Delhi Court March 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.
Vasundhara Containers and Pipes Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT343TriDel
1. These are 3 appeals - 2 filed by M/s. Vasundhara Containers & pipe Ltd., and its Director Shri Penal Shah, and one filed by the Revenue - against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 672-674/2002, dated 29-11-2002.2. Shri Kamaljit Singh, learned Advocate, submitted on behalf of M/s.Vasundhara Containers & Pipes Ltd., that the assessees are engaged in the manufacture of plastic water storage tank of different capacity and section hose pipes; that on their visit of the factory on 11-7-1998 the Central Excise Officers found that the actual capacity of roof tank which were declared to be 300 litres was more than 310 litres; that the Officers also found a test report stating that the net capacity of these tanks was 300 litres and the gross capacity was 353 litres making them ineligible for the benefit of Notification No. 4/97-C.E., dated 1-3-97; that the Jt. Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 17/2001, dated 28-2-2001, confirmed the demand of duty against M/s. Vasundhara Containers & P...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ishaq M. Gulam Modern Bidi Factory
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: (2006)STR120
1. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. No request for adjournment also has been received from them. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the appeals.2. In these appeals which have been filed by the Revenue against the common impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the service tax liability of the respondents. I have heard the learned SDR and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the show cause notice was served on the respondents calling upon them to pay the service tax for the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 being service receiver from GT operators. They however took the plea that they had already paid the tax. But I do not find any material on the record to substantiate their plea. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the respondents submission without verifying and ascertaining as to whether they had furnished any proof of deposit of the service tax. He has on one hand observed that the Assistant Commissioner shall verify this a...
Virender Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2321; 110(2004)DLT632; 2004(74)DRJ60
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 01.11.2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the learned Judge has declined to grant benefit of probation to the appellant/petitioner herein and while maintaining the conviction has modified the sentence awarded by the Metropolitan Magistrate from R.I. of one year with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, five months S.I. to R.I. for two months with a fine of Rs.5000/- and S.I. for five months under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the conviction on merits but submits that this is a fit case where accused can be considered and admitted to the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act. He submits that the incident took place as far back as on 1997. The petitioner has been facing the ordeal of trial for over 7 years and has now settled in the society as a useful citizen and there has been no untow...
Annurita Vohra Vs. Sandeep Vohra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT546; I(2004)DMC568; 2004(74)DRJ99
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the Order dated 20.8.2001 whereby the Additional District Judge had granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the Petitioner/Applicant/Wife for herself and her minor children. The Court had come to the conclusion that the net disposable income of the Respondent/Husband is about Rs.32,000/- per month which is exclusive of his perks and reimbursements. It had also been found that there were no dependents other than the wife and children. In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun and Ors., : AIR1997SC3397 , it has been observed that - 'no set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for h...
Om Prakash @ Prem Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT627; 2004(74)DRJ48
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th August, 2003, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Crl.A.No.1/2002 arising out of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate in two criminal complaint cases No. 8/93 and 80/93 held the petitioner guilty for an offence under Section 7/16 provisions of Food Adulteration Act and further vide separate order sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and a fine of Rs.3000/- in each of the two cases but directed both substantive sentences to run concurrently.2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, I have gone through the record of the case as also the depositions and the judgment under challenge. Learned counsel states that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction. I, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by the l...
Ghan Shyam and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2578; 111(2004)DLT10
D.K. Jain, J.1. These two appeals by three convicts are directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.94/98, arising out of FIR 458/98. Though a common appeal (Crl.A.728/2001) had already been preferred by all the three convicts but a separate appeal (Crl.A. 365/2003) has also been filed subsequently by convict Raju. Since both the appeals are inter-linked, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellants question their convictions for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') for allegedly causing homicidal death of Smt. Seema, hereinafter referred to as the victim. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, with default stipulation of rigorous imprisonment for one month.3. The prosecution version, unfolded during the trial, is as follows:On the fateful night of 9/10 July 1998 at a...
Hansch International (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Del)114; [2004]269ITR219(Delhi)
1. This writ petition is filed against the order made by CIT, Delhi on 31st Oct., 2003 in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction.2. From the order it transpires that a return was filed by the petitioner declaring loss of Rs. 2,65,590. The source of income was dividend which amounted to Rs. 4,34,166. The AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on 23rd Jan., 2003 and assessed the net loss of Rs. 1,16,630 after disallowance of expenses of Rs. 1,48,957. Subsequently, the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act came to be initiated. An order under Section 154 of the Act also came to be passed. An appeal has also been filed by the assessed. However, there is a dispute whether the appeal has been filed against the order under Section 154 or against the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act. The stand of the assessed is that appeal is not preferred against an order made under Section 143(3)of the Act. The assessed has requested th...
Manchanda International Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)567; [2005]272ITR577(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Admit.2. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, we are taking up this appeal for final disposal.3. The question that is to be considered by the Court is as under :'Whether the Tribunal, while restoring the additions to the file of AO, exceeded its jurisdiction in restoring the addition in relation to the trade creditor namely, M/s M.S. Impex, which was not even the subject-matter of appeal ?4. Admittedly, it is very clear that so far as M/s M.S. Impex is concerned, CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessed and that the Revenue did not challenge this finding in appeal. Before the Tribunal, the question was with regard to the addition in respect of M/s G.S. Enterprises and M/s Rattan Fashions. There was no question before the Tribunal with regard to M/s M.S. Impex, Delhi. The CIT(A) had held as under :'This also goes to prove that M/s M.S. Impex is a genuine creditor and that has to be allowed. Accordingly, the addition of credit balance standing in th...
Janki Exports International Through S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Del)730; [2005]278ITR296(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. By this petition, the petitioner M/s Janki Exports International through Sh. S.P. Gupta, a partner of the firm has challenged the notice dt. 24th July, 2003, issued under Section 158BD of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), copy of which is produced at Annex. P-1 at p. 15.2. The petitioner is not entitled to file this petition. Petition can be filed only by a citizen and not by a firm. However, to avoid undue delay, we direct the petitioner to join Sh. S.P. Gupta, a partner of the firm, in his individual capacity as petitioner No. 2 and the registry shall give a separate number on payment of Court fee. If that is not done within a period of four days, the petition shall stand dismissed automatically and our order shall not be carried forward.3. By issuance of notice Annex. P-1, the petitioner was requested to file a true and correct return of total income including the undisclosed income in respect of the firm. The return was required to be filed in...
Narsihdas Morarji, Boat Builder Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR356(Delhi)
C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. By way of the present petition the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator.2. The petitioner was awarded a contract by the Director General Supplies & Disposals for supplying the customs department with four single-screw timber hulls Customs Patrol Dhows (CPD). There were two different contracts for the said four boats (i) A/T No. 153 given for yard Nos. 35 and 36, and (ii) A/T No. 151 given for yard Nos. 33 and 34. Yard Nos. 33, 34 and 35 were delivered to the consignee. On 28th March, 2000 DGS&D; cancelled the order for yard No. 36 citing delay in delivery. On 29th March, 2000 the respondents invoked the Bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner totaling to Rs. 32,75,524 and the same was encased on 17th July, 2000. The petitioner wrote to the respondent that the delay occurred on account of the respondents and for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. As the Bank guarantee stood encased the respondent released 10% balance payment to the petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »