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.
Cce Vs. B.T. Steel Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC323
2. The Department is in appeal against the order of the lower appellate authority allowing Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 9,42,864 to the respondents. On examination of the records and submissions, we note that the original authority had disallowed the following Modvat credits to the assessee on various grounds: (1) Rs. 3,55,512 disallowed on the ground that the credit had been taken on the basis of invalid documents viz. gate passes issued on or before 31.3.94 and endorsed in favour of the assessee on or after 1.4.94; (2) Rs. 5,87,352 disallowed on the ground that the assessee had not established that the dealers who had issued the relevant invoices, on the strength of which the credit had been taken, were the wholesale dealers of the input-manufacturers in terms of Notification No. 15/94-CE(NT) dated 30.3.94; (3) Rs. 3,990 disallowed on the ground that the credit had been taken on the strength of invalid document viz. subsidiary gate pass issued after 31.3.94.3. In the appeal pr...
Sitara Cement (Pvt.) Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC557
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Sitara Cement (Pvt.) Limited, the issue involved is whether the duty of excise is chargeable from them in respect of cement on the ground that there was shortage of plastic bags.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture ordinary portland cement; that the Additional Commissioner, under the impugned order has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty and imposed penalty on the ground that they had deliberately not accounted for 92,000 empty begs received by them from various suppliers; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also under the impugned Order has rejected their appeal holding that the empty cement bags had been deliberately not accounted for in order to facilitate the clandestine removal of the cement without payment of duty. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Central Excise duty cannot be demanded and penalty cannot be imposed as the entire case is based on assumptions that 92,000 empt...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Iron Factory
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC57
1. This Appeal has been filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 120/2003 dated 21.2.2003 by which Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund claim of M/s. Iron Factory holding that protest was not disposed of by the Competent Authority under proper orders.2. Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that there was a classification dispute regarding the product manufactured by the respondents who had declared their products as 'bars' falling under sub-Heading 7214.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act whereas the Department classified it as 'flat' falling under sub-Heading 7211.19 / 7211.30; that during the disputed period the respondents had discharged the duty liability at higher rate; that the classification dispute had been decided by the Appellate Tribunal in favour of the respondents vide Order No. E/216-379/90 DI dated 20.12.90; that the Appeal filed by the Revenue in the Supreme Court was also decided in favour of the Responde...
income Tax Officer Vs. Shahid Atiq L/H of Late Atiquer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)89ITD489(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 23rd March, 2000, for the asst. yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94.2. Since identical grounds have been raised in both the appeals by the Revenue, hence, for the sake of convenience, the two appeals have been decided by a common order.3. Smt. S. Narasamma, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue and Shri C.S. Agarwal, advocate and Smt. Lalita Krishna Murty, CA appeared for the assessee.4. The ground taken by the Revenue on this appeal is being reproduced as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in annulling the assessments made under Section 148/143(3) on the grounds that notice under Section 148 was not valid having been issued in the name of the dead assessee, whereas in fact it was issued in the name of the deceased assessee through one of his legal heirs who always represented the deceased in subsequent assessment years." 5. The facts related to...
Joint Cit Vs. Budh Kishore
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)410
ORDERM.V. Nayar, A.M.:The department is in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak, in appeal No. 460/BN/1997-98, dated 19-9-1998.2. The first ground of the department's appeal is against the action of Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,25,000 on account of cash found and seized from the residential premises of the assessed ignoring the statement of Shri Shiv Charan, accountant, and Shri Kailash Chand, brother of the assessed.3. The short facts are that the assessed is engaged in the business of retail trading in washing soap and washing powder. He also acts as commission agent for various dealers in oils and soap stock. The assessed had been accepting deposits and raising loans for investment in new issues of shares and in FDRs. He had also been advancing loans to family members and employees for investment by them in shares/debentures on which the interest has been charged from them at rates varying from 12 to 18 per cent. The assessed has als...
Marvel Vinyls Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)(111)LC439Tri(Delhi)
1. Though both the appeals filed by M/s. Marvel Vinyls Limited. Are posted for hearing the stay application filed by them, I take up the appeals. Itself, after staying the recovery, for disposal as the issue involved is in a very narrow compass.2. Shri Rajesh Chhibber, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants manufacture PVC Sheeting/Films, Floor Covering and PVC Foamed Fabrics; that they availed the Modvat Credit of duty paid on the inputs; that they have filed declaration in respect of rejected PVC Sheeting and PVC Laminated Fabrics as their inputs; that on receipt of the rejected PVC Sheeting, they took Modvat Credit, melted the same along with other chemicals/materials for the manufacture of fresh goods; that the Department has disallowed the Modvat Credit on the ground that the final products cannot be the inputs of the final products. The learned Advocate submitted that the issue involved in the present appeals stands settled by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Trib...
Magnet Users Association Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT150TriDel
1. This appeal of M/s. Magnet Users Association is directed against the Customs Notification No. 123/2001-Cus., dated 12-12-2001 and Final Findings dated 23rd October, 2001 of the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce, pursuant to which findings, the aforesaid Customs Notification was issued. The final findings were reached upon a review of the anti-dumping duty imposed on Hard Ferrite Ring Magnets under Customs Notification No. 103/99-Cus., dated 6th August, 1999.2. Under final findings impugned herein, the Designated Authority recommended the imposition of a higher amount of anti-dumping duty. The anti-dumping duty imposed is the differential amount between US $ 1123.8 per MT and landed value of imported "Hard Ferrite Ring Magnet".This duty is applicable to all exports to India of the said ring magnets from all exporters/producers from People's Republic of China.3. In the appeal, upward revision of duty has been challenged on many grounds like rate of anti-dumping duty cannot b...
Sirocco Pressing (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT425TriDel
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the demand of duty on M/s.Sirocco Pressing Pvt. Ltd. and imposing of penalty as well as on the Chairman and Managing Director of the Firm.2. The appellants are manufacturing Clutch plates and Pressure plates of the Motor Vehicle and were availing the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification. In the impugned order the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification is denied on the ground that the appellants were clearing the goods under the Brand name of "Sirocco" which is registered in the name of "Auto Pins (India) Limited".4. The contention of the appellants is that the Brand name of 'Sirocco' was registered in the name of Auto Pins (India) Limited in respect of the Cotter pins, Pinions, and other pins whereas the appellants are not manufacturing these goods. Appellants are manufacturing Clutch plates and Pressure plates. The appellants relied upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, C...
Sunil Jhakar Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC209
1. First respondent-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 287/96 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT") against (1) M/s. B.R. Foods Limited (2nd respondent herein), (2) Mr. Sunil Jhakar (appellant herein, and hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant/2nd defendant'), and (3) Mrs. Karuna Sharma (3rd respondent herein) for the recovery of Rs. 2,79,61,715.32 with interest and costs.On 11.3.97, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the ex parte final order as prayed for by the respondent-Bank. The appellant/2nd defendant and the Ist defendant-company filed an application on 28.6.99 to set aside the said ex parte final order. But, the said application was dismissed for default on 17.5.2001 due to their absence. Thereafter, the appellant/2nd defendant filed another Miscellaneous Application dated 28/29.5.2001 for restoration of the above said application which was also dismis...
Dr. Raman Khanna Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)343; 106(2003)DLT97; 2004(1)SLJ208(Delhi)
ORDERIn furtherance of order of even no. dated 09.03.2000 the Medical Superintendents of the following 9 hospitals along with jurisdiction for issue of medical disability certificates are hereby authorized to co-opt an Orthopedic surgeon, if available in the hospital or else from the nearby major hospital for specific cases for issuance of disability certificates:- 1. Lok Nayak Hospital 2. Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital 3. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital 4. Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital 5. Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital 6. Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital 7. Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital 8. Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital 9. Rao Tula Ram Memorial Hospital This issues with the approval of Pr. Secretary (H and FW), GNCTD. sd/- (N.C. Ray) Addl. Secretary (H and FW )'' 15. In the case of Dr. Raman Khanna his `Medical Handicapped Certificate' has been issued by LNJP Hospital, Delhi Administration which has been specifically empowered to carry out this task by the Government of NCT o...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »