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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ms. Rohini S. Walia and
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: [2007]289ITR328(Delhi)
1. Both these appeals are preferred against a common order made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T. (SS) Appeal No. 83/Delhi of 2002 for block period April 1, 1989 to July 27, 1999, and I.T. (SS) Appeal No. 142/Delhi of 2002 for block period April 1, 1989, to July 27, 1999. In both the cases, the facts were common and hence, the Tribunal disposed of both the appeals by a common judgment and/or order. The Tribunal on the material placed before it, arrived at a conclusion that there were no search warrants in the name of the assesseds and hence it accepted the contention of learned Counsel that the proceedings initiated under Section 158BC in the cases of the assesseds were ab initio void and without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the Department was unable to furnish any clarification and stated before the Tribunal that the facts stated by the assesseds regarding non-issuance of the search warrant in the case of the two ladies were correct. It is in view of this that the Trib...
Cit Vs. Ms. Pushpa Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN627(Delhi)
Both these appeals are preferred against a common order made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in IT (SS) Appeal No. 83 (Delhi) of 2002 for block period 1-4-1989 to 27-7-1999 and IT (SS) Appeal No. 142 (Delhi) of 2002 for block period 1-4-1989 to 27-7-1999. In both the cases, facts were common and, hence, the Tribunal disposed of both the appeals by a common judgment and/or order. The Tribunal on the material placed before it, arrived at conclusion that there were no search warrants in the name of the assessed and hence, it accepted the contention of the learned counsel that the proceedings initiated under section 158BC in the cases of the assessed were ab initio void and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the department was unable to furnish any clarification and stated before the Tribunal that the facts stated by the assessed regarding non-issuance of the search warrant in the case of the ladies were correct. It is in view of this that the Tribunal has held that unless ...
Aureola Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)(115)LC198Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Sulphonic Acid (Acid Slurry) and are using Sulphuric Acid one of the inputs in the manufacture of Acid Slurry. The appellants were availing the benefit of MODVAT Scheme and taking credit on the duty paid inputs. During the manufacture of Acid Slurry some residue of left over Sulphuric acid separated and this said residue is called Spend Sulphuric Acid. The appellants were clearing this Spent Sulphuric Acid to manufacture of fertilizers under Chapter X procedure without payment of duty. A show case notice was issued to the appellants demanding 8% of the price of the Spent Sulphuric Acid cleared under Chapter X Procedure under the provisions of Section 57CC of the Central Excise Rules. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and the appeal filed by the appellans was dismissed.4. The contention of the app...
Service Bureau Cha Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT325TriDel
1. It is the complaint of the appellant that in spite of this Tribunal's Order dated 31-7-2003 [2003 (159) E.L.T. 1010 (T)] setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner to continue suspension of licence issued to the appellant as Customs House Agent, the authorities are not permitting them to function as Custom House Agent. The complaint of the applicant is that this Tribunal's order is not being implemented by the respondent. At the time of hearing today, order, dated 4/5-8-2003 passed by the Commissioner revoking his order dated 11-7-2003 and allowing the appellant to transact Clearing and Forwarding business is also brought to our notice. The appellants submits that in spite of the above order of the Commissioner, appellant is not allowed to function as Custom House Agent.2. We direct the Commissioner to file an Affidavit before this Tribunal as to why this Tribunal's order dated 31-7-2003 is not being implemented. The Affidavit shall be filed before this Tribunal on or befor...
Havell'S Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC383
1. In this appeal, the appellants have made challenge to the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-Original regarding confiscation of the unaccounted goods and imposition of penalty, as ordered by the adjudicating authority.2. The learned consultant has contended that for non-accountal of the goods, the provisions of Rule 173-Q could not be invoked and as such no confiscation of the goods could be ordered. He has relied upon the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, 3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and relied upon the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Kirloskar Brothers 1988 (34) ELT 30 and Media Video Ltd. v.CCE, New Delhi, 4. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. So far as the non-accountal of the goods (waste and scrap of copper and steel) in the statutory record by the appellants is concerned, the same ...
Nath Printing Works Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC709
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the modvat credit of Rs. 3,52,494 on the ground that there was shortage of duty paid inputs. The goods found in excess were also confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 35,000.The penalty of Rs. 35,000 was also imposed on the appellants.2. The appellants are not contesting the confiscation of the goods found in excess in the factory. The appellants are only contesting denial of modvat credit on the goods found short.4. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of textile fabrics laminated with PU foam and were taking modvat credit in respect of duty paid on PU foam. On 6.1.2000 the factory premises of the appellants was visited by the officers of Central Excise, it was found that PU foam on which the credit was taken was found short as compared to their statutory records. Shri Sandeep Behl, authorised signatory of the appellants stated that PU foam being bulky and inflammabl...
Alwar Lamps Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC685
1. In these appeals at the instance of the assessee the issue arising for consideration is whether the bulbs manufactured by the appellants and cleared to OE manufacturers are to be classified under sub-heading 8539.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as claimed by the assessee or under sub-heading 8539.90, as alleged by the Revenue.2. The appellant in Appeal No. E/2310/2003, M/s, Alwar Lamps Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of Auto Bulbs of various sizes and voltage/wattage falling under Heading 85.39 under the brand name 'Autopal'. The said bulbs were cleared by them in retail packing as well as in bulk industrial packing on payment of appropriate rate of duty. While so, a show cause notice dated 5.7.2002 was issued with the allegation that auto bulbs supplied to OE manufacturers and State Machinery Corporation (STC) in industrial packing were classifiable under sub-heading 8539.90, that only goods in retail packing having printed retail sale price not exceeding Rs. 20...
Cimmco Birla Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC582
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Cimmco Birla Ltd. relates to disallowance of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture railway wagons and parts thereof; that a show cause notice dated 3.7.98 was issued to them for disallowing the Modvat Credit taken by them during the period for Dec., 97 to April, 98 on the ground that the Modvat Credit had been taken after the physical consumption of inputs and removal of the final product; that in their reply they mentioned that since the railway wagons were manufactured on behalf of the Indian Railways, they were under the genuine bona fide belief that the wagons were exempt from duty in terms of Notification No. 64/95 dated 16.3.95 which completely exempted all wagons supplied to Indian Railways from duty; that they were, subsequently, informed by the Ministry of Railway in 1997 that wagons supplied against 'Own Your Wagons Scheme' were liable to exci...
Kuldeep Chander Vs. Chief Inspector of Shops and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi130; 109(2004)DLT454; 2004(72)DRJ553; [2004(101)FLR163]; (2004)IILLJ402Del
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondent No.2 who is his tenant in a shop which is a part of his residence is not observing the rules of Shop Establishment Act as he does not follow the directions of opening and closing time of the shop. So much so the respondent No. 2 has been challaned by the Inspector, Shop and Establishment almost every year and more than 6-7 times. 2. The suit for injunction was dismissed vide impugned order merely on the ground that efficacious remedy under the Specific Reliefs Act is available to the landlord and wherever such a remedy is available, Section 41(h) of the Specific Reliefs Act disentitles the person to seek injunction. 3. The learned Additional District Judge has, thus observed that the only remedy available to the petitioner is by way of approaching the Inspector, Shop and Establishment and getting the respondent No. 2 challaned. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that nobody can be allowed to violate the l...
Shri Mohinder Singh and ors. Vs. Shri Madan Jha, Financial Commissione ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT802; 2004(73)DRJ46; (2004)137PLR29
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to file reply. He submits that he will argue the application orally and rely on record.2. The applicant, Ms. Jyoti Sikka by this application seeks impleadment as a respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition had been filed by Mohinder Singh & Ors., on 5.12.1984. The petitioners in the writ petition sought quashing of the order dated 13.11.1984, passed by the Financial Commissioner, as it maintained the withdrawal of plot No.415 from the allotment to the petitioner and retained the allotment to Gaon Sabha. 3. The applicant is a purchaser of 1 bigha of land vide Sale Deed dated 30.4.1987 from one Mishri, who is claimed to be the original owner and allottee from Gaon Sabha. 4. Before taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be pertinent to notice that this very applicant had earlier moved an application-CM.1661/90 for impleadment. The said applic...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »