Delhi Court July 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.
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT793TriDel
1. Revenue filed these appeals against the order-in- appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that Vita Ex-Gold and Rheumartho Gold are P & P ayurvedic medicines classifiable under Heading 3003.39 of the Central Excise Tariff.3. The contention of the revenue is that the goods, in question, contain added minerals, proteins, carbohydrates/metal, organic and inorganic substances and were taken to replace the physiological waste of tissues and provides nourishment and merit classification under sub-heading No. 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. The product 'Vita Ex-Gold' is for stronger and sustained stamina and vitality and the other product 'Rheumartho Gold' is effective on arthritis and chronic joint pains.4. The contention of the respondents is that the goods, in question, are manufactured out of the ingredients, which are described in authoritative Ayurvedic Text Book, namely, Ayurved Sara Sangrah and Siddha Bhaishayaya Manimala spec...
Vijay Bajaj Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1044TriDel
1. The appellant Shri Vijay Bajaj is a small trader. His shop is in Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi-6. On 4-2-99 Customs Officers visited his shop and seized 2400 'FUDS' make Alarm Clocks made in China valued at Rs. 1,44,000/-. In a statement on the date of seizure Shri Bajaj informed that Alarm Clocks were purchased from different persons without bill/invoice. These Clocks were confiscated under an adjudication order dated 23-10-2000 for being illegally smuggled into India and Shri Bajaj did not have any Bill/Invoice to prove the legal possession of the goods. Shri Bajaj filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the adjudication order holding that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.2. Appellant challenges the above order on the ground that it is neither sustainable in law nor in the facts of the case. It is being submitted that Clocks in question were eligible for restricted import and that t...
Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Manoj Construction Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC82
1. The respondents had filed a Bill of Entry in the land Customs Station, Raxaul (Bihar) on 8-2-1986 for clearance, for home consumption, of a consignment of second hand machineries imported from Nepal under a Project Import Licence, claiming the benefit of concessional rate of duty applicable to Customs Tariff Heading 98.01 under Notification No. 230/86-Cus., dated 3-4-86. The Bill of Entry was noted in the Land Customs Station (LCS), Raxaul on 18-4-86 and clearance of the goods at concessional rate of duty was allowed by the Assistant Collector, LCS, Raxaul on 22-4-86 subject to observance of necessary formalities. The goods arrived at the LCS in five consignments in May-June 1986. As the party failed to produce utilization certificate, proceedings were initiated to deny the benefit of the above Notification to them. These proceedings resulted in an assessment order dated 22-7-88 of the Assistant Collector, LCS, Raxaul, whereby the goods were assessed as a regular import under Chapt...
Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC41
1. The appellants are a large manufacturer of cement. For this purpose they import non-coking coal from different suppliers through their own port at Mul Dwaraka. During April to June four consignments were imported at prices varying from 28.55 US$ CIF P.M.T to 32.85 US$ CIF P.M.T. Show-Cause-Notice dated 8/10 November 2000 was issued by the Customs authorities proposing to assess the goods on an enhanced value of 33.21 US$ P.M.T. The reason for enhancing the assessable value was that other importers were importing coal at higher values of US$ 33.94 and 33.21 per MT through Veraval and Navalakhi Ports and the appellants had themselves imported coal consignments at varying prices. The proposal so made in the show cause notice was confirmed in adjudication and a duty demand of over Rs 54 Lakhs raised against the appellant.They took up the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals). They did not succeed. Hence the present appeal.2. The submission of the appellants is that the variations in...
Prafful Indus. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT879TriDel
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the refund claim, filed by the appellants, was rejected.3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture/processing of man-made fabrics and the annual capacity of their stenter was provisionally fixed by the competent authority under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The provisional capacity was fixed without taking into consideration the length of galleries of the stenter.Thereafter, a Trade Notice dated 28-2-1999 was issued by the Surat Commissionerate to the effect that the length of galleries of stenter was to be taken into consideration while fixing the annual capacity. In view of this Trade Notice, appellants, started paying duty after taking into consideration the length of galleries of the stenter. Thereafter, appellants filed a refund claim on the ground that the length of galler...
Kathuria Portfolios Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT355TriDel
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. In this case the benefit of small-scale exemption notification is denied to the appellants on the ground that they were clearing the branded goods.4. The appellants are not challenging the demand of duty. The only contention of the appellants is that they are not liable for penal action because the issue relates to interpretation of notification.5. The contention of the appellants is that they were engaged in the manufacture of leather articles and after cutting leather, the same was sent to the job workers, who were manufacturing the leather goods and affixing the logo of M/s. Archies Greetings & Gifts. They were under the impression that as the goods were actually manufactured by the job workers, they were entitled for the benefit of notification.6. We found that as the issue involved in this appeal is in respect of interpretation of small-scale exemption notification, the penalty...
Dy. Cit, Spl. R. 26 Vs. Girnar Investment Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: (2005)92TTJ(Delhi)711
1. The revenue is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dt.20.5.98 on the ground reproduced below:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 62,16,000/- holding that there could be no capital gains on the sale of bonus shares since there cost of acquisition cannot be determined by relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. B.C. Sriniwasan Shetty (128 ITR 294): a) despite the fact that this case is distinguishable on the fact as it pertains to capital gains on 'goodwill' and not to capital gains on 'bonus shares". b) Despite the fact that the Supreme Court as held that capital gains is attracted on the sale of bonus shares and has even laid down exhaustive principles for determining the cost of bonus shares in the case of CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd (52 ITR 567) and in the case Shekhavati Gen.Traders Ltd. v. ITO; (82 ITR 789)".2. The genesis...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Girnar Investment Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)88ITD419(Delhi)
1. The revenue is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20-5-1998 on the ground reproduced below :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 62,16,000 holding that there could be no capital gains on the sale of bonus shares since their cost of acquisition cannot be determined by relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Shelly [1981] 128 ITR 294: (a) despite the fact that this case is distinguishable on the fact as it pertains to capital gains on 'goodwill' and not to capital gains on 'bonus shares'. (b) Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has held that capital gains is attracted on the sale of bonus shares and has even laid down exhaustive principles for determining the cost of bonus shares in the case of CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. [1967] 52 ITR 567 and in the case of Shekhavati Gen. Traders Ltd. v. ITO, 82 ITR 7...
H.L. Eri Memorial Edu. Society (Regd.) and anr. Vs. Govt of Nct of Del ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)79; 105(2003)DLT754; 2003(70)DRJ139
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule. By consent of counsel for the parties the Writ Petition is disposed off by these Orders.2. It appears that the Petitioners had applied to the Government of NCT of Delhi for the grant of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the course of BCA for the year 2002-2003, which was granted. The University has also bestowed affiliation to the Petitioners for that year and for that course. As per extant practice, the Petitioners had to apply for revalidation of the NOC for the current year 2003-04 for the BCA programme. This application was made in 3.1.2003 and was granted on 5.5.2003. So far as the grant of NOC for BCA course for the previous year is concerned it was granted in terms of letter dated 5.6.2002, which reads thus:-'ToThe DirectorBeri Institute of Technology, Training & Research,Tikri Kalan,Delhi-110 041 Sub: Grant/Revalidation of 'No Objection Certificate' for running B.C.A. CourseSir/Madam,1. I am directed to convey the approval of the competent authorit...
Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ744; 106(2003)DLT527; 2003(70)DRJ113; 2003(3)JCC217; 2003RLR523
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This case demonstrates as to how Sh. Prem Kumar the learned Additional Sessions Judge consciously tried to ignore the verdict given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. M. Mathews v. State of Kerela (1992) 1 S C 217 and dismissed the applications of the petitioners seeking recall of the summoning order for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act vide order dated 26.4.2003 by conveniently taking the shelter under the judgment of this Court delivered in Mohd. Hashim Masood v. State reported in 2000 (1) JCC Delhi 24 as if he was bound by the view taken by the High Court and not by the Supreme Court on the proposition of law whether the accused is entitled to move the Magistrate for dropping the proceedings in a complaint case even after the process of summon has been issued against him.2. Facts germane for the proposition of law are like this:-M/S SBI Capital Markets Ltd. filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »