Delhi Court October 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.
Kanohar Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT129TriDel
1. These two appeals have been filed by M/s. Kanohar Electricals Ltd. and Shri Adesh Singhal, Director, against the common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 211-213/CE/MRT-I/2004, dated 29-3-2004.2. Shri Praveen Sharma learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellant company manufacture electrical transformers and avail of credit of duty paid on inputs; that they also undertake repair work of old and used duty paid damaged transformers received from various sources; that they had imported TOBS which was sent to M/s. Apar Ltd. directly from place of import for processing on job work after furnishing an undertaking under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986; that some of the quantity of the transformer oil processed out of TOBS and received back by the Appellants was used in the repair of old and damaged transformer for which separate account was maintained; that no MODVAT credit was also availed of by them in respect of such quantity of Transformer Oil; that the Revenue has confirmed the dem...
State Bank of India Vs. Vee Kay Oils (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC224
1. Appellant-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant-Bank') has preferred this appeal against the order dated 4.7.2003 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') on Application No. 2902/2003 in O.A.415/2002, filed by the certificate-debtors for return of the original title deeds. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT ordered that the original title deeds be returned to the certificate-debtors, if the terms and conditions of the consent-decree have been complied with.2. Aggrieved, the appellant-Bank has preferred this appeal, and the 2nd respondent has filed a suitable reply opposing the same.3. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.4. O.A. 415/2002 was filed by the appellant-Bank against defendants (1) M/s. Vee Kay Oils (P) Ltd., (2) Mr. Kamal Kishore Arora, (3) Mr. Kishan Chand Arora [since deceased, now represented by (a) Mr. Kamal Kishore Arora, (b) Mrs. Goldy Arora, (c) Mrs. Neen...
Uttam Air Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)718
1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dt. 10th Jan., 2000. In the impugned appeal, the appellant has preferred three grounds of appeal which we shall take up seriatim.2. Briefly stated the facts are that, the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter alia, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of industrial and medical gases. It filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 57,703 which was subjected to scrutiny assessment in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act.3. The first grievance of the assessee in the impugned appeal is against the action of the CIT(A) in disallowing the appellant's claim for setting off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 5,20,987 brought forward from earlier year against the short-term capital gain arising during the impugned assessment year. The brief facts relevant to the first ground are that the assessee had adjusted unabsorbed brought forward...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rishabh Velveleen (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT209TriDel
2. Revenue filed these appeals against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed. In this case the case of the Revenue is that credit of Additional Duty of Excise leviable under Section 3 of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 cannot be utilised towards payment of duty of excise leviable under Central Excise Tariff.3. The contention of the respondent is that during the period in dispute, there was no restriction for payment of excise duty taken from the credit value in respect of additional duty of excise. The Tribunal in appellants' own case vide Final Order No. A/1134/02-NB, dated 13-11-2002 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent.4. Further respondent also brought to our notice that in the Finance Act, 2004, an amendment with retrospective was introduced whereby such credit was allowed. We find that the Tribunal in the respondent's own case decided the issue in favour of the resp...
Heg Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT157TriDel
2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order- in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim of the appellant in respect of the interest.3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of graphite electrodes and they were importing the inputs under the Value Based Advance Licence Scheme governed by Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992. The assessee made import inputs without payment of customs duties subject to the condition that no Modvat credit will be availed in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of export products. The appellant availed the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the goods which were exported. There were lot of disputes in this regard where manufacturer were availing Modvat credit wrongly in violation of the provisions of Notification No. 203/92-Cus., and Central Govt. issued amnesty scheme vide Circular No. 285/1/1997-CX, dated 10-1-19...
Mauria Udyog Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)(118)LC205Tri(Delhi)
1. These two cases have a chequered history. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 12,24,492/- on the ground that freight charges from the appellant's factory to the buyers place were includible in the assessable value. Penal action was also proposed in the notice. The demand raised in the notice was confirmed and penalty of equal amount was imposed on the appellants. In appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the duty demand but reduced the penalty to Rs. 4.5 lakhs. Against the demand confirmation, the assessee came up in appeal to the Tribunal; against the reduction in the quantum of penalty, the Revenue came up in appeal to the Tribunal. In the appeal of the assessee, predeposit of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was directed in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and due to non-compliance with that order, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal on 12.12.2000. In the meanwhile, the appeal of the Revenue ...
Cool Desserts and Shri Neeraj Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC250
1. In these three appeals arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal No.213-214/2003 dated 28.10.2003 - two appeal filed by M/s. Cool Desserts and Shri Neeraj Jain, Partner, and one appeal filed by Revenue one issue involved is whether the activities undertaken by them amounts to manufacture and whether the price is to be regarded as cum-duty price.2. We heard Shri Abhishek Jain, learned Advocate for M/s., Cool Desserts, and another, and Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned DR for Revenue.M/s. Cool Desserts have an Ice Cream Parlour where they serve ice-creams to their customs. They purchase ice-cream in bulk from M/s.Maharasthra Dairy Products Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. The demand of Central Excise duty has been confirmed against them and penalties shave been imposed on them on the ground that they were preparing the various ice-cream preparations such as Sundaes, Shakes, Blast and cakes out of the ice-cream purchased by them after adding ingredients such as nuts, wafers, sharbats, whipped crea...
Alang Auto and General Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Delhi)778
1. ITA 2876/Del/1998 is an appeal by the assessee and ITA 3118/Del/1998 is an appeal by the Revenue and both the appeals are directed against the order of CIT(A)-II, Meerut, relating to asst. yr. 1994-95.ITA 5365/Del/1998 and ITA 4011/Del/1999 are appeals by the Revenue against the order, dt. 27th Aug., 1998 and 28th July, 1999, respectively, both of CIT(A)-II, Meerut, relating to asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97.2. Since same issues are involved in all these appeals they were heard together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience.3. First we shall take up ITA 2876/Del/1998, the appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1994-95. The only ground of appeal challenges the addition of Rs. 50,000 sustained by the CIT(A). The third ground of appeal in ITA 3118/Del/1998 is preferred by the Revenue which is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in scaling down the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 made by the AO to a sum of Rs. 50,000. Both these grounds of appeal arise on the same set o...
Sh. Manjit Singh Vs. Sh. Sant Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT606
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.9.2000 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No. 500/2000 whereby the learned Judge has rejected the appeal of the petitioner arising from the order dated 27.5.2000 of the Additional Rent Controller. 2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal are as follows:- 'Appellant is a tenant. The respondent has sought his eviction on the ground U/s 14(1)(g) DRC Act i.e. bonafide requirement of the premises for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and such buildings or re-buildings could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. During the pendency of the petition the order U/s 15(2) DRC Act was passed on 3.3.1999 directing the appellant to pa the arrears of rent within one month and also to continue to pay the future rent month by month by 15th of each succeeding month. On his failure to comply wit...
Prem Chand JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT68; 2005(79)DRJ51
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner a Development Officer of the Respondent Bank by this writ petition seeks quashing of order dated 9.9.2004 By the impugned order petitioner was directed to handover charge and not to attend the Bank w.e.f. 18.9.2004 as his contract had not been extended by the Board of Directors of respondent Bank. Petitioner also seeks direction for payment of his emoluments for the month of July and August,2004.2. Petitioner had retired from the Central Bank of India as a Manager. Post-retirement he was appointed by the respondent Jain Cooperative Bank as a Development Officer to promote the business of the Bank. Petitioner's case is that his contract is wrong fully sought to be terminated by the order of 9.9.2004, while the contract stood extended up to 31.12.2004 as communicated by the Secretary of the respondent Bank. The stand of the respondent bank appears to be that contract has not been extended after dts. expiry on 30.6.2004. 3. The question arising for consider...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »