Delhi Court February 2003 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.
Aristo Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT413TriDel
1. The issue raised in both these appeals is the same, the effect of amendment in Section 4 (Valuation) of Central Excise Act, 1944 in the valuation of medicines which are subject to Maximum Retail Price, whether fixed under the Drug (Control) Law or by manufacturers. The appeals were heard on 18-2-2003 and 27-2-2003 and are disposed of under this common order.2. The controversy is around the following provision which came into force with effect from 28-9-1996 : (iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory".3. The appellants first remove the medicines in question from the factories of production to their sales depots and sell them from these depots. Both sides are agreed that, in view of the amendment, sale prices from the depots should be the basis for assessment of the medicines to central excise duty on ad valorem basis; but disagree as to which of the depot prices is ...
S. Kumars Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC293
1. In these appeals the controversy relates to the classification of the processed knitted pile fabrics in running length at the hands of the appellants who are the processors.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are processors of various Textiles Fabrics and also undertake the job work pertaining to the processing of knitted pile fabrics. They were receiving knitted pile fabrics in grey form from M/s. Dhvani Terefab Exports Pvt. Ltd. in running length of 300 Mtrs. which is being cut into convenient lengths according to the size of their machine. The appellants undertake the process of washing, dyeing and bleaching, hydro-extraction, tumble dyeing and drying. Before 23.7.96, both grey and processed fabrics were classified by the Revenue Department under Heading 60.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff of the Act. After 23.7.96, the goods falling under Heading 60.01 of the Central Excise Tariff were granted exemption. The Revenue Department issued 3 show cause n...
Pioneer Publicity Corporation Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)469; 2003(1)ARBLR672(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT442; 2003(2)RAJ132; [2004]50SCL331(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying that Respondent No. 1, Delhi Transport Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the DTC) be restrained from taking down or defacing the advertisement panel at the back, as well as on the side panels of DTC buses. The `Terms and Condition of the Tender' contains an Arbitration clause. It is also not disputed that in the event of disputes arising between the parties these would be referable to an Arbitrator for his decision. 2. It appears that a contract was entered into between the parties in September, 2000 in respect of the `back panel right side space and inside space above window panel' for the period 8.9.2000 to 27.9.2003 in terms of which the Petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs. 10,12,74,984.00 in equal monthly Installments of Rs. 21,10,322/-. There is a clause in this Agreement which stipulates that any decrease or increase in the number of buses will not in any ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sham Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)397; 104(2003)DLT507; 2003(70)DRJ585; 2003(3)SLJ477(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Short question raised by the petitioner in this case is whether the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to compute the benefits in the case of a workman whose right to claim such wages had not been adjudicated by a Court of competent jurisdiction nor recognised by the employer. Respondent No. 1 was employed with the petitioner as daily wager w.e.f. 1.1.1977 and was regularised on 11.12.1979. By filing an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman claimed difference in wages paid to him as a daily wages and payable to a regular employee for the period 1.1.1979 to 11.12.1979 on the ground that he had been performing the same duties and functions as were performed by the regular employees of the respondent and as such, he was entitled to be paid the same wages as were being paid to the regular employees on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The Labour Court allowed this application of the workman filed under Section 33C(2) of th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raunaq and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: [2003]262ITR86(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, in respect of the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of benefit or amenity relating to expenses on car for the purpose of applying the provisions of Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act has to be restricted to the assessable value of such benefit or amenity as perquisite in the hands of the employee-director ?'2. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed.3. As is evident from the format of the question, the issue raised by the Revenue is purely legal and, thereforee, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. Suffice it to note that the issue involved is as to whether for the purpose of computing the disallowance under Section 40(c) of the Act ...
Bhushan Steels and Strips Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)108
ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.:The appeal directed by the assessed arises out of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order date 31-3-1997, pertaining to assessment year, 1994-95.2. The only ground raised by the assessed relates to the disallowance of depreciation on office building.3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that at the time of assessment, the assessing officer noted the following observations made in Item 3 of Schedule VII of the notes below the audit report'Flats in Bombay and New Delhi costing Rs. 373.33 lakhs (previous year Rs. 21.18 lakhs) remained to be registered in the name of the company.'4. The assessing officer also noted that the assessed has claimed depreciation on such office building and debited the same to the P&L; a/c. The assessing officer, thereforee, asked the assessed to furnish the details of the building not yet registered in the name of the assessed in respect of which depreciation has been claimed. The assessed furnished its reply which was perused by the assessi...
Mahender Kumar Nigam Vs. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT404
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.The case of the petitioner in these three CM (M) petitions is that an appeal was filed against the impugned order of demolition. Operation of the order of demolition was stayed. But thereafter the appeal was dismissed in default. An application for restoration of that appeal has been moved, but that could not be decided for the reason that the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal had handed over and his successor had not taken over. Since the Presiding Officer had not been appointed, the petitioner did not find any other option but to approach this Court.2. It is submitted that the property bearing No. 1301 to 1318 known as RB Sultan Singh Building situated at Kashmere Gate, Delhi was owned by M/s. Chavanrishi International Ltd. Later on the property was purchased by four private companies. It was reconstructed after evicting the tenants. The tenants agreed to vacate to enable the owners to reconstruct the property. Buildin...
Shakti Beverages Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC513
1. The above appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) dated 15-2-2001 has been referred for consideration of the Larger Bench in view of an apparent conflict between decisions of this Tribunal on the issue whether the Tribunal can annul a proceeding for finalizing a provisional assessment on the ground of delay. The relevant facts of the present case are as follows :- 2. The appellants imported machinery for packaging under the Project Import Regulations. The goods were classified under Heading 9801.00 of Customs Tariff Act. The importers sought the benefit of Notification No. 125/86-Cus. dated 17-2-86, The less charge demand notice was issued seeking recovery of duty short-levied to the extent of Rs. 27,26,000/- for the reason that the benefit of notification was not available to the importers. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty. Aggrieved by the above, the importer took up the matter in appeal. The Commissioner (Appeal)...
Varun Fabs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT824TriDel
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the appellants have a fairly strong case and accordingly, I admit the appeal.2. The stay application is also being taken up. In this application the prayer is for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of an amount of penalty of Rs. 17,500/- imposed by the lower authorities on the applicants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.The allegation raised by the department in the show cause notice was that the applicants had made clearances of their final product by paying duty by cheques issued to the Chief Accounts Officer of Central Excise, Chandigarh without maintaining sufficient balance in their PLA.Similar show cause notices were issued to a large number of other manufacturers also. The adjudicating authority accepted the department's proposal to impose penalties on all such manufacturers under Rule 173Q and, accordingly, imposed a total penalty of Rs. 2,46,500/- on all manufacturers (inclu...
Kamlapur Sugar and Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC291a
1. The appellants are sugar manufacturers. A shortage of 19.87 MT of molasses was found in their steel tank. They filed an application for remission of duty amounting to Rs. 9,935/- on the above quantity of molasses found short. The Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the application. Hence, the present appeal.2. There is no representation for the appellants today. It appears from the record that they have waived the right to be heard, and want the case to be decided on its merits.3. I have examined the records and heard ld. DR, who has reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority.4. It is not in dispute that there was a shortage of 19.87 MTs of molasses in the appellant's steel tank as on 27-8-2001. The duty payable on that quantity was Rs. 9,935/-. On 27-8-2001, the appellants intimated the shortage to the Central Excise Range Supdt. In their letter dated 27-8-2001, they stated the reasons of shortage as under :- (1) "The production of molasses is stored in the storage ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »