Delhi Court April 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.
Sh. Amanbir Singh and Sh. Amlok Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)325; 104(2003)DLT1011; 2003(69)DRJ138; 2003(88)ECC13
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. As common questions of law and fact are involved in these two writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. By order dated 19th December, 1974, one Mehain Singh was detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. He was alleged to be involved in smuggling of gold, opium etc. from Pakistan and Cardamom, clothes, Indian currency notes from India to Pakistan. He was also indulging in supply of intelligence regarding deployment of Indian Army and B.S.F. Units and other vital installations to the Army and C.I.D. Officers in Pakistan. During interrogation of certain Pak smugglers detained by the police, it was allegedly revealed that Mehain Singh, his son Kashmira Singh and nephew Makhan Singh had smuggled contraband gold worth Rs. 15,26,00,000/- between the period August, 1968 to 1970. On receipt of information and on making inquiries and investigations it was revealed that certain propert...
Bandel Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)168; (2003)185CTR(Del)98; 105(2003)DLT540; [2003]263ITR431(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act with its registered office in Calcutta. In July, 2000, petitioner-company is alleged to have taken a premises bearing No. C-1/1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi on rent from S/Shri Nandlal Kothari and Shri Shyam Sunder Kothari who were the owners of the said building, for starting the business of import and export, sale and purchase of Marble, Granite, Stones, Marble-chips and Marble-stone in Delhi; that the lease dated 26th June, 2000 was, accordingly executed between Shri Nandlal Kothari and Shri Shyam Sunder Kothari on the one hand and petitioner-company on the other, leasing a portion of the aforesaid property to the petitioner-company at a rent of Rs. 6,000/- per month. On 7th September, 2000, the premises of the petitioner was searched by the officials of the Income-tax department under Section 132(1)(i) to (v) of the Income-tax Act (in short referred to as the Act) to carry on search and seizure of M/s. Ko...
B.R. Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: 105(2003)DLT123; 2003(69)DRJ271; 2003(88)ECC519; 2003(157)ELT21(Del)
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning the assessment made by the Customs Authorities whereby the duty was directed to be paid not on the basis of the invoice price declared by the petitioner but was assessed on the basis of the London Metal Exchange Price and by adopting the best value judgment under the relevant rules. On 18th April, 1996 after 'Rule' was issued by the Court it was directed that the five containers mentioned in the order shall be cleared by the respondents on payment of customs duty on the invoice value instead of LME value of the scrap provided the petitioner furnishes to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs security of some immovable property in respect of difference in duty calculated on the basis of LME value and invoice value. By order dated 25th April, 1996 the Court permitted the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee instead of security in terms of the order dated 18th April, 1996. In respect of the other 21 cont...
Bandel Traders (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN428(Delhi)
By the courtPetitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act with its registered office in Calcutta. In July, 2000, petitioner-company is alleged to have taken a premises bearing No. C- 1/1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi on rent from S/Shri Nandlal Kothari and Shri Shyam Sunder Kothari who were the owners of the said building, for starting the business of import and export, sale and purchase of Marble, Granite, Stones, Marble-chips and Marble-stone in Delhi, that the lease dated 26-6-2000 was, accordingly executed between Shri Nandlal Kothari and Shri Shyam Sunder Kothari on the one hand and petitioner-company on the other, leasing a portion of the aforesaid property to the petitioner-company at a rent of Rs. 6,000 per month. On 7-9-2000, the premises of the petitioner was searched by the officials of the Income Tax Department under section 132(1)(i) to (v) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to carry on search and seizure of M/s. Kothari Marbles and M/s....
Bhikkamal Chhotelal Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT710TriDel
2. Applicants filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order dated 4-10-2002 passed by the Tribunal.3. The contention of the applicants is that the Tribunal in the Final Order wrongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285. Subsequently, the Tribunal in the case of Mecon Ltd. v.C.C. reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 574 (T) = 2003 (55) RLT 219 took a different view and held that the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), is not applicable to the refund filed under Section 27 of the Customs Act.4. We find that the Tribunal passed the Final order on 4-10-2002 and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Applicants are relying upon the subsequent decision of the Tribunal. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers & ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. North Street Cooling Tower (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC65
1. These are the four appeals filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 332-335-CE/MRT/2002 dated 24.10.2002 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has classified the product manufactured by M/s.North Street Cooling Tower (Pvt). Limited under Heading No. 44.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff.2. Shri V. Valte, learned SDR/ submitted that the Respondents manufacture Drive Shaft and parts thereof and Cooling Tower parts; that they had cleared wooden pieces of different sizes and length as Cooling Tower spares components under Heading No. 44.03 of the Tariff with nil rate of duty; that the wooden pieces were not just the raw wooden pieces but these were chemically treated wooden pieces, the fact which has been confirmed by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi, Authorised Signatory of the Respondents in his statement dated 16.5.2001; that as per Note 2 to Chapter 44 of the Tariff, the expression "densified wood" means the wood which has been subjected to chemical or physical trea...
Spread Coatings (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT574TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of R.M. Paints falling under Heading 32.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. During the period of dispute (June to November, 1998), they had procured synthetic resins, which were their inputs for the manufacture of paints, from M/s. Berger Paints (P) Ltd. who had imported the resins and cleared the same on payment of CVD (Additional Duty of Customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975) under different Bills of Entry from time to time. M/s. Berger Paints had taken Modvat credit of the CVD to the extent of 95% in terms of Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-94 as amended by Notification No. 14/98-C.E. (N.T.), dated 2-6-98 and, subsequently, removed the goods as such to the appellants after reversal of the credit. The appellants, in turn, took Modvat credit to the extent of 95% of what was reversed by M/s. Berger Paints.Subsequently, however, they took the differential 5% credit also, whereby the total credit in the appellants'...
J.M. Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT587TriDel
2. Applicants filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order, dated 8-10-2002 [2003 (156) E.L.T. 920 (Tri.)] passed by the Tribunal.3. The Tribunal passed the Final Order after relying upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal. The contention of the applicants is that there is a ROM application pending in the order, which is followed by the Tribunal in the present case.4. We find that the present Final Order was passed simply following the earlier decision of the Tribunal, which is still in existence. The mere pendency of ROM in the earlier decision cannot be a ground for not following the decision which was passed after considering all the aspects. In view of this, we find no error apparent on record in the Final Order passed by the Tribunal, which requires rectification. The application is rejected....
S and H Gears Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT437TriDel
1. Heard. The applicants have moved the present ROM application seeking recall of the final order dated 1-11-2002 vide which their appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 30-6-2002 was dismissed by the Tribunal. The ground on which the recall of the order has been sought is that certain documents had not been considered earlier and those should be now taken into consideration. They had also enclosed those copies of the documents along with the ROM application.3. The perusal of the impugned final order shows that the appellants had been disallowed Modvat credit of the disputed amount for having taken the same on the photocopy of the triplicate copy of the invoice.They failed to substantiate their plea that the duplicate copy was lost. No prima facie mistake of fact or law had been pointed out in the impugned final order. The plea of the appellants that certain documents such as copy of the FIR, affidavit of the driver, etc., now enclosed by them along with the application, should be c...
Shree Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT423TriDel
1. M/s. Shree Steel Industries have filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 1093/2001, dated 10-12-2001 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of duty.2. Shri A.D. Maru, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufactures CTD Bars of Iron and Steel in their Hot Rolling Mill; that on introduction of Compound Levy Scheme w.e.f. 1-9-97 they filed declaration under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the Commissioner, Central Excise, determined their Annual Capacity of Production as 2,572.864 M.Ts. with duty liability of Rs. 32,126/- per month; that the Appellants paid the said duty from 1-9-97 to 31-3-98; that the Deputy Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 362 to 367/2000, dated 29-12-2000, confirmed the demand of duty for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also under the impugned Order has rejected their appeal holding that as the Appellants had not raised any objection against Annual Capacity ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »