put to first check, pursuant to which samples were tested at the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi to ascertain if the goods were hazardous or not in terms of CBEC's Circular No. 60/97 dated 12.11.97 issued as per the guidelines given by the nodal ministry (Ministry of Environment & Forests). The chemical tests indicated the presence of chlorinated solvents and polychlorinated biphenyl, triphenyl etc. which chemicals were in the list of hazardous chemicals vide Board's Circular No. 60/97 ibid. At the instance of the importer, a retest was conducted by the CRCL. As the retest result showed wide variation, CRCL was requested to clarify.They clarified that, according to technical literature, Furnace Oil was not to have high chlorine conte...
income Tax Officer Vs. Honey Enterprises
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)89ITD301(Delhi)
1. Various grounds have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal.However, the main issue arises from ground Nos. 1 and 2 which read as under: "1. In the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that action under Section 147/148 by the AO was unjustified. 2. In the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting additions of Rs. 15,66,161 made on account of unamortized cost of pictures brought forward from earlier years under Rule 9B and in allowing carry forward of Rs. 16,57,100 under Rule 9B." 2. The brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid issue are these : The assessee was engaged in the business of distribution of feature films.The return for asst. yr. 1993-94 was filed by the assessee on 16th Dec., 1993 declaring income of Rs. 755 which was accompanied by statement of accounts along with the audit report. The said return was processed, under Section 143(1) on 30th March, .1994. Subsequently, on...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »