Delhi Court September 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.
Mark-lamb Collor Plus Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)(112)LC215Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common order in appeal; passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. In the present case the benefit of MODVAT credit was denied to the appellants on the ground that the invoices were in the name of the Head Office, whereas the credit was taken in the factory. The credit was also denied on the gound that address of the appellant's factory was not correctly mentioned.3. The contention of the appellants is that the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued a Circular dated 14.5.1996 whereby it was clarified that credit shall not be denied on the ground that invoice was in the name of the Head Office of the manufacturer, whereas the credit was taken in the manufacturing Unit. The appellants also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chrome Chemical Industries v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-IV, reported in 2001 (135) ELT 405 (Tri.-Kolkata), wherein in similar situation the credit was allowed.4. In respect of the credi...
SkIn Touch International and Shri Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC691
1. These two appeals are directed against a common Order (Order-in-Original No. ACU/VS/4/2002 dated 4.3.2002) passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Customs House New Delhi. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The first appellant, M/s. Skin Touch International (proprietor Shri Havendra Singh) is the exporter and the second appellant, M/s R.K.International (proprietor Shri Padam Gupta) is the Clearing Agent.Under the impugned orders, the Commissioner, Customs has denied DEPB benefit of about Rs. 7 lakhs to the exporter and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on him. Similarly a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed on Shri Padam Gupta.3. Facts may be stated briefly. M/s Skin Touch International exported 56,600 Non-Pyrogenic Sterile Infusion Sets to M/s Fram Vex, Yeravan, Armenia via, UAE between July to October, 1999. In the four shipping bills covering the export, value declared was US $.75 (Rs. 32.40 per set). The export was made un...
Metaforge Engg. Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC665
1. The common issue involved in these three appeals is whether the 'Insulator Pin' manufactured by both the Appellants is classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Old Central Excise Tariff claimed by them or under Item 52 as confirmed by the Commissioner.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that both the Appellants M/s. Metaforge Engineering Corporation and M/s. Patna Engg.(Bolts) Works, manufacture insulator pins; that the pins are articles of forging; that pins are manufactured from mild steel round; that the rounds are cut into the desired length; that the cut pieces are heated and put in the closed dies; during forging in the closed dies, collar is given the proper shape; that therefore, threads in the shank are cut by Icndish threading machine; that lastly galvanising is done and pins are kept in Zinc for Zinc coating; that pin is used as a stand to hold insulator; that it has got no fastening utility. He relied upon the decision in the case of G.S. Auto Internationa...
Gen. Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC843
1. M/s. Gen. Engineering. Works have filed the present Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 68/2003 dated 20.2.03 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals), has held that they were not entitled to take suo moto credit in their RG 23A Part II on the basis of Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants manufactures steel bars and avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that during the period September to November 1994, they took Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs purchased from SAIL from their stock yard/stockists of TISCO under invoices issued under Rule 57GG by them; that the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise under Order-in-Original No. 52/95 dated 27.9.95 disallowed the Modvat credit on the ground that the credit was taken on the strength of original copy of invoice and not on the strength of duplicate copy of the invoice; that they fil...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.K. Ganju
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)88ITD311(Delhi)
1. The following grounds have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal: "1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 80,000 under the head 'income from house property', 2. That the order of learned CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored." 2. Briefly stated, the facts are these : The assessee, being an architect, was carrying his profession from the premises S-149, Greater Kailash, New Delhi which was owned by his parents. He was living with his parents in that premises. He purchased a house on 30th March, 1990 in Swasthya Vihar (East Delhi). In asst. yr. 1991-92, some alterations and rectifications were made to that house and could not be occupied.In the year under consideration, the said house remained unoccupied and no rental value was declared in respect of such house in view of the provisions of Section 23(3). The contention of the assessee was that he could not occupy such house due to carrying on of the profession at a distant pl...
Raheja Hospital and Pshychiatric Research Institute Vs. Land Acquisiti ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)180; 106(2003)DLT552; 2003(70)DRJ601
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. By Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the purpose, namely, 'Dwarka Phase II, Delhi under Planned Development of Delhi' large area was sought to be acquired. The Notification is produced on record at page 33. Objections were invited and thereafter declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act on 7th December, 2001. Considering the urgency, Section 17(1) of the Act was invoked on 15th March, 2002 and possession of almost entire area has been taken covered under the said Notification on 14th August, 2002. The present petition is filed on 16th April, 2002, and because of the interim orders made by the Court possession of this land could not be taken by the respondents.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed about the exercise of his rights under Section 5A of the Act. In para 15 he has narrated in substance the objections raised by him. It appears that after examining the objections r...
Hema Chaturvedi Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(70)DRJ330
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The impugned order dated 2.8.2003 passed by Sh. Dilbagh Singh, learned Addl. Sessions Judge is on the face of it most unusual and suffers from inherent infirmity. Petitioner is the wife of co-accused who is accused No. 2. Her husband has deserted her and is not residing with her for the last more than two years. Non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner for 2nd August, 2003. On 2.8.2003, the petitioner appeared in person Along with her surety. On that day itself, the learned ASJ sought an undertaking from the petitioner to furnish the address of her husband failing which non-bailable warrants issued against her would come into operation. So much so even the surety of the petitioner was also asked to give an undertaking to furnish the address of accused No. 2 and on account of his failure to do so, his bonds would be forfeited and penalty would be imposed. 2. It is imperceptible as to what prompted the learned ASJ to adopt the procedure which is unknown...
Pearl Global Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ400
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the quashing of the impugned order dated 14.08.2001 passed by the Second Appellate Committee whereby the petitioner's claim that it was prevented from meeting its revalidated quota obligation by virtue of Force Majeure conditions was rejected. 2. At the first instance, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and a speaking order was passed by the AEPC (respondent No. 4 herein) on 30.08.1996. It is pertinent to note that as per the Garment Export Entitlement Policy, the AEPC is not empowered to go into the question of Force Majeure conditions and it is only to be taken up at the stage of First Appeal before the Textile Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the order of the AEPC dated 30.08.1996, the petitioner preferred the First Appeal before the Textile Commissioner which was disposed of by an order dated 31.08.2000. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner could not fulfill its export obligations, as a ...
Prakash Textiles Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT389; 2004(75)DRJ398; 2004(92)ECC355; 2004(166)ELT159(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Second Appellate Committee of the Government of India, Ministry of Textiles passed on 14.09.2002. The question in this petition relates to the utilisation of the export obligation of the petitioner under the Garment Export Entitlement Policy. 2. In this particular case, the relevant year is 1999. The revalidation of export quota which was granted to the petitioner was under the condition that the petitioner would provide a Bank Guarantee to ensure that it met its export obligation by 31.12.1999. The admitted position is that the petitioner could not meet the export obligation by 31.12.1999. However, the petitioner sought to invoke the Force Majeure condition in order to submit that invocation of the Bank Guarantee and forfeiture of the amount of the Bank Guarantee ought not to be done under the Policy itself as the petitioner was prevented from meeting its export obligation because of the Force Majeure conditions...
Shri Ranjiv Talwar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: 108(2003)DLT172; 2003(71)DRJ526
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.57/2003, u/Ss. 406/420/468/471/34 IPC, P.S. Civil Line, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.Allied Motors Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act; 97% of the shares of this company are held by the petitioner and his family members. This company was a licensed dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited, for the last several years; one Gurcharan Singh, husband of the complainant, advanced loans to the company from time to time, for which he used to take cheques as security for repayment of the loan; cheques used to be taken in his own name or in the name of his son's firm. He had invested amount of Rs.3.25 crores, with the intention to convert it into equity, enabling him to come on the Board of Directors of the company, and to participate in the management; he wanted to buy the entire shareholding of...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »