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.
Cc and C Vs. Gwalior Chemicals Ind Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC75
1. The revenue has filed the present Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.138/2003 dated 31.3.03, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the Adjudicating Authority can not classify the goods under Heading different from Heading proposed under show cause notice and that M/s. Gwalior Chemical Industries Ltd., respondents, are not manufacturer merely because they supplied raw materials, design and specification of the furniture.2. Shri Kumar Santosh, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that two show cause notices were issued to the respondents for classifying the furniture manufactured out of raw material supplied by the Respondents along with design and specification under Heading 94.01, 93.04 and 94.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff act; that the Joint Commissioner under Adjudication Order No.104-105/99 dated 24.12.99 classified the furniture under Heading 94.03 of the Tariff and had confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty; that the Comm...
Neer Shree Cement Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC389
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellants on the packing materials, namely, PP Woven Sacks/Bags under Rule 57AB of the Rules.2. The learned counsel has contended that for want of space in the factory premises of the appellants, the packing material was kept in the adjoining premises of M/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. and the quantity of the packing material allegedly found short in their factory tallied with the quantity found in the premises of M/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. and that the appellants' factory is also owned by M/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. Therefore, the Cenvat credit could not be denied as there was no intention on the part of the appellants to remove the same in a clandestine manner.3. On the other hand, the learned SDR has contended that since there was a removal of the packing materials on which Cenvat credit had been taken by the appellants, the Cenvat credit had b...
Classic Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC572
1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Classic Enterprises Ltd., the issue involved is whether the value of clearance of crates manufactured by them is to be included in the aggregate value of clearance of exempted products.2. Shri Rajesh Chibber, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufactured flexible plastic hollow corrugated sheets falling under Heading 39.26 and boxes, cartons, dispensers, file folders, book case coasters, crates etc. falling under Heading No. 39.23 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that Notification No. 5/99-CE dated 22.8.99 S.No. 70, exempts them from payment of duty on the aggregate value of clearances up to Rs. 85 lakhs/100 lakhs and also provides partial exemption in respect of aggregate value of clearance exceeding Rs. 85 lakhs/100 lakhs in respect of all goods falling under Heading Nos. 39.23, 39.24 and 39.26, other than (i) goods of polyurethanes, (ii) insulated ware (iii) bags or sacks, and (iv) crates; that Explanation to S. No. 70...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Pushpanjali Steel Alloys P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT59TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original regarding remission of duty, confiscation of the unaccounted goods and imposition of penalty.2. The learned SDR has contended that the non-accountal of the goods as well as the removal of certain goods without payment of duty was admitted by Shri Ajay Goyal, Director of the respondents company, and as such the Commissioner (Appeals) could not ignore that statement and to hold that physical verification of the goods was not taken properly and that removal of the goods was not proved. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.3. On the other hand, the learned counsel has contended that except for the statement of Shri Ajay Goyal, there is no evidence to prove the non-accountal of the goods as well as the removal of the goods in a clandestine manner. He has also contended that the redemption fine and the penalt...
Hutchisom Max Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT175TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Hutchison Max Telecom Pvt. Ltd., issue relates to rejection of refund of claim filed by them.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are one of the Mobile Telephone service provider; that they had imported a consignment containing computer software; that they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-1997 which exempts imported computer software falling under Heading No.85.24 or Chapter 49 of the first Schedule to the Customs Act; that the Customs Department did not extend the benefit of exemption and accordingly they cleared the goods on payment of duty on the software; that finally the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. C-l/ 3971/WZB/2000, dated 9-7-2000, reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 774 (T) = 2001 (43) RLT 967 allowed their appeal extending the benefit of Notification No. 11/97; that subsequently they filed a refund claim in respect of duty paid by them on the software imported by them; that...
Shri Rajiv Sharma and anr. Vs. Shri Rajiv Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi248; 109(2004)DLT509; 2004(72)DRJ540
RFA No.833/2003 and CM 2088/2003. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 filed by the appellant. 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for possession with the prayer for a decree of possession in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants as well as a decree for recovery of arrears of rents and decree for recovery of damages/mesne profits. The appellant filed written statement. Thereafter in view of the written statement filed by the appellants, it seems that the respondent herein filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC praying for decree of recovery of possession on the basis of admissions made by defendants No.1 and 2. 3. Mr. Lonial, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the trial court erred in not appreciating that the rent of the premises was Rs. 3,217/- and was not more than Rs. 3,500/- and, thereforee, it was Rent Controller...
D.D.A. Vs. Dr. K.K. Srivastava
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT849; 2004(73)DRJ60
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The appellant DDA aggrieved by the judgment of the Single Judge dated 4th March, 1999 has preferred this appeal before this Court with the request that the Order of the learned Single Judge be set aside. The learned Single Judge in view of the judgment of the Division Bench passed in Mrs. Vijaya C. Gursahaney v. Delhi Development Authority, reported in 1994 2 AD Delhi 770 allowed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner (respondent herein) has got a valid will, and probate having been issued by a competent Court the respondent cannot claim and demand unearned increase. He further submitted that the grant letters of administration of the will is final and binding. The respondent (appellant herein) could not go contrary to the settled law and claim and demand 50% unearned increase for mutating the property in favor of the petitioner (respondent herein).2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are recapitulat...
Lalita Devi and ors. Vs. Mewa Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: I(2004)ACC497; 2006ACJ941; 110(2004)DLT114; 2004(73)DRJ269
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The appellants are the parents (Appellants No.4 & 5) of the deceased Vinod Kumar Dhiri. Appellant No.1 is his widow and Appellants No.2 & 3 are his two daughters. The deceased was sitting on the pillion seat of a motor cycle when it met with an accident on 26th October, 1983. A truck driven by Respondent No.1 hit the rear of the motor cycle as a result of which the rider of the motor cycle as well as Vinod Kumar fell down. The wheels of the truck passed over Vinod Kumar and he died on the spot.2. At that time, the deceased was of 36 years of age and was working in a private company and earning Rs.1,100/- p.m. as salary besides other benefits such as provident fund etc.3. The legal representatives of Vinod Kumar filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and claimed a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as compensation on account of death of Vinod Kumar.4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal') framed the following ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.D. Kohli
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)178; [2005]273ITR223(Delhi)
B. C. Patel, C.J. & Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. Against the order made by the Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'C', Delhi) in ITA No. 5645/Del/1997 for the asst. yr. 1992-93, the Revenue has preferred this appeal as order of penalty has been cancelled by CIT(A) and such cancellation has been confirmed by the Tribunal.2. We are not required to examine the facts in detail, but it is apparent that the bank has given the pass book to the assessed which has not reflected the correct figures in respect of two entries only. Under the Banker's Books Evidence Act, the pass book is a documentary evidence to be acted upon, In the instant case, a copy of the ledger is also produced to show that two entries in the pass book were incorrect. The assessed has rendered the Explanationn and paid the tax. The CIT(A) has accepted the Explanationn that the assessed did not engage any accountant and was in the habit of filing his own return of income and the mistake occurred inadvertently. The Explanationn has been cons...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kohinoor Impex (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Del)77; [2004]270ITR381(Delhi)
1. Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order made by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F', New Delhi, in ITA No. 4343/Del/1993 for asst. yr. 1986-87 which has confirmed the order made by the CIT(A). The Tribunal on appreciation of provisions and evidence confirmed the order made by the CIT(A). The assessed had made clear that the surrender under Section 132(4) in respect of the amount was being made with a view to buy peace and subject to condition that no penal provision would be invoked against the assessed. Looking to the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) held that the assessed was entitled to immunity from the imposition of penalty read with Explns. 1 and 5 to Section 271 of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT(A) has examined the matter in detail and has reproduced the question put to the assessed and thereafter pointed out as under:'In this case also I find that the assessed has made disclosure without any specific detection of concealed income and it is a well-settled law that if disclo...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »