Delhi Court November 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.
Jai Forgings and Stampings Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT241TriDel
2. In this appeal, the issue relates to the refund of the duty amount to the appellants.3. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants initially cleared the goods from the factory i.e. 1450 pieces of forgings for flange, to the General Manager, Ordnance Factory against Invoice No. 60, dated 18-6-98, but out of those 1308 pieces were rejected by the Ordnance Factory officer and same were received back for removing the defects by the appellants in their factory on 3-3-99 under Rule 173H and (D-3) intimation under Rule 173L, was also sent by the appellants to the department. After removing the defects the appellants again cleared those goods during the period 6-3-99 to 26-5-99, and paid duty again on the goods though it was not payable by them. Thereafter, the appellants claimed refund of Rs. 78,689/- by calculating the total excess duty paid by them during the above said period.4. The claim of the appellants has been rejected by the authorities below on the ground of limitation. T...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pilot Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT59TriDel
1. The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by Revenue is whether M/s. Pilot Products were clearing the excisable goods manufactured by them bearing the brand name of another person.2. Shri Vikas Kumar, learned S.D.R., submitted that M/s. Pilot Products, respondents, manufacture desert coolers under the brand name "PILOT" which belongs to M/s. Pilot (India); that Shri Kuldip Singh, proprietor of the respondents, has deposed in his statement dated 5-3-1997 that the brand name "PILOT" is not registered in his firm's name; that Shri Gurdial Singh, partner of M/s. Pilot (India) has deposed, in his statement dated 12-3-1997, that the brand name "PILOT" belongs to their unit and that they are using this brand name since 1968 from the commencement of their unit; that he has also deposed in his statement that they had applied for registration of this trade mark with the Registrar of Trade Mark; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit of small scale exemption to the respo...
Sr. Ex. Engr, Punjab State Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)(119)LC56Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Senior Executive Engineer, Central Workshop, Punjab State Electricity Board, relates to the refund of the Central Excise duty claimed by them.2. Shri Ravi Raghvan, learned Consultant, submitted that the appellants fabricate various structural items by way of various processes such as punching, cutting, drilling, bending and galvanising of M.S. angles, rounds and flats; that they were paying Central Excise duty on these fabricated items under the impression that these were excisable goods.Subsequently, they filed refund claims for refund of the duty paid on these structural items which were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner; that on appeal, filed by them, the Commissioner (Appeals) also under the impugned Order has rejected their refund claims on the ground, inter alia, that they had never contested the excisability of the products and they have also failed to adduce any evidence that the assessments were provisional. The learned Cons...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Adpros
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: (2006)STR48
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 24-1-2004 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty from Rs. 27,900/- to Rs. 15,000/- on the respondents for late filing of service tax return for the quarter ending April and June, 2001.2. I have heard the learned JDR and Chartered Accountant for the respondents and gone through the records. From the record, it is evident that there was a delay of 267 days on the part of the respondents in filing of the service tax return for the quarter ending April and June, 2001, they were required to deposit the service tax by 25-7-2001 whereas it was deposited on 15-4-2002. But the entire service tax has been paid by the respondents along with interest thereon. The adjudicating authority no doubt levied penalty equal to the service tax amount, but the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced it to Rs. 15.000/- by observing that initially, there was some confusion with the assessees regarding their tax ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Flex Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT251TriDel
1. In this appeal the Revenue has disputed the correctness of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the credit amount of Rs. 24,000/- to the respondents.2. Learned SDR has contended that suo motu credit of the disputed amount could not be taken by the respondents without due intimation to permission from the Department. He has referred to the provisions of Rule 173-1(4) of the Rules and Board's Circular No. 249/83/96-CX., dated 11-10-96 in support of his contention. But, in my view, this contention of the learned SDR cannot be accepted, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. From the record, it is evident that the respondents admittedly at the time of clearance of the goods, paid excess duty of the amount detailed above. They showed the excess payment in RT-12 returns which were duly assessed. Therefore,, it cannot be said that there was no intimation to the Department regarding excess payment of duty. They had also produced certificate...
Chandan Prabhakar Gadgil Vs. Allahabad Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC214
1. Respondent-Allahabad Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank) filed O.A. 7/98 against Western India Industries Ltd. (1st defendant), Mr. Chander Prabhakar Gadgil (being 3rd defendant and the appellant herein; hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendant') and others before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). The DRT passed the final order dated 6.3.2002. The appellant-defendant filed an application before the DRT to set aside the order setting him ex parte (date 23.8.2001) and the final order dated 6.3.2002. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT dismissed the said application by order dated 30.4.2002.2. Aggrieved, the appellant-defendant has preferred this appeal. The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the same.3. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that the appellant-3rd. defendant was formerly a director of...
P and G Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)93TTJ(Delhi)788
1. The main issue arising in this appeal relates to the interpretation of Clause (baa) of Explanation after Sub-section (4B) of Section 80HHC of IT Act, 1961 (Act).2. The assessee was engaged in the business of export of leather garments. Under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (hereafter called DEPB Scheme), the assessee was entitled to certain credit against each export and against the same, it was entitled to import certain goods.The duty payable thereon could be adjusted against such credit. In case assessee was not interested in importing goods, it could transfer such credit to other exporter/importer engaged in the same line of business against cash receipts. The assessee, instead of importing goods, transferred the credits to other parties. The sum of Rs. 1,90,23,953 was received by the assessee against transfer of such credits and the same was shown as business receipts under Section 28(iiia) in the books of account for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the assess...
P and G Enterprises P. Ld. Vs. Dcit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)93ITD138(Delhi)
1. The main issue arising in this appeal relates to the interpretation of Clause (baa) of Explanation after Sub-section (4B) of Section 80HHC of Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act).2. The assessee was engaged in the business of export of leather garments. Under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (hereafter called DEPB Scheme), the assessee was entitled to certain credit against each export and against the same, it was entitled to import certain goods.The duty payable thereon could be adjusted against such credit. In case, assessee was not interested in importing goods, it could transfer such credit to other exporter/importer engaged in the same line of business against cash receipts. The assessee, instead of importing goods, transferred the credits to other parties. The sum of Rs. 1,90,23,953/- was received by the assessee against transfer of such credits and the same was shown as business receipts Under Section 28(iiia) in the books of account for the year under consideration.Accordingly, ...
Mahindra Kumar Narendra and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT355; I(2005)DMC61; 2005(79)DRJ47
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the registration of the FIR No.375/2003 at PS Shahdara, Delhi under Section 498-A/406/506/323/34 IPC have filed this Writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the aforesaid FIR and restrain the respondents from taking any action in pursuance thereof.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioners are residents of Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. Petitioner No.3, who is the son of petitioners No.1 & 2, was married to Ms.Sarabpreet Kaur, respondent No.3, a resident of Delhi. On account of some matrimonial disputes between petitioner No.3 and respondent No.3, FIR No.474/2003 dated 9.7.2003 was registered at PS Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No.3. The said FIR was transferred to Delhi and thereafter, registered as FIR No.375 of 2003 at PS Sha...
Mwo(Hfo) Vinod Bihari (Retd.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT327
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. By filing this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 1.12.2001 issued by the respondents directing for recovery of an amount of Rs.37,775/- from the petitioner's account, which is sought to be recovered as damages for alleged unauthorised occupation of official accommodation.2. The petitioner was held on the posted strength of Central Civil Servicing Development Organisation, Subroto Park, New Delhi with effect from 14.8.1995 and was brought within the authorised married establishment category for the purposes of allotment of government accommodation from the aforesaid date. In June 2000, he was informed about the completion of five year's of stay in Station Married Quarter (SMQ) by him and was instructed to vacate the SMQ on or before the due date i.e. 14.8.2000 as per Air Headquarter letter dated 30.9.1999.By the aforesaid circular dated 30.9.1999, it was communicated that the period of occupation of allotted quarter...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »