Delhi Court January 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Daya Nand (Shri) and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT957
D.K. Jain, J.1. In both these writ petitions, challenge is to the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the land pertaining to the same village, namely, Poothkalan papillary known as Mange Ram Park, Harshdev Park Extension of Budh Vihar, Delhi. Notification under Section 4 is No. F.9(16)/80-L & B dated 11 December 1981 and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16 April 1984.2. The stand of the petitioners is that the erstwhile owners converted this land into plots and sold the same to various persons, including the petitioners, much before the issuance of the aforesaid Notifications. The petitioners built up their houses, rooms, structures and boundary walls thereupon; they are in actual physical possession of the land and houses standing thereon and are actually living and residing there. It is also pleaded that over the land, subject matter of acquisition proceedings, a colony known as Bu...
Humphrey and Colman Health Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(114)LC179Tri(Delhi)
1. The common issue involved in these four appeals, arising out of three different Orders, is whether the products, namely, Canifur Liquid and Canifur AZ Liquid manufactured by M/s. Humphrey & Colman Health Products (P) Ltd. are classifiable under Sub-heading No. 3003.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Heading No. 33.05 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Revenue.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant Co. is engaged in the manufacture of Ayurvedic Veterinary medicines and the impugned two products are being manufactured by them under loan license for and on behalf of M/s. Cadila Veterinary; that the ingredients used in the manufacture of these two products are as under: (i) Canifur Liquid: Combined extract of Melia Azadirachta (S:Nimba) and Lawsonia Inermis (S:Medika), Base Q.S. (ii) Canifus AZ Liquid : Combined extract of Melia Azadirachta (S:Nimba), Lawsonia (S:Medika) and Cocos Nucifera (S:Gadapushpa)...
M and B Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC407
1. This appeal is against denial, by the lower authorities, of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,01,556 to the appellants for the periods November 1998 to February 1999 and August 1999 to December 1999. The credit was taken on 'plastic carry bags' which were treated as inputs by the appellants.The appellants are manufacturers of footwears. They cleared their products in cardboard boxes (cartons). In each carton, they also enclosed a 'plastic carry bag' in multi-folded form. They cleared the goods, on payment of duty, to their dealer and the ultimate consumer who would buy the footwear from the retail dealer would carry it home by putting the footwear-in-carton in the plastic bag. This manner of use of the plastic bag has been forthrightly stated in the memorandum of appeal thus: "These carry bags were neatly folded and kept inside the box in which the pair of shoes were also kept so that at the ultimate sale point, the consumer is enabled to carry the box by putting the same inside the bag. In f...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jainsons Organic (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT525TriDel
1. The respondents were working under SSI exemption scheme. Towards the end of the financial year 1996-97, their aggregate value of clearances of specified goods crossed the limit of Rs. 30 lakhs beyond which they were liable to pay duty of excise on the goods at concessional rates in terms of the exemption notification. But it was only at the stage of scrutiny of their Sales Tax Returns for the said financial year that the respondents came to know that they had crossed the above limit.They voluntarily intimated the matter to the department, a fact noted in the impugned order. Later on, the department issued a show cause notice (invoking the extended period of limitation) demanding the duty for the aforesaid period (February-March, 1997) on the goods cleared in excess of the clearance value limit of Rs. 30 lakhs as also proposing to impose penalty on the party. The show cause notice was contested.The original authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 53,968/- against the assessee ...
Jil Plastics Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(113)LC861Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants were working as a small scale industrial unit till 31.3.2000. From 1.4.2000, they opted for not availing SSI exemption and started paying duty on their final products. There was some stock of inputs as on 1.4.2000, which they used in the manufacture of final products which were cleared on payment of duty. Modvat credit on such inputs amounting to Rs. 92,862/- has been disallowed to the appellants by both the lower authorities. Hence the present appeal.2. Ld. counsel for the appellants submits that there is no dispute either of the duty-paid nature of the inputs of utilization thereof in the process of manufacture of final products cleared on payment of duty. Hence the input duty credit should have been allowed. Ltd. counsel relies on the Board's Circular No. 345/2/2000-TRU dated 29.8.2000. Para 5 of the Circular reads as under: Doubts have been expressed whether CENVAT credit in respect of the inputs lying in stock, Inputs contained in the finished goods lying in sto...
Uma Sand and Resins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT129TriDel
1. The appellants are a Small Scale Industrial (SSI) unit manufacturing "S. Sand" (SH 3823.00) and "P.P. Resin" (SH 3909.51) and availing the benefit of concession under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 in regard to payment of duty on their products. The period of dispute in this case is 1994-95. Whenever during this period they cleared goods under brand names ("Unique" and "AVS") of others who were not eligible for the SSI benefit, they paid duty at full Tariff rate in terms of para (4) of the above Notification. Unbranded goods or goods affixed with their own brand name were cleared by availing the exemption under the above Notification. All the clearances were made in terms of the declaration filed under Rule 173B. A dispute with the department arose when the appellants paid duty at full rate by utilizing Modvat credit in respect of a consignment branded as "MA", cleared to M/s. Metal Aids, under invoice No. 60, dated 6-6-1994. The department deemed this clearance of goo...
Vardhman Polytex Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC247
1. Challenge in this appeal, at the instance of the assessee, is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 18.6.2003. On going through the above order we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation. The order challenged in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was one dated 1.3.2002. The Commissioner has correctly taken the view that the delay of 359 days in filing the appeal is beyond the period which he could condone in accordance with the provisions of contained under section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has referred in his Appeal Memo that it is aggrieved by letter dated 13.3.2003 alongwith provisional order dated 1.3.2003 and they are filing appeal against those decisions. We find no merit in this contention of the appellant. In the Appeal Memo the appellant has shown the designation of the officer passed the orde...
Arjun Malhotra Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)269
1. These appeals are preferred on behalf of the assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) on various grounds. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this single consolidated order.2. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of appeal No. 1433 for asst. yr. 1998-99 and ground Nos. 1 to 4 of appeal No. 1434 for asst. yr, 1999-2000 relate to the capital gains earned on transfer of shares and eligibility of deductions in terms of provisions of Section 54F of the IT Act, 1961 against the purchase of new residential house.3. Brief facts borne out from the record in nutshell are that the assessee has claimed to have received 1 lakh equity share of NIIT which were received by him as bonus shares. According to assessee, these shares were sold to M/s Glad Investments (P) Ltd. on 14th Aug., 1997, for Rs. 5 crores. Since these shares were received by the assessee as bonus shares, cost of these shares had been at nil and the total capital gains of Rs....
Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Spl. Range-16
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)90ITD449(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 29-8-1995 for A.Y. 1992-93.2. Shri O.S. Bajpai, Adv. Appear ed on behalf of the assessee whereas Shri Amitabh Mishra, CIT(DR) represented the Revenue.3. The appeal was heard and decided by the Bench vide order dated 9-10-01. Thereafter the assessee moved miscellaneous application being M.A. No. 350/Del/02 for recalling the order of the Tribunal. The M.A.was decided vide order dated 14^th February 2003. In view of the order of the Bench and direction contained in para 9 of the order dated 14-2-2003, the order passed in ITA No. 6819/Del/95 has been recalled in relation to ground No. 3 only and therefore we are required to decide ground No. 3, which is as under: "That the disallowance of the claim Under Section 80M is not justified as there was no co-relation between funds borrowed and investments in shares was out of surplus and internal accruals." 4. We consider it proper to narrate the relevant fac...
Deepak Chopra Vs. Meenu Chopra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ91; (2004)137PLR26
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The facts of the case are that the Respondent wife had filed a Petition under Section 25 of the Guardians & Wards Act seeking the custody of the daughter, namely, Shivangi who was at that time in the custody of her father, who is the Petitioner herein. It appears that non-bailable warrants had been issued against the Petitioner owing to his failure to produce the daughter in Court despite repeated Orders to this effect. While the above-mentioned proceedings were pending, the Habeas Corpus Petition came to be filed in this Court which was disposed of on 23.5.2001 in the following terms:'23.05.2001Present: Mr. Aman Lekhi with Mr. Pramod Jalan and Mr. Shyamal Kumar for the petitioner.Petitioner in person.Ms.Geeta Luthra with Mr. Deepak Bharti for the respondent.Respondent No. 3 in person.Ms.Mukta Gupta for the State.Crl.W.1192/2000 and Crl.M.No. 375/01Rule D.B.This case has a chequered history. Guardian Court, Delhi vide Order dated 10th August, 1998 granted interim c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »