Delhi Court May 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.
Satya NaraIn Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)8; 107(2003)DLT325; 2003(71)DRJ115
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. R.F.A. 486/88 is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.5.1985 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Suit No. 171/80 seeking a declaration to the effect that the appellant-plaintiff's correct date of birth is '23.10.1920' instead of '5.10.1919' and for a mandatory injunction directing the respondents-defendants to treat the date aforestated as correct date for all intent and purposes in the service of the appellant.2. It was the case of the appellant before the trial court that the appellant was recruited as a civilian in the Army Headquarters on 5.10.1944 as a Clerk on casual/daily wages in the Ordnance Depot, Mathura at which time his age in the service record was recorded as '20' without the knowledge and consent of the appellant. In 1953, the appellant passed High School Examination from the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad, where his correct date of birth was recorded as '23.10.1928' which entry was made after confirm...
Bombay Bangalore Freight Carrier Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT101TriDel
1. These are two applications, filed by M/s. Bombay Bangalore Freight Carrier Ltd. & Shri Ashwani Kumar, for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order Nos. A/492-493/2001-NB, dated 12-6-2001.2. Shri H.K. Sharma, learned Advocate, submitted that penalties under Customs Act has been imposed on both the applicants as the Ball Bearings of foreign origin were found in their godown; that the Tribunal while passing the Final Order in question has not considered the submissions made by them in their memorandum of appeal; that Ball Bearing being not notified goods, there was no onus upon the applicants to have adduced documentary evidence as to lawful import of the impugned goods; that the applicant No. 1 is a transport company and the applicant No. 2 is its Manager; that they were not under any obligation to verify or to find out the identity of the consignors; that it can also not be presumed that they had knowledge of contents of the packet; that the packets were found lying in...
Hemkunt Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT246TriDel
1. In these 3 appeals, filed by M/s. Hemkunt Industries, the issue involved is whether Decorative Plastic Photo Frames are classifiable under sub-heading 3926.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Appellants or under Heading 83.06 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order.2. Shri R. Pal Singh, learned Consultant, submitted that Chapter 83 of the Central Excise Tariff applies to articles of Base Metal and parts of Base Metal; that as the impugned goods are not wholly made of Base Metal these cannot be classified under Heading 83.06; that the impugned goods are more appropriately classifiable under Heading 39.26 as these frames are made of plastic and velvet; that only front area has a steel sheet; that the steel frame even if riot affixed would not render the photo frame as an unusable article; that even without steel frame the photo frame is complete; that the purpose of affixing steel frame is not to accord essen...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Panam Castings (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT754TriDel
1. This ROM has been preferred by the Revenue seeking recall of the Final Order dated 14-3-2002 vide which the appeal of the respondents in this application, (appellant in the main appeal) was allowed by way of remand.2. The mistake in the impugned final order pointed out is that the earlier final order dated 27-2-2001 passed by the Tribunal has not been accepted by the Department and proposal for filing Civil Appeal against that order has been sent to the Board and that the Tribunal has proceeded on an issue which was not raised by the respondents. But we find from the impugned final order that the order-in-appeal was set aside, on the ground that the adjudicating authority failed to pass the same, in terms of the earlier remand order passed by the Tribunal and direction had been given to the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh in accordance with the directions given in the earlier remand order. The fact that the Department did not accept that earlier remand order of the...
Maral Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT935TriDel
1. M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd. have filed this appeal against Order-in-Original No. 2/2001, dated 24-1-2002 by which the Commissioner has confirmed the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 57,14,782/-.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, manufacture cotton yarn/fabrics and garments thereof; that they clear these goods for sale in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) on payment of duty under Notification No.8/97-C.E., dated 1-3-97; that under the said Notification, duty leviable is exempt in excess of the Central Excise duty leviable under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, subject to the condition that such goods are manufactured using materials procured indigenously; that a show cause notice was issued to them for demanding duty of Rs. 89,73,845/- in respect of the goods cleared to D.T.A. on the ground that imported wax was used by them and as such benefit of Notification No. 8/97 was not available; that the Commissioner u...
Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC249
1. Pursuant to the directions given vide Misc. Order dated 1-5-2003, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, has filed an affidavit dated 26-5-2003. We are afraid that the above affidavit is inadequate.2. Issue involved, herein, is one relating to non-implementation of Final Order Nos. 44 to 61/2000-A passed on 12-2-2002 [2002 (141) E.L.T.814 (Tribunal)]. The affidavit of the Commissioner does not show the date on which the order was received in the office of the respondent Commissioner. No details regarding steps taken in the office of the respondent Commissioner for implementing the order are given in the affidavit. The deponent submits that he assumed charge as Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad only on 12-11-2002. The deponent also does not give the name or names of the Commissioners, who were in charge on the date of receipt of the order dated 12-2-2002 in the office of the respondent Commissioner and thereafter. No details of the actions taken by them are given wit...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC403Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue is regarding the availability of Modvat credit of the duty paid on Electrostatic Powder Coating Unit.2. Shri R.C. Sankhla, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. Surya Roshni Limited, Respondents, manufacture GLS Bulbs; Tungsten Halogen Lamps and Fluroscent Tube Lights; that, they had installed 'Electrostatic Powder Coating Unit' in their factory on 31-5-96 and used the same in the production of non-dutiable final product i.e. Lamp costing less than Rs. 10/-; that they had availed the Modvat credit on 20-6-97, nearly 13 months after the date of installation of machine; that the Assistant Commissioner had allowed the Modvat credit, under Order-in-Original No.139/98, dated 30-6-98 on the ground that on the date of availing of credit, the final product GLS Lamp costing less than Rs. 10/- had become dutiable; that Commissioner (Appeals) also, under the impugned Order, has rejected Revenue's appeal, holding that as there was no time limi...
Shenyang Matsushita Storage Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT261TriDel
1. When this application to condone delay in filing the appeal by M/s.Shenyang Matsushita Storage Battery Co., China came up for hearing, Shri Chander Kohli, represented the appellant-applicant. He made a request for adjournment on the ground that M/s. Strategic Law Group which is shown in the appeal as representing the appellant has not accepted authorisation of the appellant in this case. He placed before us copy of a letter dated 24-5-2003 addressed to the appellant by M/s.Strategic Law Group informing the appellant that they are not their authorised representative in the present appeal. It is also mentioned therein that initially they had prepared an appeal against notification dated 2-1-2002 and had sent the same to the appellant on 25-2-2002 but it was then decided to file an appeal as no duty is imposed against the appellant. A letter addressed to the Tribunal by M/s. Strategic Law Group dated 30-5-2003 informing that they are not representing the appellant in the present appea...
Additional Commissioner of Vs. Agarwal Metal Works Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)86
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue. The assessee, in this case, is a company deriving income from manufacture and sale of copper, brass, zinc and aluminium sheets, etc. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in : 1. directing to allow depreciation on trollies at the rate prescribed under the rules when none was permissible and thereby restricting the disallowance of Rs. 5,77,656 said to be representing the total cost of fabrication of 125 trollies claimed as depreciation, 2. deleting the addition of Rs. 1,85,39,180 made in the trading account by rejecting the book version under Section 145 of the Act, 2(a). not appreciating the import of specific discrepancies found in the sales account and GP rate, etc., 3. deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5,50,990 made on account of bogus claim of expenses under the head 'quantity discount', 4. deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7,400 made out of professional fee made under Section 40A(2) of the Act. T...
Fizz Drinks Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Delhi)429
1. These are cross-appeals by the assessee and the Revenue relating to asst. yrs 1991-92 and 1992-93. Since common grounds are involved, these appeals were heard together and are decided by this consolidated order.The grounds of appeals are as under: "1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,97,760 made by the AO to the appellant's income from house property. The same is liable to be fully deleted. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's estimate of annual letting value of house property at Rs. 26,03,232. 3. The CIT(A) erred in holding that notional interest @ 15 per cent on the interest-free security deposit of Rs. 1,62,36,000 received by the appellant should be added to the actual rent received for determining the annual letting value of the house property. 4. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the observations of the AO that transactions of purchase and sale of GP/GC sheets do not appear to be genuine. 5. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in assessi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »