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.
Ema India Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC588
1. Shri R. Santhanam, Ld. Advocate for the appellants pleaded that the appellants have purchased certain inputs which were used by them in their factory for manufacture of the finished goods and they have also cleared these inputs as such after reversing the credit taken by them on these goods. The department's charge is that these inputs (bought out items) were cleared by them as parts and components as if the goods were manufactured by them. A demand of Rs. 7,63,747 was raised in the Show cause notice. The case was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner, who confirmed the demand of Rs. 79,178 and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC and the balance amount of the demand was dropped on the ground of being beyond the period of 5 years. The confirmation of the demand is totally wrong as they had submitted a detailed chart of the goods cleared by them as given at pages 143 to 158 of the paper book. This was not verified by the adjudicating authority and despite being satisfi...
New Swadeshi Sugar Mills Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)(121)LC115Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal which has been preferred by the appellants against the part of the impugned order in appeal, the issue relates to the entitlement of the appellants to the utilization of the modvat credit already earned by them prior to the enforcement of the new Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants prior to the enforcement of the new Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, were working under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. They had two units-one for the manufacture of sugar and molasses and the other for distilling of denatured spirit (dutiable product) and rectified spirit (Non-dutiable product). They applied for grant of single license for both the units, as the distilling unit was using molasses manufactured by sugar unit, as inputs, for the manufacture of dutiable and non-dutiable products named above, and both the units were located in the same premises. The Commissioner has allowed their prayer and granted them the single license. Under the Cenvat C...
Manoj Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ18CAT
1. As the controversy involved in both the O.As. is the same, these are being disposed of by one common order. For the sake of convenience, the particulars, given in O.A. No. 1951/2000 are being mentioned in this order.There are four applicants in this O.A. who have approached the Tribunal with the request that the respondents should be directed to confer temporary status upon them in accordance with the Scheme evolved by DOP&T in 1993, from the date they became eligible, after completion of one year of continuous service, along with all consequential benefits.3. The four applicants in this O.A. were engaged in the years 1992 and 1993 as casual labourers in the respondent Department. It has been contended that they have been working with the respondent Department for the past eight years and in each year they have completed 240 days.In 1993, the DOP&T framed a Scheme known as "Casual Labourer (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993" w...
Smt. Mona Rai Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)93ITD30(Delhi)
1. The main issue arising in this appeal relates to the claim of assessee Under Section 80HHC of Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). Briefly stated, the facts are that assessee is an artist who declared income from sale of her paintings made locally as well as by way of export.Local sale and export sale were shown at Rs. 89,800/- and Rs. 2,43,038/- respectively. The total income from sale of painting was shown at Rs. 1,89,969/- out of which deduction of Rs. 1,38,051/- was claimed Under Section 80HHC of the Act. Since the assessee could not furnish any evidence regarding custom clearance, she was asked to show cause as to why her claim Under Section 80HHC be not rejected. In response to the same, the reply of assessee was as under: a) The assessee had sold paintings by displaying them in exhibition at Amsterdam, Netherlands. This sale qualifies for deduction Under Section 80HHC since Section 80HHC(2)(b) excludes export of only mineral oils and mineral and ores. The items exported by the assess...
Triveni Engineering and Vs. Dcit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)93ITD561(Delhi)
1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner, Wealth Tax (Appeals)-XIX, New Delhi dated 25-10-2002 for the Assessment year 1997-98 on the following grounds:- 1. "That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in not holding that the reassessment under Section 17 of Wealth Tax Act was bad in law, beyond jurisdiction and void ab-intio. 1.21 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the Joint Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the Joint Commissioner of wealth Tax, Special Range-18, New Delhi (who exercised jurisdiction over the erstwhile Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited) had valid jurisdiction to reopen the completed assessment, even after the said company had merged with the appellant and ceased to exist. 1.22 That the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in holding that the Joint Commiss...
Shri M.C. Katosh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR518(Delhi); 115(2004)DLT466; 2005(79)DRJ365
R.C. Jain, J.1. Parties had entered into a Work Contract No. EE/SDD-II/84-84/6 for Excavation of Supplementary Drain from RD 11375 M to RD 11975 M above S.S.W.L. Disputes/differences arose between the parties in relation to the said contract and Mr. I.J. Mamtani, Chief Engineer, Ministry of Surface Transport was appointed as the sole arbitrator in terms of clause 25 of the contract for settlement of the disputes/differences between the parties. The contractor filed its claim in regard to 11 items while the respondent a so filed certain counter-claims. The sole arbitrator made and published his award dated 28.2.1994 thereby partly allowing some of the claims of the contractor for certain amount as also partly allowed some counter-claims filed by the respondent. The so e arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,96,473/- along with 15% interest plus cost of Rs. 10,000/- in favor of the contractor. Pursuant to an application filed by the contractor under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration ...
inderjit Singh Pathak Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT375; 2005(79)DRJ33
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner Mrs.Inderjit Singh Pathak seeks writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 26.9.2001. By the said order petitioner was notified of the provisional decision cancelling the SSS pension granted to the petitioner. Further the amount drawn by her as SSS Pension was to be recovered and she was asked to deposit the same, failing which the Government of India would initiate steps for recovery of the same.2. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents to grant pension to her as envisaged under the Swatantra Sainik Samman (SSS) Pension Scheme, 1980 and as provisionally paid with arrears of pension, with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.3. The impugned order dated 26.9.2001, was the culmination of the claims put up by the petitioner Smt.Inderjit Singh Pathak claiming to be the lawfully wedded wife of late Shri Shailendra Kumar Pathak (hereinafter referred to as the `pensioner'), and the rival claim of Smt.Sushila Pathak, as the lawfully wedded wife of...
Federation of Associations of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(79)DRJ426
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The liberalization and opening of the Indian economy has seen foreign investment flow into different sectors. Such inflow is, however, not unregulated and it is restrictive in certain areas of business. The Government of India ( for short, `GOI' ) has in its wisdom not permitted foreign direct investment ( for short, `FDI' ) in retail trade. On this, there is no dispute. FDI has been permitted in wholesale trade on cash and carry basis. Over this also, there is no dispute. The present writ petition, however, involves the question of interpreting of this concept of `cash and carry wholesale trade'.2. The petitioners contend that under an amendment to the policy under the garb of a clarification dated 05/10.12.2002, in fact, retail trade has been permitted clothing it with the concept of wholesale cash and carry trade through business to business sales. On the other hand, the Union of India ( for short, `UOI' ) as well as the private respondents contend that what...
Mr. M.K. Modi Vs. Mr. K.K. Modi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi219; 115(2004)DLT616; 2005(80)DRJ334
H.R. Malhotra, J.1. These are two applications common in nature made in the aforesaid three suits by the defendants under the provisions of Section 24 CPC read with Order 7 Rule 10 and 10A of the Code.2. What is desired by the defendant/applicant by moving these applications is that the aforesaid suits which were initially instituted in the High Court of Delhi but subsequently transferred to the District Court and again retransferred to this Court by the orders of District Judge because of enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction should be again transferred to the District Court by way of return of plaint to the plaintiff under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and then District Judge should pass a order in the light of Order 7 Rule 10 and 10A of the CPC. This in short are the applications of the defendants which applications have been opposed by the plaintiffs by filing reply thereto. There is no denial of the fact that initially the suits were instituted in the High Court of Del...
Vogel Media International Gmbh and anr. Vs. Jasu Shah and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT679; 2005(30)PTC51(Del)
R.C. Jain, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of IAs Nos.3762/2004, 5668/2004 moved on behalf of the plaintiffs and is No.6730/2004 moved on behalf of the defendants. By way of is No.3762/2004, the plaintiff has prayed for extension of time for filing the amended plaint pursuant to the enhancement of the jurisdictional value of the suit and for permitting the said amendment to be incorporated concurrently with the amendment of the plaint. Vide is No.5668/2004 a prayer has been made on behalf of the plaintiff to confirm the continuance of the ad-interim injunction dated 1.5.2001 in the present suit unless it is specifically vacated by a reasoned order under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC or in the alternative to make an order of status quo as on 30.4.2004 i.e. the date of the order of the District Court ordering return of the plaint to the plaintiff, to be observed by the defendant till the relief claimed above is adjudicated upon and decided. A direction is also sought that the present s...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »