Delhi Court June 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.
Raman Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)LC213Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.326/2002/CAC/CC/AH, dated 12-7-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. In the impugned order, the Commissioner confiscated a consignment imported by the appellants under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was allowed an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 6.5 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 65,000 was imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. Further, the value of the goods was increased to approximately Rs. 33 lakhs for the purpose of assessing the goods to Customs duty.2. The relevant facts leading to the passing of the order are that the appellant sought the clearance of the goods as "scrap" and declared a value of about Rs. 22 lakhs. This worked out to a unit value of US $ 1030 MT. The declaration of value and description was based on invoice issued by the supplier, namely M/s. Universal Impex Corporation, UAE.3. Examination of the goods by the Customs showed t...
Amarjit Singh Bakshi (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)263ITR75(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals by two assessees against the assessment order under Section 158BD r/w Section 113 of the IT Act, 1961 for the block period i.e., from asst. yrs. 1987-88 to 1997-98 (up to 6th Nov., 1996).These two assessments i.e., in case of assesses, individual and HUF were completed by passing separate orders. In the case of assesses-individual, the assessment was made on substantive basis and in the case of HUF, the assessment was made on protective basis.2. Brief facts of the case are that a search was conducted at the premises of one Shri N.S. Atwal on 6th Nov., 1996. Some incriminating documents were found and seized. A paper found during the search marked as Annexure A-3 was seized. In this paper some entries were made in regard to sale of land admeasuring 9.16 acres. As per contents of the paper the land was agreed to be sold at Rs. 77 lakhs per acre and the total consideration agreed to be paid was Rs. 7.07 crores.3. At the time of recording the statement of Shri N.S...
Dy. Cit Vs. Dhanpat Mal Jawala Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)848
ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.:The appeal has been directed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 20-3-1997, pertaining to assessment year 1992-93.2. In ground No. 1, the revenue has challenged the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that the interest earned on IDBI Bond was business income instead of income from other sources.3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessed-firm consisting of 4 partners was engaged in the business of running flour mill. It declared the loss of Rs. 2,43,848 from such business. The assessed also earned interest income.of Rs. 18,00,000 on IDBI Bonds. assessed returned such income under the head 'Income from other sources'. However, subsequently, the assessed raised the claim and requested the assessing officer to treat the interest income from IDBI Bonds as business income. However, the assessing officer held such income to be income from other sources. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed to ass...
Aries International Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT207TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Aries International is whether the excisable goods manufactured by them are bearing the brand name of another person and consequently making them ineligible for the benefit of SSI Notification.2. Shri Sudhir Malhotra, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufactured machines vices and availed of the exemption under SSI Notifications issued from time to time; that they had filed declaration under Rule 174 on 1-4-99 declaring their brand name as "Aries SUPERGRIP"; that the Commissioner under the impugned order has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty and imposed penalty and confiscated the seized goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine on the ground that the excisable goods manufactured by them bear brand name "Aries" with monogram of zodiac sign Aries.Learned Advocate further submitted that their brand name is "Aries SUPERGRIP" and not "Aries". In support of his contention he brought metal strips w...
Avon Cranes (P) Itd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)1101
ORDERR.M. Mehta, V.P.These appeals were heard together and are disposed of by means of a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.2. The following common grounds are raised in these appeals, directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) :'1. That the Commissioner (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act ('the Act') for alleged filing of inaccurate particulars of income.2. That the Commissioner (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in alleging that the appellant not only filed inaccurate particulars of income but also concealed particulars of' income of the relevant previous year.3. That the Commissioner (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in alleging that the notice issued by the assessing officer under section 271 read with section 274 of the Act required the appellant to show cause why penalty be not levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, both for conc...
Harjeev Aggarwal Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)187
ORDERV. Dongzathang, P:These cross-appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 13-2-2002.2. The facts are that a search was conducted on a specific information received from the Investigation Wing that a property No. C-104, Naraina Vihar, Delhi, owned by Shri Arvind Seth, NRI was being sold for Rs. 86 lacs out of which only Rs. 12 lacs were paid by cheque and the balance was to be paid in cash.The search resulted in recovery of Rs. 42.50 lacs and 30,000 US Dollars from Shri Arvind Seth of N-29, Green Park, New Delhi. Copy of the agreement to sell and the part payment receipt confirming the sale consideration were found and seized. Shri Arvind Seth, the seller, admitted in his statement recorded during the course of the search that he had received total consideration of Rs. 86 lacs out of which Rs. 12 lacs by way of cheque and Rs. 74 lacs in cash. Shri Arvind Seth confirmed that he sold property No. C-104, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi to Shri Harjeev Aggarwal...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Prithvi Rolling Mills (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC407
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by Revenue is whether MODVAT credit of the duty paid on capital goods is available to M/s. Shree Prithvi Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. 2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents inspite of notice nor there was any request for adjournment. It is also observed that the notice has been duly received by the respondents as per acknowledgement duly received back from the postal authorities. We also observe that when the Appeal was posted for hearing earlier on 3.4.03, no one was present on behalf of the respondents. We, therefore, take up the Appeal for disposal after perusing the records and hearing Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned Senior Departmental Representative.3. Learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the respondents had taken MODVAT credit of the duty paid on weighing bridge; that on verification by the Central Excise officer, it was found that the said weighing bridge was installed outside facto...
Rajasthan Synthetic Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT240TriDel
1. After examining the records and hearing both the sides, I think, the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of. Accordingly, I allow the present application and proceed to deal with the appeal, 2. The appellants had taken Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 69,231/- on inputs in June, 1994 on the strength of an invoice issued by M/s. B.B.Enterprises (supplier of the inputs) who were the consignment agents of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (manufacturer of the inputs). The Department issued a show cause notice proposing to disallow this credit on the ground that the invoice issued by the consignment agent did not appear to be a valid document under Rule 57G(2) for the purpose of availment of Modvat credit. The proposal was contested by the party.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, who adjudicated the dispute, passed an order disallowing the credit to the party and imposing on them a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty but affirmed the ...
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Superior Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-2003
Reported in: 105(2003)DLT586; 2003(27)PTC63(Del); 2003(3)RAJ224
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The present order disposes of is No. 6394/2003 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC & LA. No. 6584/2003 filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC. By IA. No. 6394/2003, the plaintiffs seek to restrain the defendant, pending adjudication of the suit, from direction or indirectly, selling alcoholic beverages under the trade mark 'SUPERIOR 5000' or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the trade mark 'HAY-WARDS 5000 SUPER STRONG BEER' amounting to infringing of plaintiffs trade mark No. 436744 and/or from reproducing, printing, publishing, selling or offering for sale any product with any label or packaging which is a colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiffs 'HAYWARDS 5000' packaging and labelling, further injunction is sought restraining the defendant from passing off its goods as the goods of the plaintiff by using packaging and labelling deceptively s...
Sunita Sharma Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(70)DRJ703
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The petitioner was admitted to bail vide order dated 16.6.2003. In the present application it is stated that originally the FIR was registered under Section 307/34, IPC but later on Section 27 of the Arms Act was also included in the FIR and as a consequence thereof, when the bail bonds were filled it came to the notice of the petitioner that the FIR stands amended and as a consequence thereof, the petitioner was unable to avail the benefit of the bail granted.2. Counsel for the State does not oppose the application. It is thereforee directed that the order dated 16.6.2003 be read as modified as under:--'Let the petitioner be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned MM/Duty Magistrate in FIR No. 329/2003 under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27/54/59 Arms Act, P.S. Uttam Nagar.'dusty....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »