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.
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...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. V.N. Dyers and Processors P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT183TriDel
1. None for the respondents. No request for adjournment has been also received from them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.2. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to refund of the duty to the respondents working under the compounded levy scheme. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund by holding that the length of galleries could not be added while determining the ACP of the furnace of the respondents and as such the duty charged from them by adding the galleries was excess and that the respondents were entitled to get back the same. He has followed the ratio of law laid down in Mahalaxmi Textile Prints (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2000 (93) ECR 402 and Vijay Anand Fabrics (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2001 (134) E.L.T.89 (T) = 2000 (93) ECR 662.3. The learned JDR has contended that the order of the Commissioner determining the ACP of the furnace of the respond...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vimal Alloys Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT33TriDel
1. Heard. This appeal has been directed against the order-in-appeal by the Revenue, vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original confirming the duty of Rs. 6,810/- on account of shortage of goods against the respondents and imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. I have heard both the sides. From the record, it is quite evident that on taking physical verification of the stock lying in the factory premises of the respondents by the officers on 14-1-99, shortage 1.816 MTs of steel casting involving duty of Rs. 6,810/- was found against the recorded balance in the RG-I. The Manager of the respondents was present at that time and admitted the shortage and the respondents even debited the duty on the spot in their RG 23A Part II vide entry No. 459 dated 14-1-99. The argument of the Counsel that no corroborative evidence has been adduced by the Department to prove the shortage, cannot be accepted being wholly misconceived. When the authorised representative of the r...
Kapcompany General Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)66
1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dt. 15th Dec., 1999 relating to asst. yr. 1997-98.2. Smt. Lalitha Krishnamurthy, CA appeared on behalf of the assessee whereas Shri Salil Gupta senior Departmental Representative represented the Revenue. "The learned CIT(A) had erred in disallowing deduction under Section 80M amounting to Rs. 5,00,000 without taking into account, the various submissions and case law submitted before him. Therefore, the disallowance claim under Section 80M is bad and, therefore, invalid in law and should be deleted from being disallowed." 4. The facts relating to the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80M are that the assessee-company had received a sum of Rs. 9,49,740 (Rs. 4,74,870 as interim and Rs. 4,74,870 as final dividend income) from M/s Indofos Industries Ltd. In the return field for asst.yr. 1997-98 the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80M amounting to Rs. 5,00,000 on the ground that th...
Maj. Gen. A.K. Verma Avsm (Retd.) and anr. Vs. Narinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT226; 2004(73)DRJ396
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1.Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 5.2.2001 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the eviction petition of the petitioner seeking eviction sought on the petitioner was dismissed on the ground under Section 14B of the Delhi Rent Control Act which entitles the members of the armed forces to recover immediate possession of the premises on his either release from the service or retirement was dismissed, he has preferred this petition. 2. The eviction was sought on the ground that the petitioner has retired from the medical wing of Army where he held the post of Director General on 31.7.1995 having the rank of Major General. 3. The suit preemies were originally owned by petitioner's father, who left behind his wife, the petitioner and his daughter as his LRs and consequently they became the joint owners of the suit property. During the life time of the father of the petitioner, petitioner's sister had started living in the house. Since the petitioner wante...
Rasmos Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajan and Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT605
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This Revision is directed against the Order dated 28.8.2003 by which the application of Petitioner/Defendant for placing on record the letter dated 15.10.1996 along with its postal receipt and courier note has been rejected by the Civil Judge. It is a apparent that this application has been filed by invoking the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1A (3), which has been inserted into the CPC by amendments with effect from 1.7.2002. There is a clear distinction between the filing of a document and the Trial Court taking the said document into consideration. It cannot be gainsaid that a document may be filed and subsequently not proved in accordance with law. Such a document may even be proved and thereforee exhibited, but found by the Court to be of suspicious nature and thereforee not be given credence to. Let us take the case of the present letter dated 15.10.1996 being filed along with the Written Statement. No leave of the Court to file the document would have been r...
Shri S.K. Khosla Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT239; 2004(73)DRJ425; (2004)IILLJ515Del
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. It is a matter of sorrow that this petition, filed in the year 1981, has been pending for such a long time, particularly, when the petitioner was out of job and, in our opinion, without any fault on his part, as no opportunity was given to him to defend his case by the employer-Food Corporation of India (for short, the FCI).2. The petitioner joined the service of FCI in the year 1973. From the record, it transpires that he was given the responsible job of finance and he was registered as a financial expert for assignments in foreign countries in July, 1975. Not only that, his name was sponsored and he got the job as financial expert in the Republic of Zambia. The Government of Zambia officially requested the Managing Director of the respondent FCI and, as per the petitioner's say, the respondent agreed to lend the services of the petitioner vide letter dated 25.1.1977. For some reasons he came back in 1977 and on a request being made he was allowed to join on his per...
Gaini Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi267; 110(2004)DLT753; 2004(74)DRJ14
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This judgment will dispose of aforementioned appeals filed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, pertaining to award No.39/84-85 of village `Bijwasan'. The land of this village was acquired by a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 18th June, 1984. The learned Additional District Judge decided a large number of appeals. Devender Singh's case was taken as a lead case by the trial court, thereforee, we would briefly recapitulate the facts of Devender Singh's case only in deciding these appeals.2. The Land Acquisition Collector gave compensation to Devender Singh & Ors. @ Rs.17,000/- per bigha. Dissatisfied with the said judgment, they preferred appeals for enhancing the compensation before the Reference Court and the Reference Court by a comprehensive and a detailed judgment, enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.21,076/- per bigha. 3. The appellants aggrieved by the said judgment have preferred appeals before this Court. Number o...
Sh. Hukam Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT580; 2004(74)DRJ18
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.4.1998 passed by the learned Addl.District Judge deciding the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. The appellant has urged that he is also entitled to 1/18th share of Smt.Shakuntala, wife of his deceased brother Sh.Bhim Singh. It may be pertinent to mention that by order dated 29.3.1989 Mr.R.K.Sain, Addl.District Judge passed the order which reads as under:-' 1. Vide judgment dated 26.11.88 IP No.5, Hukam Chand was held entitled to receive 1/18th share and compensation assessed in the name of Smt.Shakuntala IP No.4 was kept pending till claim is settled between her and Hukam Chand. Hukam Chand moved application and examined Smt.Shakuntala IP No.4 who stated that she does not claim any right, title or interest in the compensation pertaining to her late husband and the share of compensation payable to her be paid to Hukam Chand IP No.5.2. In the light of the statement of th...
Sh. Dalbir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi227; 110(2004)DLT628; 2004(74)DRJ13
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment of the learned Addl.District Judge. These appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.2. After issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 31.12.1993 followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on 3.5.1994 about 84 bighas 8 bids was land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of building of oil depot for the planned development of Delhi. Appellants' lands were also acquired for the same scheme. The Land Acquisition Collector after completing the requisite formalities awarded compensation award No.2/96/97 @ Rs.96,875/- per bigha besides other statutory benefits.3. The appellants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act before the Reference Court. The appellants claimed enhancement of compensation @ Rs.10 lacs per bigha besides other statutory benefits. The learned Add...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »