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.
Hindustan Products Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC211
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner. In this case, the duty amounting to Rs. 99,89,349 was confirmed on the ground that during the period from 1.4.95 to 16.2.99, the appellants manufactured and cleared chenille yarn without payment of duty. A penalty of equal amount was also imposed on the appellants.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.2.99, the unit of the appellants was visited by the Revenue Officers and it was found that there were 65 machines used in the manufacture of chenille yarn. The chenille yarn was liable to excise duty and the appellants are clearing chenille yarn without payment of duty. On 17.2.99, the statement of Shri Rajeev Kumar, proprietor of the firm was recorded who admitted the fact regarding manufacture of chenille yarn and also admitted that they were manufacturing chenille yarn for the last 5-6 years and clearing the same without payment of duty. The Revenue Officers also made enquiry from th...
Huges Escorts Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)81TTJ(Delhi)729
1. The only issue arising out of this appeal relates to the disallowance of Rs. 1,45,71,538 made by the AO on the ground that the expenditure was capital in nature.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these--the assessee is engaged in the business of providing satellite communication services through VSATs sold and installed by the assessee at the premises of its various customers. Due to shortage of availability of bandwidth, the assessee-company was not able to service its existing client base by providing the desired connectivity for communication through the satellite. Therefore, the assessee in the relevant previous year replaced certain parts of the VSATs sold by it. Such replacement- was done free of cost and the cost of expenditure amounted to Rs. 1,45,75,538 which had been treated as deferred revenue expenditure amortized over a period of 5 years in the books of account. In para 10 of the notes to the accounts, it was stated by the assessee as under : "In order to optimize its ex...
Smt. Santosh Raghav Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)513; 107(2003)DLT223; 2003(71)DRJ21; 2003RLR105
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of the notice (anneuxre-P/2) which was pasted on the premises in question. The notice reads as under:' NOTICEThe possession of this property No.A-69, Sec.56 situated at NOIDA owned by Jagdan Singh has been taken over on 7.3.2003 at 5 p.m. by Oriental Bank of Commerce under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 by order dated 14.2.2003 issued by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi. Court ReceiverAppointed by Chief Metropolitan MagistrateDelhi.Authorised OfficerOriental Bank of Commerce.'2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 14 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) where it is clearly stated that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate may assist a secured creditor in taking possession of a secured asse...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bimla Tyagi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC130; 2005ACJ2103; 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)45
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. ADMIT.2. Matter being short, the same has been heard with the consent of the parties and disposed of by this order.3. The appellant insurance company has filed this appeal to challenge the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal only on the ground of quantum. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that as the Tribunal while assessing compensation in favor of the claimants has ignored settled principles of law, the insurance company has a right to file an appeal to challenge the award. It is submitted that if it is held that appeal is not maintainable, this appeal may be treated as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.4. I do not agree with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nicolletta Rohtagi & O Rs. 2002 (3) ACJ 1950 has held that an insured cannot avoid its liability on any other grounds except those mentioned in sub-Sect...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Smt. Amaravati Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)280; AIR2004Delhi218; 2003(71)DRJ425
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. ADMIT.2. Matter being short, the same has been heard with the consent of the parties and disposed of by this order.3. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs under Section 124A of the Indian Railways Act to the respondents who are the legal representatives of the deceased who was a bonafide passenger in the train and had died because of his having fallen down from while the same was in motion. 4. The contention of Mr. Salwan, learned counsel for the appellant is that since the deceased was under the influence of liquor, he had fallen down from the train because of intoxication and his legal heirs were thus not entitled to any compensation. Under of the Act, when in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entit...
Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)258
1. Mr. R.D. Jolly, learned senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, states on instructions from Mr. Ram Mohan Singh, Dy. CIT that the reasons recorded for issuing notice under Section 158BD of the IT Act, 1961, shall be supplied to the petitioner. In view of the statement, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction that on petitioner's filing objections within two weeks of the supply on the reasons, the AO shall dispose of the same before proceeding further in the matter of assessment for the block period in question. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all the objections with regard to the jurisdiction of the AO in taking recourse to the proceedings in question. 2. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms....
Panorama Exports P. Ltd. Vs. Praveen Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ749
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.3. This writ petition challenges the impugned Award dated 21st March, 2001 by which the Labour Court granted a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in favor of the workman in lieu of the reinstatement as in the interregnum the workman concerned, Smt. Asha Devi had died and is now represented by her son, Shri Praveen Kumar, respondent No. 1 in this writ petition.4. Mr. Sabharwal, the Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner in challenging the award of the Labour Court has stated that there is no finding, was recorded that the services of the workman, Smt. Asha Devi were ever terminated and it is the petitioner's case that she had all along been under suspension and thereforee, without recording this finding, neither reinstatement nor the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of the reinstatement in favor of the workman(through LR) could have been granted...
Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN154(Delhi)
ORDER1. Mr. R.D. Jolly, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue, states on instructions from Mr. Ram Mohan Singh, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax that the reasons recorded for issuing notice under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be supplied to the petitioner. In view of the statement, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction that on petitioner's filing objections within two weeks of the supply on the reasons, the assessing officer shall dispose of the same before proceeding further in the matter of assessment for the block period in question. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all the objections with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in taking recourse to the proceedings in question.2. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms....
Shriniwas Synthetic Packers Pvt. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT729TriDel
1. The issue involved in these two appeals is whether the Aluminium foil/strips backed on both sides with plastics and stainless steel foils/strips backed with plastics on both sides are classifiable under Sub-heading 7607.00 and 7220.90 respectively of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Appellants or under Sub-heading 3920.30 of the tariff as classified by the Commissioner, under the impugned order.2.1 Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that whenever electrical signals are transmitted through Jelly Filled Telecommunication cables (JFTC), electromagnetic filed is generated around the cable which causes interference in electrical signals being transmitted through other neighboring cables and distorts the signals; that JFTC cables are provided with metallic covering over the cable core to prevent distortion of electrical signals by surrounding electromagnetic fields; that Department of Telecom has specified that this screening material should be ...
Sun Vaccum Formers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)(112)LC195Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. In the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise dis-allowed the MODVAT credit of Rs. 25,26,192/- in respect of capital goods and imposed the penalty of equal amount on the appellants.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of parts of Motor vehicles and were availing the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of the inputs as well as capital goods. During the period from September, 1995 to March, 1998 the appellants received certain capital goods and took MODVAT credit in respect of the duty paid on these capital goods. During the period December, 1997 to May, 1998, appellants shifted certain capital goods from their factory premises to another factory premises of M/s. Sun Steering Wheels Ltd. The appellants reversed the credit in their RG-23 C Part-II in respect of the capital goods shifted to the other factory. Thereafter, on 29.3.1...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »