Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
C.C.E. Vs. Balu Ram Harnam Dass Steel Rolling
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT111TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order, the issue relates to the confiscation of the excess unaccounted goods, imposition of redemption fine and the penalty.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that 24.695 MT M.S. Bars, on taking physical verification of the stock lying in the factory premises of the respondents, by the Central Excise Officers were found excess than what was recorded in the record. The stock verification report was prepared at the spot which was signed by Shri Surinder Kumar, authorized signatory of the respondents in token of its correctness. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents that method adopted by the Department for arriving at the excess goods, was not proper and that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly so held in the impugned order while reversing the order-in-original, cannot be legally accepted. When the authorized signatory of the respondent...
Balbir Singh Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC117
1. First respondent-Punjab & Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed Civil Suit 894/92 on 4.3.1992 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against appellant-Balbir Singh (6th defendant in the suit, and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant/defendant') and respondents Nos. 2 to 7 in the appeal (defendants 1 to 5 and 7 in the suit) for the recovery of Rs. 1,33,27,264/-with interest and costs. On the passing of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the said suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), and was taken on its file as O.A. 266/96. The appellant/defendant had entered appearance through his Counsel-Mr. R.S. Sharma even before the Hon'ble High Court. On 30.10.1992 the respondent-Bank was directed to supply copies of the documents to the appellant/defendant within a week, and the appellant/defendant was directed to file his writ...
Rajesh JaIn Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Delhi)929
1. This appeal by the assessee for block period 1st April, 1990 to 20th July, 2000, is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-1II, New Delhi, confirming assessment in the hands of the assessee on total undisclosed income of Rs. 25 lakhs.2. Facts of the case are that assessee's premises were subjected to search by Revenue authorities under Section 132 of the IT Act on 20th July, 2000 and certain books of accounts and documents were seized. The assessee was further found possessing cash amounting to Rs. 1,38,000 out of which Rs. 88,000 was seized. It is the claim of the assessee that no bullion or other valuable assets were found from the premises of the assessee. It is further claim of the assessee that all the seized documents were explained to the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. However, pressure was put on the assessee and his statement under Section 131 was recorded by Dy. DIT (Investigation) on 12th Feb., 2001 wherein he is stated to have surrendered Rs. 20 to 25...
M.R. Bhansali Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Delhi)1
The appeal has been directed by the assessee -against the order of the assessing officer under section 158BC dated 31-12-1997, for block period 1-4-1986 to 21-11-1996.In addition to original grounds of appeal, the appellant vide application under rule 11 of the ITAT Rules dated 18-11-2002, has raised the following additional grounds of appeal : "1. Notice under section 158BC issued by the assessing officer is not in accordance with law and as such does not vest jurisdiction in the assessing officer to proceed against the assessee under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The impugned assessment order, being without jurisdiction is bad in law and void ab initio. " Learned counsel stated that as the appellant had challenged the very assumption of jurisdiction of assessing officer to assess the appellant, the same being legal issue, the additional ground of appeal deserves to be admitted. It was stated that the assessing officer had issued notice under section 158BC on 12-6-1997...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shri A.K. Trakru and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT452; 2004(73)DRJ546
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By way of this Writ Petition the MCD has assailed the Order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 18.9.2002 allowing the Appeal of the Respondent/assessed which had been filed under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as `the DMC Act`). The Appeal had been allowed principally on two grounds. Firstly, that the Notice under Section 126 of the DMC Act had not been served within the financial year for which the Rateable Value was sought to be increased/revised, and secondly, that in the opinion of the learned Additional District Judge, the Notice was found not be in consonance with law.2. So far as the first question is concerned, the DMC Act does not contain any provision prescribing the date or time on which a Notice issued under any provision or purpose of the Act will be deemed or considered to have been served. Section 444 of the DMC Act only deals with the method or mode of the service of a Notice. In the cas...
Tata Infotech Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT178; 2004(74)DRJ533; 2004(94)ECC360; 2004(173)ELT8(Del)
D.K. Jain, J.1. RULE D.B.By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 seeks a direction to the respondent namely, Collector of Customs, New Delhi to refund a amount of Rs.7,08,050/- along with interest thereon.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts, leading to these proceedings are as follows:The petitioner imported computer software vide Bills of Entry Nos.262707 and 262715, both dated 12 November 1990 and 270805 dated 21 December 1990, valued at Rs.28,30,248/-. On 7 February 1991 the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence searched the office premises of the petitioner and detained the said software. The software was formally seized on 12 February 1991 under a reasonable belief that these were liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act').The seized goods were released on 19 December 1991 on provisional basis against a surety and a bank ...
Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Formerly Known as Glaxo India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT515; 2004(28)PTC538(Del)
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction, passing off of the trademark and copyright, rendition of accounts and delivery up against the defendant.2. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff is engaged inter alias in the manufacture, marketing and distribution worldwide of a wide range of products known for their efficacy, reliability and excellent quality. The plaintiff is manufacturing and marketing various pharmaceutical and veterinary products in India. The present suit concerns the statutory right and common law rights under the trademark 'NILVERM' and also the copyright, artistic work of the NILVERM pack and also the violation thereof by the defendant.3. The plaintiff is the proprietor of the trademark NILVERM by way of assignment deed dated 31st March, 1999. The application for registration of the trademark is pending under Application No. 525753 in Class 5 as on 27th November, 1992 in respect of pharmaceutical preparation and substance for...
Staff Welfare Association (Trtc) Regd. Vs. Chairman, Trtc and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ931Del
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The writ petition claims relief against respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is Tool Room & Training Centre. A perusal of 'Annexure P-4' would reveal that said respondent is a result of an agreement between Government of India and Government of Denmark to establish a Tool Room & Training Centre at Delhi. The agreement envisages that the respondent would be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.2. In the year 1981, a writ petition being CW No. 2354/1981 G. Chandrasekharan v. Tool Room & Training Centre was filed by an employee pertaining to his removal from service. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that it was not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Issue was deliberated by a learned single Judge of this Court. Vide Judgment and order dated July 8, 1982, it was held that respondent No. 2 is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence would n...
Association of Property Consultants Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)138PLR16
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Can a property dealer, property broker or real estate agent be construed as a 'consultant'? This is the seminal question in this petition. It arises in the context of the alleged misuse of residential flats allotted to members of the petitioner association by the respondent (Delhi Development Authority - DDA' for short).2. The residential flats allotted to the members of the petitioner association (which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860) are admittedly governed by the policy of the DDA incorporated in the document entitled 'Guidebook on Housing Department' published by the DDA. The said Guidebook stipulates as under: @Z_PARA = 'Penal action for misuse of flats-A flat is to be used for residential purpose only. In case the flat is used for purposes other than residential, apart from action under the terms of allotment, prosecutions under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, shall be lodged.Professional activity by the professionals such as Do...
Sonic Electrochem Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC339
1. During the period August 1997 to March 1998, the appellants had manufactured a product and cleared the same under the brand-name "Jem Fresh". They had claimed classification of the product under Sub-heading 3808.10 of the CETA Schedule (vide Rule 173B declaration Nos. 2/97-98 dated 1.8.97 and 6/97-98 dated 27.1.98) and paid duty accordingly @ 8% ad valorem. The department did not accept their classification and proposed to classify the product under SH 3307.49 of the CETA Schedule (attracting Central Excise duty @ 18% ad valorem) and to recover the differential duty on the clearances for the aforesaid period. The department also proposed to penalize the party for the alleged evasion of duty. The show-cause notices issued in this behalf were contested by the party. The adjudicating authority confirmed the classification of the product as Air Purifier under SH 3307.49, and accordingly, confirmed the demands of duty totalling to Rs.4,81,904/- against the assessee. It also imposed a pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »