Delhi Court August 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.
Anil Metre Vs. Registrar of Companies and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: 4(2003)CCR65; 107(2003)DLT113; 2003(70)DRJ611; 2003(3)JCC1605; [2004]53SCL103(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The original accused who was facing prosecution at the instance of the Registrar of Companies in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has approached this court with certain prayers, including transfer of his matter to some other court of competent jurisdiction.2. Looking to the averments in the petition, we took cognizance of the matter and called for the report of the Judicial Magistrate before whom the matter was placed and the record is before us along with the report made by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate before whom the matter was placed.3. The matter is very simple. The accused was summoned by the Magistrate to appear. However, the company represented by the present applicant and the present applicant in his personal capacity being served, were expected to appear before the Magistrate. When the court process is issued, it is required to be respected. It is necessary to read the language of the summons forwarded which reads as ...
Shekhar Pandey and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)142; 108(2003)DLT227; I(2004)DMC46; 2003(71)DRJ547; 2003(3)JCC1904
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.193/2002, u/Ss. 498A/406 IPC, P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is husband, petitioner No.2 is father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is mother-in-law and petitioner Nos.4-6 are unmarried sisters-in-law of the complainant; allegations against them are totally false and nothing incriminating is to be recovered from them or at their instance. He further submits that petitioners have participated in the investigation, thereforee, they may be released on bail. Learned counsel for the State does not contest the fact of their participation in the investigation but submits that some articles of istridhan, including 46 tola gold jewellery is yet to be recovered, thereforee, their custodial interrogation is required. 3. There is a general tendency to involve almost all the family members of in-laws, even distant relations, when even ...
Usha Housing Development Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)457; [2004]267ITR752(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. An order dated February 14, 2002/February 21, 2003, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-9, New Delhi (respondent No. 2 herein), directing the petitioner to submit an audit report under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for the block period April 1, 1990, to February 14, 2001 (assessment year 1991-92 to the assessment year 2001-2002), is under challenge in this writ petition.2. Since, in our view, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on preliminary objections/grounds alone, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts, which necessitated the passing of the impugned order.3. Firstly, in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2C) of Section 142, prescribing the time limit for furnishing of the report under Sub-section (2A), which in any case cannot exceed 180 days from the date on which the direction under Sub-section (2A) is received by the assessed, the writ petition is highly belated. The order under ch...
Akriti Media (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)836
ORDERT.N. Chopra, AM:This appeal filed by the assessed is directed against block assessment order dated 28-6-2002, made by Assistant Commissioner, Circle 11, New Delhi for the block. period 1-4-1986 to 19-4-1996.2. Search operations were conducted by the IT authorities under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on the premises of Shri Alok Agarwal who is a practicing chartered accountant. During the course of such proceedings books of account and other documents pertaining to the assessed- company were found and seized by the authorised offider. Assessing Officer accordingly initiated proceedings, under section 158BC read with section 158BD and issued notice calling for the block return on 23-3-2001. The assessed-company filed a return in prescribed Form No. 2B showing the undisclosed income at nil figure. assessing officer, however, proceeded to make the block assessment computing the undisclosed income at Rs. 1,38,000 which is being assailed in the present appeal before us.3. Ground Nos...
J.K. Cement Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT811TriDel
1. The issue involved in these appeals is whether during November, 1995 to Feb., 1996, the below-mentioned items were eligible for capital goods credit under Rule 57Q :- (1) Hacksaw Blades used in the factory for cutting purposes in connection with repairs and maintenance of machinery; (3) M.S. pipes and pipe fittings used in the factory for conveyance of water, steam, gases, hot air etc. required, for the purpose of manufacture of cement; 2. I have examined the records and heard both the sides. It appears from the records and submissions that Hacksaw blades were used as tools in the repairs of various machineries in the appellants' factory. The appellants appear to have no case that these tools were used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of clinker or/and cement. Hence, the Hacksaw blades did not qualify to be capital goods in terms of Clause (b) of Explanation (1) to Rules 57Q(1) as the rule stood during th...
K.V. Impex Vs. Cc, Icd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT491TriDel
1. The instant appeal of M/s K.V. Impex is directed against the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), (Delhi, New Customs House). The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed Bill of Entry No. 11329 dated 1.11.2000 for clearance of "Velour" classifiable under Tariff Heading 6002.43 (hereinafter referred to as 'the goods') imported from China and declared the value of goods as Rs.4,70,335/- (CIF). The appellant has declared the Invoice Value as US $ 0.5 per mtr, which worked out to approximately US $ 1.8 per Kg. At the time of filing the Bill of Entry, the appellant has requested for first check examination to ascertain the correct classification and rate of duty.On first check examination, the goods were found to be "Pile Fabric" of different colours; the total quantity was also found to be short by 898 Kgs. (10 packages). Since "Pile Fabric" is classificable under Tariff Heading 6001.92 and also that the value has been declared on the lower side, it appeared tha...
Vikram Super Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT422TriDel
1. M/s. Vikram Super Cement (Appellants) have been served show-cause notices dated 26-7-90, 19-9-90, 28-11-90, 20-3-91 and 1-7-91 seeking recovery of duty demand of Rs. 68,39,943/-. The said show-cause notices were confirmed by order-in-original dated 29-8-2002.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The present dispute relates to the demand of duty on various structural items fabricated at site of their factory by various contractors to erect therein a cement manufacturing plant.3. The present dispute relates to the demand of duty on various structural items like platform, supports, sheds, ladders, cable cases, towers, gantries, walkways, hoppers, cyclones, flanges, ducts, discharge hood, chutes etc. classifiable under sub-heading No. 7308.90 and sub-heading No. 8485.90.4. Consequent to setting up of the plant for the manufacture of cement, the appellants entered into agreement with va...
Sharda Poly Print N-pack (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT211TriDel
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of printed pouches (Central Excise Tariff Heading 39.23), which are mainly supplied to industrial consumers, who use the pouches in packaging of their products. On 9-2-2001, officers of Central Excise, who visited the appellant's factory, found 1045 Kgs. of pouches (each meant for packing of 'wheel' brand detergent powder) in excess of the recorded balance in the RG 1 register. They seized this excess stock. The original authority confiscated the goods under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 with option for redemption thereof on payment of a fine of Rs. 15,000/-. The authority also imposed on the appellants a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under the said provisions. The appeal preferred by the party against the order of that authority to the Commissioner (Appeals) did not succeed.Hence the present appeal.3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the pouches in question had bee...
Dcm Tools and Dies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)LC324Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee's challenge is against the order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh, dated 10-1-2003. The issue in dispute relates to the valuation of pattern tooling manufactured by the appellant.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pattern, jigs and fixtures falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. These pattern, jigs and fixtures are ultimately used for manufacture of castings for tractors and vehicles. M/s. DCM Engineering Products, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the manufacture of pattern tooling as also in castings.During December, 1996 to November, 1997 they placed orders on the appellant for manufacture of pattern tooling. The appellants removed the pattern tooling to M/s. DCM Engineering Products on payment of duty on the price agreed between them for manufacture and supply of pattern tooling. M/s. DCM Engineering Products sold the pattern tooling su...
Sankeshwar Hosiery Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT942TriDel
1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee the issue raised is whether the Revenue will be justified in adopting the price relating to sale to the Defence Department for the purpose of computing the assessable value of the yarn transferred to its sister units for captive consumption.2. So long as the price as contemplated under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act is available, there is no need to go to Section 4(1)(b) or take recourse to the valuation rules. This issue has been settled by a number of decisions of this Tribunal and finally by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 503. The appellant has no case that apart from the sale to the Defence Department it has any other sale to other dealers charging a different price. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in the matter. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »