Delhi Court February 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.
Assessing Officer Vs. Indian Metal Works
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)1144
ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.M.:This is an appeal by department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who deleted the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 made by assessing officer on account of undisclosed income.2. The brief facts of the case are that there was an information with the assessing officer that some material was brought from Jagadhary purchased from MMTC and the same was intercepted at the sales-tax check barrier Kundli and a penalty of Rs. 30,000 was levied. Statement of transporter was taken by the ADI and the same was passed on to the assessing officer who, while holding that the said material having a value of Rs. 1,20,000 and penalty to the extent of Rs. 30,000 levied by the Sales-tax authorities was an unexplained investment by the assessed, made addition of Rs. 1,50,000 on account of undisclosed income. assessed preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who after examining the issue in great details held that the material purchased from the MMTC was duly accounted for by the...
S. Kumar'S Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC516
1. The above appeal has come up for consideration before Larger Bench by way of reference made by Single Member in Misc. Order No. M/79/02/NB (SM), dt. 16-4-2002 [2002 (143) E.L.T. 641 (Tribunal)].2. Reference was necessitated since two co-ordinate Division Benches of this Tribunal have taken divergent views on the question whether post-clearance adjustment like issuance of credit notes or cheques by the assessee who is claiming refund, to buyer of the goods, taking back the burden of duty on the goods would help the assessee to get over the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.3. The appellants were job workers for M/s. Dhvani Terrifabs Export Pvt. Ltd. (for short M/s. DTE). They received raw material (grey fabrics of cotton) from M/s. DTE and after processing the same, supplied the processed fabrics (falling under Chapter 60 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985) to M/s. DTE. During the period 5-3-97 to 30-8-97, the appellant cleared ...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Nav Bharat Engg. Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT293TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal dated 28-6-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed trade discount as claimed by the respondents, after reversing the order-in-original dated 29-12-99 of the Assistant Commissioner.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of spring assembly and spring leavers and they, during the period September 1996 to November 96 paid Central Excise duty on 40% plus 2%, less amount of assessable value, charged by them from their customers on the invoices.They were served with the show cause notice for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 27,655/- which they paid less by way of duty on the clearances during that period. The respondents contested that show cause notice. But the adjudicating authority disallowed the deduction of the disputed amount through the order-in-original. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the deduction through the impugned order.3. None has come present on behalf ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Anamed Instruments P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT84TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of computing integrators and claimed classification under Heading 9033.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents for classifying the goods, in question, under Heading 8471.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The adjudicating authority confirmed the classification. Appellants filed the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-determining the issue.5. The adjudicating authority again confirmed the classification of the goods under Heading 8471.00 of Central Excise Tariff. The respondents filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal by classifying the goods, in question, under Heading 9033.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.6. The contention of the Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned ...
Grasim Ind. (Chemical Divn.) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT694TriDel
1. In this appeal at the in stance of the assessee challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal, dated 31-12-2001.2. The appellants have made a claim for refund of the duty paid by him.The claim was rejected on the ground that it was hit by the principles of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority, the assessee has filed the present appeal.3. The appellant's contention that the provisions contained under Section 11B are not applicable in their case as they had already issued credit note to the buyer and as such they had borne the duty themselves was not accepted by the authorities below relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Addition & Co. - 1997 (93) E.L.T.4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the above decision of the Tribunal has been reversed by the Madras High Court in Addison & Co. v.CCE reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 44. Reliance is pla...
Daya Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT485TriDel
1. The assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal against the same order. Both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants manufacture prestressed concrete sleepers for the Railways. The manufacture is under contract which contains provision for price variation. Some inputs like MCI inserts and HTS Wires are supplied by the Railways. Under two contracts manufacture for the period July, 1992 to June, 1996 were undertaken. Since the contract provided for price variation, a show cause notice dated 1-4-98 was issued by the Superintendent asking the assessee to show cause why a differential duty of about Rs. 35 Lakhs should not be paid by them in respect of the goods cleared from August, 1992 to June, 1996. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector vide his Order-in Original No. 109/98, dated 27-11-98. Dissatisfied with that order the appellants moved the Commissioner (Appeal) and that Commissioner remanded the case vide his Order in ...
Cce Vs. Anamed Instruments P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC535
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of computing integrators and claimed classification under heading 9033.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents for classifying the goods, in question, under heading 8471.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The adjudicating authority confirmed the classification. Appellants filed the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-determining the issue.5. The adjudicating authority again confirmed the classification of the goods under heading 8471.00 of Central Excise Tariff. The respondents filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal by classifying the goods, in question, under heading 9033.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.6. The contention of the revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Shree Shankar Vijay Timber Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR206(Delhi); 2003(67)DRJ454; 2003(2)RAJ420
Manmohan Surin, J.1. The Arbitrator Ms. Shaill Goel filed the original award in the court with the arbitration proceedings and the same was registered as Suit No. 410A/2000. Notice of the filing of the award was issued to the parties. The respondent filed objections to the award which was registered as is 9531/2000. Petitioner also filed an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for making the award a rule of the Court which was registered as IA. No. 12722/2000.2. By this judgment, I would be deciding the objections IA. 9531/2000 filed by the respondent against the award dated 9.11.1999 made and published by the sole arbitrator Ms. Shaill Goel. Consequently, I.A. 9531/2000 as also the suit would also be decided.3. Before going into specific objections and the submissions made by Shri Shiv Khurana advocate for the respondent relevant factors in brief may be noticed (i) The respondent was awarded the contract for supply of 157.35 cu.mts of Hollocs/Chikrassy Logs aggreg...
Muni Ram Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)56; 107(2003)DLT5
ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.CWP No. 1509/2000:1. The petitioner was owning land in Pooth Kalan, Delhi, which was acquired by award dated 11.11.1985. In terms of the scheme of the respondent for allotment of plots to persons whose land has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the case of the petitioner was examined and recommended by the Delhi Administration on 9.10.1986. The petitioner in pursuance to the request of the respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money in May, 1990.2. On 13.5.1992, the petitioner received a letter from the respondent intimating the petitioner that it has been decided to allot a plot measuring 209 sq. mtrs. to the petitioner and in case the petitioner was interested in allotment, the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs. 47,200/- on account of earnest money and 25% of the provisional premium within 30 days. The petitioner deposited the said amount on 11.6.1992. A demand-cum-allotment letter was issued in favor of the petitioner on 18.1...
Em Ess Electricals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT730TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 9-7-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 6,37,246/- with penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of electric wires and cables. They had been availing the benefit of Modvat credit scheme on the raw materials such as copper wires. They purchased copper wires from M/s. Kejriwal Enterprises and M/s. Priyanka Metal Overseas under the cover of 29 gate passes during the years 1991-92 and 1992-93. The purchased copper wire was used by them in the manufacture of cables and Modvat credit was taken in respect thereof on the basis of gate passes.However, during the enquiry by the officers of Central Excise, it revealed that Kejriwal Enterprises and Priyanka Metal Overseas did not manufacture the copper wires and that they only issued the gate passes to the appellants for claiming Modvat credit. Accordingly, the appellants were served...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »