Delhi Court January 2004 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.
Dee Pearls (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc, Icd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT236TriDel
1 .The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order of the Commissioner of Customs whereby the value of the imported goods was enhanced to US$ 90 per MT from US$ 80 per MT as declared by the appellants.2. The appellants made import of Rough Marble Blacks and declared the value at the rate of US$ 80 per MT. The value of the goods was enhanced to US$ 115 MT and the goods were ordered to be confiscated and the same to be allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. A penalty was also imposed on the appellant.3. The appellants filed the appeal against that adjudication order, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh on the ground that the data regarding comparable import on the basis of value of the goods were enhanced wa not supplied to the appellants.4. In the remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority supplied six bills of entry in support for enhancement of value of the goods. During the adjudication proceedings, it...
Two Brothers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC543
1. In this appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the denial of modvat credit to the appellants taken by them twice on a Bill of Entry dated 21.1.98.2. The learned Consultant has contended that since duty was paid in two instalments and goods were also received in two lots, for that reason, the credit had been availed twice. He has shown the original Bill of Entry bearing the stamp of the Customs authorities showing the receipt of the duty amount of Rs. 3,58,765 from the appellants by the customs authorities, each on 22.2.99 and 24.2.99.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has argued that the total duty on the goods covered by the Bill of Entry in question No. 7127 dated 22.1.98 involved was Rs. 3,58,765 and this entire duty amount was paid by them on 22.2.99 as per the stamp of the Customs authorities on the original invoice shown by the learned Consultant and as such the question of payment of duty of this much amount again on 24.2...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kamla Dials and Devices
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT56TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has made challenge to the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original disallowing modvat credit to the respondents on the invoices which were not issued by the registered dealer.2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. The Counsel has sent a request for adjournment on the ground that he has not received full brief from the respondents. But I do not find it to be a sufficient ground and as such the request for adjournment is declined.I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.3. The perusal of the show cause notice placed on the file shows that Modvat credit of the amount in dispute of Rs. 36,439/- availed by the respondents during August and September 94, was sought to be denied to them on the ground that the invoices on the strength of which it was availed, were not issued by the person/dealer/depots/importer who was not registered with the Department under Rule 174 of...
Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT173; 2004(73)DRJ365
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This judgment will dispose of the aforementioned Regular First Appeals. Land measuring 442 bighas 3 bids was of village Dhoolsiras was acquired by the Union of India-respondent for increasing the capacity of Najafgarh drain by a Notification dated 30.5.1979 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 30.5.1979. Declaration under Section 6 was also issued on the same day. Land Acquisition Collector vide award No. 2/86-87 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2500/- per bigha.2. The appellants aggrieved by the said order filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge by his judgment order dated 31.1.1991 disposed of the Reference Nos. 278/89, 238/89, 241/89, 226/89, 240/89, 280/89, 292/89 and 242/89. The learned Additional District Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,000/- per bigha. The learned Additional District Judge also awarded solarium on that market value...
Kulbhushan Arora Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)13
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the assessment order Annex. A-1, dt. 7th March, 2003, for the asst. yr. 1997-98 by the AO. The assessment was reopened in pursuance of exercise of powers under Sections 147-148 of the IT Act, 1961. Reasons have been disclosed to the assessed vide letter dt. 18th Jan., 2002.2. The matter was argued at length. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appeal against the assessment order, which remedy is available to the petitioner under the statute. He has also submitted that there may be delay on account of the fact that he approached this Court and, thereforee, the CIT(A) may be directed to consider the appeal. Certainly, if the petitioner has approached this Court for a relief and if the Court is permitting to withdraw the proceedings with the liberty to file the appeal, the period taken in this Court should be ta...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Haryana Dall Mills
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)553; [2004]267ITR478(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The following question is referred to this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), at the instance of the Revenue:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there should he two separate assessments in respect of the periods?'2. So far as the facts are concerned, it transpires that the partnership firm 'M/s Delhi Haryana Dall Mills' was constituted by a partnership deed dt. 18th April, 1970 executed by seven partners. The said partnership was dissolved by a deed of dissolution executed on 20th May, 1977, according to which the partners--(1) Sh. Johri Mal and; (2) Sh. Shiv Lal--took over the running business, the factory building, machinery, furniture, etc. The other partners were to be paid off On 21st May, 1977, Sh. Johri Mal and Sh. Shiv Lal entered into a new partnership deed taking in three new partners. The IT returns were filed for the aforesaid tw...
S. Jamiat Singh S/O Late Shri Jiwand Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi346
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Appellant is the Plaintiff in Suit No.66/1998 filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. The Appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining Respondents No.2 to 4, their servants, relatives and associates from raising any unauthorised construction in their portion of the first floor as well as on the second floor of the suit property bearing No.147-148, E Block, Kamla Nagar, Delhi - 110 007. Along with the plaint, the Appellant had filed an application for grant of interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the Appellant, he was in occupation of a portion of the ground floor of the suit premises as a sub-tenant of one Naresh Kumar Jain who had taken the ground floor on lease from Respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 is the son of Respondent No.2 and he has argued this appeal in person. While disposing of the application for grant of interim injunction, by the impugned order dated 6t...
Master Vincent Cleetus and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Del)416; [2005]276ITR304(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. In WP(C) No. 395 of 1987, the petitioner was allotted a flat on the first floor admeasuring 1814.92 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs. 12,70,744. There was an agreement executed in this behalf on 11th June, 1986. At the relevant time, Chapter XX-A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), was applicable. It is also required to be noted at this stage that Chapter XX-C was made effective from 1st Oct., 1986 vide notification dt. 7th Aug., 1987, In the instant case, the agreement was executed on 11th June, 1986. 'Form 37-I' under Rule 48L(2) of the IT Rules, 1962, was furnished on 15th Oct., 1986. So far as the aforesaid facts are concerned, there is no dispute before us and, thereforee, the question in this writ petition is whether Chapter XX-C would be applicable or Chapter XX-A would be applicable. Suffice it to say that the agreement was executed on 11th, June, 1986 and Chapter XX-Cwas made applicable w.e.f. 1st Oct., 1986. And, therefor...
Sharda Forging and Stampings (P) Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT357TriDel
1. The appellants filed these appeals against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the demand of Rs. 58,127,548/- was confirmed and a penalty of equal amount was imposed under Section 11AC of the Act. A penalty of Rs. 1 lac was also imposed on Shri Approva Sharda, Director of the appellants' firm under Rule 209A of the Rules.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of articles of iron and steel, dies for stampings and parts of agricultural implements, etc. On 6-9-2002, the officers of Revenue Department visited the premises of the appellants firm and they found the appellants were clearing the forged articles of iron and steel falling under Heading 73.26 of the Central Excise Tariff while misdeclaring as parts of agricultural implements falling under sub-heading 8432.00 of the Tariff. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for reclassifying the goods in question under Heading 73.26 of the Tar...
Woolways India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT179TriDel
1. Heard both sides. The Applicants have filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 98,28,561/- and penalty of Rs. 1,03,28,561/- and penalty on the Managing Director.2. The Applicants have already deposited an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs against this demand.3. The demand was confirmed on the ground that the Applicants cleared the yarn without payment of duty whereas the contention of the Applicants is that fibre was imported against advance licence and yarn was manufactured out of this fibre and the fabric, made out of this yarn, was exported and the export obligation have already been met. The Revenue is not disputing the fact that fabric manufactured by the Applicants had been exported. In these circumstances, we find a strong prima facie case in favour of the Applicants. Therefore, pre-deposit of the duty and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeals....
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »