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.
Raj Sons Jewellers Vs. Ito
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN81(Delhi)
ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.The appeal is directed by the assessed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 24-6-2002 confirming various additions made by the assessing officer pertaining to assessment year 1998-99.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessed is a partnership firm engaged in the business of export of jewellery. The assessed makes purchase of gold mainly from MMTC/SBI. Issues that gold to various karigars and get the jewellery manufactured on job work basis. The assessed during the Year has also purchased old jewellery and has got the same remanufactured on job work basis. All sales made during the year were export sales. It filed its return of income declaring export sales of 3,10,00,109. The gross profit declared on such sales was 13 per cent which was better than the GP Rate of 8.6390 in the immediately preceding year. The return of income was accompanied by audited balance sheet, profit and loss account, tax audit report under section 44AB,...
Kavit P.U. Foam Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT347TriDel
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore, are being taken up together.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of other plastics, sheets, film, foils and strips of plastics. The appellants claimed classification of flexible polyurethane foam sheet under Chapter 3921.11 of Central Excise Tariff. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants for re-classification of the foam sheets under Heading 94.04 of the Central Excise Tariff on the ground that the appellants were clearing the sheets after cutting to size of mattresses.3. We find that the classification of foam sheets cut to size is now settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sheela Foam Pvt.Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad, reported in [2003 (158) E.L.T. 154 (T) = 2003 (59) RLT 856]. In that case, the Tribunal held that PU foam sheets which are cut to size of mattress which are cleared without affix...
Gahoi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT371TriDel
1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s. Gahoi Foods Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether pan masala containing tobacco manufactured by them is classifiable under Heading 21.06 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed under the impugned order or under Heading 2404 of the Tariff as claimed by them.2. Sh. P.N. Kaul, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture pan masala containing tobacco, commonly known as 'Gutkha'; that initially they classified the impugned product under Heading 21.06 of the Central Tariff; that subsequently, on coming to know that in Civil Appeal No. 625 of 1998 in the case of Kothari Products Ltd. v.Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court vide Order dated 25-1-2000, as reported in 2000 (119) S.T.C 353 has held that Gutkha is a tobacco product and is covered by an entry in the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957; that they filed a fresh revised classification declaration ...
Sh. Kamal Chandravadan Shah and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC279
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.2.1 Sh. V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocated, 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) canifur AZ Liquid : Combined Extract of Melia azadirachta (S:Nimba), Lawsonia (S. Medika) and Cocos nucifera (S:Gadapu...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Arihant Cotsyn Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT240TriDel
1. This appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the Department's appeal against the order of the original authority vacating a demand raised against the assessee in respect of used (empty) containers of modvatable inputs. The original authority had relied on the Board's Circular No. 449/15/99-CX., dated 23-3-99. The appeal preferred by the Department against the decision of the original authority was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by relying on the said circular as well as the Tribunal's judgment in the case of West Coast Industrial Gases Ltd. [1999 (108) E.L.T. 383]. Hence the present appeal of the Revenue.2. No representation for the respondents despite notice. The DR reiterates the grounds of this appeal. One of the grounds is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had admitted the department's appeal against the Tribunal's decision in the case of West Coast Industrial Gases Ltd. It has also been stated that the Department has filed a Ci...
Albert David Ltd., Ahlcon Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC597
1. The appellants are manufacturers of pharmaceutical products including various types of Intravenous Fluids [hereinafter referred to as "IV Fluids"] falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, IV Fluids were exempt from Central Excise duty under Sr. No. 47A of Notification No. 6/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000 as amended by Notification No. 36/2000-CE dated 4.5.2000. The appellants claimed this exemption in respect of some of their products and accordingly cleared the goods without payment of duty during the period from or after 4.5.2000 upto 28.2.2001. From 1.3.2001, they have cleared such goods on payment of duty in view of Notification No. 3/2001-CE dated 1.3.2001, whereunder "Intravenous fluids, which are used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment" were exempted from duty vide Sr. No. 56 to the Table to the Notification. The products which were cleared without payment of duty during 4.5.2000 - 28.2.2001 by M/s Albert David Ltd. (hereinafter referred ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hira Cement
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT283TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether the respondents, M/s. Hira Cement, were clearing their goods bearing the brand name of another unit, namely, Hira Industries Ltd. 2. Sh. V. Valte, learned S.D.R., submitted that M/s. Hira Cement, manufacture cement and claim the benefit of SSI Exemption; that number of show cause notices were issued to them for disallowing the SSI Exemption and for recovering the Central Excise duty on the ground that they were clearing cement by using the brand name/trade name with the style and other accompanying designs of M/s. Hira Industries Ltd., who are also manufacturers of cement; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order, has dropped the further proceedings against respondents holding that the respondents were not using common brand name on the packing of their product. The learned S.D.R., further, submitted that the style and logo, being used by the respondents consisting of a semi-circle with a diamond which is di...
Dr. Sujit Kumar Chaudhuri Vs. the Indian Red Cross Society and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ76; 2004(3)SLJ412(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of parties, matter has been taken up for disposal.3. Petitioner prays that order dated 2.11.2001 be quashed. By the said order, notice of one month was given to the petitioner to effect termination of his services with effect from 1.12.2001. The order reads as under:-'In pursuant of para 2 of the offer of appointment as specifically mentioned therein that the appointment is terminable on one month's notice. I, Dr. (Mrs. ) Vimala Ramalingam, Secretary General, Indian Red Cross Society, National Headquarters, New Delhi hereby give notice to Dr. S.K. Choudhury, Officer on Special Duty (Blood Bank) that his service shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of one month i.e. w.e.f.1.12.2001 (A.N.)'4. Case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an application made by him on 15.12.1997 for being appointed as Director (Blood Bank), he was appointed vide letter dated 16th March,1998 as an Officer on Special Duty. The letter of app...
Associates India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Jairaj Shetty
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR280(Delhi); 109(2004)DLT854; 2004(73)DRJ53
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. These are two petitions which are filed by the petitioner - one being under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the other being under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `the Act') . As the two positions are inter-related, I propose to dispose of both the petitions by this common judgment and order.2. According to the petitioner, disputes between the parties are governed by an arbitration clause and in that view of the matter all the disputes that arise between the parties in terms of the said arbitration clause contained in the loan agreement are required to be adjudicated upon and decided through the process of arbitration by appointing an arbitrator. In the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act the petitioner has prayed for Orders in the nature of interim measures with regard to the two excavators which were the subject-matter of the loan agreement between the parties. In Order to appreciate the ...
Mohd. Majid Khan Vs. Mr. B.P. Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1127; 115(2004)DLT56; 2004(73)DRJ51
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This is a petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act by the petitioner. In CM.No. 2062/2003 on 18.2.2003, the following Order was passed :-'CM.2062/2003Notice. Mr. J.R.Goel accepts notice.List on 6th May, 2003. Till next date of hearing, there shall be a stay of dispossession.' The case of the petitioner is that despite the above Order having been passed in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner, respondents 2 and 4 have violated the Order and in blatant violation of the same on 4.3.2003 removed the stock of bricks numbering about 600 and other materials forcibly. Petitioner duly complained of the same and has given particulars of the truck numbers by which the said bricks were removed. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents. It is claimed in the counter affidavit that the Order dated 18.2.2003 was not served on the respondents. The letter from the respondent's counsel was received on 5.3.2003. 3. It is averred that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »