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.
United News of India Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT95; 2004(73)DRJ278; 2004(93)ECC607; 2004(168)ELT442(Del)
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. The petitioner being aggrieved by an order made by Government of India (Department of Revenue and Banking) on 4.6.1976 (Annxure-A1), has filed this petition.2. In a nutshell the facts are that the petitioner deposited an amount of money with the respondent on 19.1.1974 in anticipation of payment of duty as it was likely to receive goods, which were dispatched from United Kingdom. The petitioner was anticipating delivery of 69 bales of paper. However, only 51 bales were delivered to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the authority under the Customs Act for issuance of 'short landing certificate', which was issued to the petitioner only on 11.6.1974. It is on the strength of this certificate that the petitioner submitted an application for refund of the excess amount on 9.9.1974. This application was submitted in respect of 18 bales, which he did not receive and for which 'short landing certificate' was issued by the appropriate authority. There is ...
Ams Jewellers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)557
1. By this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, has prayed as under:'(a) to direct the respondents to release entire jewellery worth Rs. 52,10,120 in terms of proviso to Section 132(1)(iii) of the Act, or in any case, to release jewellery worth Rs. 39,53,726 which is being retained illegally without any justification over and above the total liability created under the block assessment.'2. It is an admitted position that Settlement Commission under the IT Act, 1961, is seized of the matter and an application is also submitted to the Settlement Commission for return of the jewellery. The petitioner's grievance is that the Settlement Commission is not deciding the matter, and looking to the value of the jewellery and the amount which is lying with Department, nothing is required to be recovered so far as the jewellery aspect is concerned,3, Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel to Section 245F with regard to powers and procedure of Settlement Commission and also to the proviso ...
Goojar Mal Ganpat Rai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)550; [2004]268ITR191(Delhi)
1. Admit.2. The following question requires consideration :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirming an ad hoc addition of Rs. 1,50,000 out of Rs. 2,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged excess stock was perverse and without any material to support the finding ?'3. At the request of both counsel, we have taken up the matter for final hearing and dispense with the paper book.4. We have read the order made by the Assessing Officer as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The question is about the perversity of the finding with regard to the addition of Rs. 2 lakhs by the Assessing Officer, which has been reduced to Rs. 1.5 lakhs by the Appellate Tribunal. On page 25 of the paper book, the Assessing Officer has held as under :'The views of the assessed are considered and are reasonable. However, there are a number of instances where order/estimate forms are stated to have been converted into ...
Kamdhenu Ispat Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC541
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of MS CTD bars, TMT bars, etc. and their annual capacity of production was fixed under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act by the Commissioner vide order dated 30.9.1997. The appellants applied to the Commissioner for change in the parameters of their rolling mills. Necessary permission was granted by the Commissioner vide letter dated 14.8.98. In pursuance to the permission granted the appellants changed the parameters of their rolling mills and applied for redetermination of annual capacity of production and the Commissioner vide order dated 5.1.98 accepted the revised annual capacity of production with effect from 9.9.98 and fixed the annual capacity of production at 19974.385 MT. In this order the Commissioner allowed the appellants to make representation against determination in case there is any discrepancy in the order...
U.G. Sugars and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT465TriDel
1. The appeal of M/s U.G. Sugar (party) is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which Modvat credit under the capital goods Modvat scheme has been disallowed to the appellants in respect of the following items :- (1) HR/MS/GC Sheets/Plates/Angles/Channels/Supporting structure, etc.Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed on the appellants. In the said Order-in-Appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed credit in respect of - 2. The Revenue has filed cross appeal against extension of credit to these items viz. Appeal being No. E/1369/03-NB(SM). Both appeals being related to a common order-in-appeal are taken together for disposal through a common order.4. The appellate authority denied the credit on HR/MS Plates, etc., by observing as under ;- "The appellants have not placed any corroborative evidence on record regarding the precise use of these items. Fabrication/construction materials have been held by the Tribunal as not being covered by t...
Jindal Electric and Machinery Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT276TriDel
1. The appellants in this appeal are aggrieved by denial of interest on an amount of Rs. 1,20,634/- which had been pre-deposited with the Department on 25-5-1998 under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act in Appeal No. E/1723/98-B and eventually refunded to the appellants after the appeal was decided in their favour vide Final Order No. 1392/99-B, dated 6-12-1999 of this Tribunal. The application for refund of the above amount was filed by the party on 23-2-2000, wherein they also claimed interest on the amount from 25-5-1998 (date of deposit). Though the above amount was refunded to the party, the claim for interest was rejected by the original authority. The decision of that authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal of the assessee claiming interest on the above amount from 25-5-1998.2. Heard both sides. Ld. Consultant for the appellants is agreeable for limiting the claim of interest to the period from 6-12-1999 (date of Final Order) to the date ...
Kothari Pouches Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT181TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the imposition of penalty on the appellants.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the goods had never been claimed by the appellants as manufacturer or even as purchaser from any trader and the same had been also not recovered from their premises.Therefore, no penalty under any provision of the law could be imposed on them.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. I have heard both sides and gone through the, record. From the record it is evident that some goods were seized from the premises of the transporter, but the appellants denied their concern with those goods from the very beginning as manufacturer or even as a trader. The Tribunal vide earlier remand order dated 16-6-1998 directed the adjudicating authority to consider this plea of the appellants. But the adjudicating authority without going into this plea,...
M.S. Shoes East Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT113TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. M.S. Shoes East Limited the issue involved is whether motor car imported by them is liable for confiscation.2. Shri Krishna Kant, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants had imported a second-hand Rolls Royce Corniche IV car on 22-12-1995 valued at 75000 Pounds against a valid import licence No. P/W/0548548, dated 13-1-95 issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade; that initially the Customs Department held the car to be more than 3 years old from the date of registration pointing out that the date of shipment of the car would be taken to be the date given on the Bill of Lading and not the date on which the car was received by the shipping company for shipment; that the delay was got condoned from D.G.F.T. in June, 1998; that subsequently the Customs Department under letter dated 4-7-98 directed them to seek clearance of the impugned car from Ahmedabad as import licence was registered over there or to put up the release advice so issued by ...
Hyundai Merchant Marine Compay Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ44; 2004(94)ECC340; 2004(171)ELT3(Del)
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioners by this writ petition seek a writ of mandamus for release of 12 containers belonging to petitioner No. 1. Further writ of certiorari is sought for quashing any decision of respondent No. 2 and 3 confiscating the containers. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are:-(i) That 12 containers containing used garbage processing machinery weighing about 1,74,964 Kgs. was imported by respondent No. 4 M/s Renovo Energy Ltd. The consignment imported was not being cleared by the importer respondent No. 4. It was learnt from respondent No. 2, Commissioner of Customs, ICD, that SIIB investigations were going on in respect of goods imported. (ii) The case of the petitioners is that from the end of December,1998 respondent No. 4 has failed to clear the goods. Petitioner No. 2 who happens to be the agent of petitioner No. 1 has been repeatedly seeking that the imported consignment be de-stuffed from the containers so that containers are released to them, b...
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: 109(2003)DLT494
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Having come across the following news item in a national daily 'Statesman' of 16th September, 2003 this Court took suo motu notice as prima facie illegality in the order was writ large on the face, summoned the record, noticed the CBI and stayed its operation. The news item reads as follows:'Special Court returns CBI charge-sheet Statesman News Service New Delhi, Sept. 15.--The Central Bureau of Investigation was at the receiving end of the ire of a Special Court today with the Judge declining to accept its charge-sheet against an IRS official-allegedly involved in a fake visa racket during his posting in Tanzania and snubbed it for not arresting him during the investigation. Additional Sessions Judge Mr. Prem Kumar returned the charge-sheet to the agency saying it was not observing a uniform policy or norm in arresting accused persons during investigations. The Court rejected CBI contention that provisions of Section 170, Cr.P.C, which requires the Investigating O...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »