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.
Winsome Spinners Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)(118)LC191Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the denial of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,01,976/-. The reason for the denial of the credit is that the appellants had not filed declarations in terms of Rule 57G and 57T of Central Excise Rules.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of cotton and other yarns. It availed Modvat credit of cover Rs. 3.5 Lakhs in respect of several inputs and capital goods. The proceedings were initiated alleging that the credit was not available as the appellants have not filed proper declarations of inputs/capital goods. In adjudication, the Asstt. Collector accepted the appellants' claim in respect of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,01,976/- and rejected the claim in respect of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 56,664/-. The Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) objecting to the grant of Modvat credit of Rs. 3,01,976/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeal holding that the appellants had not produced a...
Optel Telecommunications Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT63TriDel
1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty approximately Rs. 19 crores and penalty of Rs. 5 crores.2. In this case demand is confirmed by classifying the product manufactured by the applicants under Heading 85.44 whereas appellant claimed the same under Heading 90.01 of Central Excise Tariff.3. The Heading 85.44 of Tariff covers optical fibre and cables made up of individually sheathed fibre whether or not assembled with electric conductors. Whereas the Heading 90.01 of Central Excise Tariff covers optical fibre cables other than those Heading 85.44 of Tariff, the manufacturing process as explained by the appellant is as under : "The manufacturing process in first step consists of obtaining pre-form either by MCVD process or FVD process. The pre-form so obtained is then drawn into fibre. The thickness of the bone fibre is mentioned and a thin coating of UV-cured acrylate simultaneously applied to it. The fibres so drawn are then coloure...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modern Polyplex (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT193TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the duty and penalty against the respondents which was initially confirmed by the adjudicating authority through order-in-original.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of PVC compounds and master batch. After the clearance of these goods by them to the customers under the cover of duty paid invoices, they received back some of the goods under Rule 173H during the period July, 1998 to July, 1999 for reprocessing. But they were served with a show cause notice for payment of duty on these goods for having cleared after reprocessing without payment of duty on the ground that in fact, these goods were remanufactured by them after mixing with other goods lying in their factory. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand with penalty through order-in-original as detailed therein. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside that ord...
Biswan Tobacco Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT192TriDel
1. The issue involved in these Appeals filed by M/s. Biswan Tobacco Industries and M/s. Khattri Kimam Co. (P) Ltd., is whether they are liable to pay the Additional Duty of Excise in respect of unbranded chewing tobacco manufactured by them during the period from 2-6-1998 to 30-10-1998 in case of Appellant No. 1 and from 22-10-1998 to 28-2-1999 in case of Appellant No. 2.2. Shri Rajesh Chibbar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufactured unbranded Chewing tobacco which was subjected to duty by the Finance Bill 1994-95; that the impugned commodity was however covered by S.S.I. Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993; that in the subsequent Notification No. 8/98 C.E., dated 2-6-1998 exemption from Additional Duty of Excise was not provided; that as the Additional Duty of Excise was exempted in respect of impugned product earlier, they did not discharge the duty liability under bona fide disbelief that this duty was not payable as Notification No. 9/96 C.E. escaped a...
Cc and Ce Vs. Raipur Rotocast Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)(118)LC345Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by Revenue is whether MODVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs namely Polypropylene H-100 EY is available to M/s. Raipur Rotocast Ltd. 2. We heard Ms. Charul Barnwal, learned Senior Departmental Representative, and Ms. P.K. Arora, learned Advocate. The respondents manufacture HDPE/PP fabrics, bags/sacks and other excisable goods. It is the contention of the Revenue that the impugned inputs is not suitable for manufacturing HDPE bags for packing cement; that as per the Hadbook of polypropylene published by M/s. Reliance Industry, Grade HI 100 Y is suitable for TQ film application and are used in the commercial trade mainly for textile overwraps, packing of readymade garments, etc.; that this is on record that impugned grade of granules cannot be used for filling up of 50 KGs of cement. We observe from the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Superintendent of Central Excise range has conducted the experiment to verify t...
Cce Vs. Afcon Pauling Joint Venture
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT377TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue have questioned the correctness of the impugned order in original of the Commissioner to the extent of dropping the duty demand in respect of Websols against the respondent.2. The respondents are engaged in the construction of Flyovers and National Highways. They entered into three separate individual civil engineering contracts with the Government of Punjab (P.W.D) for four-laning of Highway No. 1 from Khanna to Doraha, Doraha to Ludhiana Byepass and Goraya to Jalandhar. They imported latest technology of Websol panels as approved by the Punjab PWD in substitution for the usual RCC retaining retaining as per the contract. They started casting and erection of websols are Sherpur (Ludiana) in September 1990 and completed in October, 1991. Thereafter, they started casting and erection of the goods at Chheheru (Phagwara) in April, 1992. They also installed the stone crusher for crushing of big stones into smaller stones for use in the construction of road a...
Smt. Krishna and anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC227
1. Miscellaneous Appeal 281/2002 has been filed by defendant 5 and 6 (namely, Smt. Krishna and Smt. Lalita and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants-defendants 5 and 6') in O.A. 697/95 against the order dated 12.7.2002 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing their application to set aside the ex parte final order dated 30.10.2001.2. Miscellaneous Appeal 282/2002 has been filed by the 4th defendant (namely, Pritam Singh, and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-4th defendant') against the order dated 19.7.2002 passed by the said DRT, Delhi dismissing his application also to set aside the same ex parte final order dated 30.10.2001.3. The learned Counsel for both the sides stated that the points that arise for consideration in both the appeals arc similar, and advanced same arguments in both the appeals. Therefore, I am disposing of both the Miscellaneous Appeals 281/2002 and 282/2002 by this common order.4. Respondent-...
Hind Book House Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)92ITD415(Delhi)
1. This is appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi dated 25/11/99 and the preliminary issue which arises for our consideration out of the same is whether the notice claimed to have been issued the Assessing Officer Under Section 143(2) was validly and properly served on the assessee within the specified time limit incompliance with the statutory requirement or not.2. The relevant facts of the case, which are not in dispute, are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of dealing in books and journals published from abroad. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring a loss of Rs. 10,200/- on 31/10/97.The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and in the absence of sufficient compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him during me course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment Under Section 143(3)/144 assessing the total income ...
Akash Gupta Vs. Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT316; 2005(79)DRJ12
R.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal under Rule 4 of Chapter II, Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'), is directed against the order of the learned Joint Registrar dated 5.10.2004 passed on is 3106/2004 in CS(OS) 464/2004.2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from taking out and/or printing any advertisements with any reference to the plaintiff and/or the Air Hostess Academy (AHA) in any form or manner. The suit is being contested by the defendants and a written statement stands filed on their behalf. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants moved an application (IA 3106/2004) under Order XI Rules 1, 12, 14 and 15 read with Section 151 CPC seeking a direction on the plaintiff to answer the interrogatories annexed with the application and to produce the documents referred to therein. The said application was dealt with and disposed of by the Joint Registrar by means of a detailed orde...
Raja Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT436; 2005(79)DRJ54
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The appellant was tried under Section 366/376 IPC on the allegations that on 23.4.2001, he had kidnapped Kumari Malti, aged about 14 years, from the lawful guardianship of his father and thereafter committed rape upon her between 23rd April, 2001 and 27th June, 2001. Vide a judgment dated 23.10.2002, the appellant was convicted under Section 366 as well as 376 IPC. On 26.10.2002, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 366 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 376 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo four months SI. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. I have gone through the impugned judgment and Trial Court file. 3. In support of its allegations, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Sandeep, a Radiologist from AIIMS, who had examined the prosecutrix for determining her bony age. H...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »