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.
Bhushan Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC566
1. The appellants filed these appeals against a common adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. In the impugned order, the duty of Rs. 13,58,945/- was confirmed and penalty of equal amount was also imposed on M/s. Super Steel Industries on the ground that they had manufactured and cleared diesel engines without payment duty. The penalties were also imposed on the various dealers of M/s.Super Steel Industries on the ground that they had connived with M/s.Super Steel Industries to evade payment of duty.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of diesel engines and diesel generator sets and they were manufacturing same under various brand name such as Super Master, Bharat Jyoti, H.M.T. and Usha Star and also under their own brand name.The factory premises of M/s. Super Steel Industries, M/s. Azad Engineering Works and M/s. Single Machinery Store were searched on 6-3-98 and various documents were taken into possession by...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. H and R Johnson Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT289TriDel
1. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. No re- quest for adjournment has been also received. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits.2. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original on the simple ground that no show cause notice was served on the respondents before confirming the duty and penalty on them. I have heard the SDR and gone through the record.3. From the record, it is evident that the officers of the Central Excise visited the factory premises of the respondents on 19-11-1997 and carried out physical verification of the stock of finished goods and raw material laying therein, The verification continued till 20-9-97. On verification, certain discrepancies were found which were recorded in the panchnama prepared in the presence of independent witnesses regarding the excess/shortage of the stock, detailed in the panchnama for which the r...
Malbros Investments Ltd. Vs. Dcit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)90ITD688(Delhi)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 8.3.2002 for assessment year 1995-96. The only issue involved in the present appeal is against disallowance of the claim of bad debts amounting to Rs. 130 lacs.2. During the course of hearing before us, Shri Ajay Vohra, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a paper book dated 9.12.2002 running into 115 pages and again filed the second paper book in continuation. On behalf of the Department, Smt. Sudershan Parashar, CIT (DR), submitted written submissions. Ld. Counsel in turn submitted his written comments thereon.3. The assessee company is an investment company. During assessment year 1995-96 under reference, 51.72% shares in its equity capital were held by Eicher Tractors Limited (in short, ETL). In the subsequent assessment year 1996-97, the assessee company became 100% subsidiary of Eicher Limited. For assessment year 1995-96, the assessee company filed its return of income declaring net loss of Rs. 5...
Victory Carpets and anr. Vs. V.P. (O). Cum G.M. Ashok Hotel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ636
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. This is a writ petition, seeking quashing of order dated 3.6.1988, passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissing the appeal Nos.116/87 and 118/87, filed by the petitioner against the composite order of eviction and license fee payment of Rs.4,15,276/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from 2.8.1985. The learned Additional District Judge dis-allowed the interest. He granted time to vacate and pay the license fee. Petitioner also seeks to restrain the respondents from proceedings for eviction against the petitioner under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.2. Notice to show cause in the writ petition was issued as far back as 7.7.1988 and dis-possession of the petitioner No.2 was stayed, subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- within 15 days and another sum of Rs.50,000/- within one month thereafter. From time to time, directions were given with regard to deposit of amounts in Installments and interim order co...
Sh. Puneet Anand Vs. Lt. Governor, Govt. of Nct Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT444; 2004(73)DRJ630
ORDER FILE NO.2559/CO/MISC. Report under consolidation Proceedings'. Mr.Anand submits that the respondents deliberately forged the documents at Annexure A by giving a wrong heading showing it to be under Section 21(2). He submits that the resolution was not under Section 21(2) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Learned counsel contends that an impression was sought to be given by the forged documents as if it was an order under Section 21(2) while in fact it was not so. In this connection, it would be relevant to take notice of the averment made by the respondent in the counter-affidavit. Para 2 of the said counter-affidavit is as under :-'2. That during the course of consolidation proceedings the consolidation Officer allotted land bearing Kh.No.122/5/1 (3 bighas 1 biswas) vide judicial order in case File No.170/CO/75 dt.21.7.1976 and Resolution No.61 to the respondents No.7 to 12 under Section 21(2) stage of Consolidation Act, besid...
George V. Records, Sarl Vs. Kiran Jogani and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(28)PTC347(Del)
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of plaintiff application being is 3812/2003 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and defendants' application being is 4665/2003 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation for exparte ad-interim injunction granted by this Court 1st April, 2003.2. This Court on consideration of documents and material on record, granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from reproducing, replicating, distributing, manufacturing, selling offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any manner in music albums under the trade mark 'BUDDHA-BAR'.3. The defendant is aggrieved by the said order and hence his application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC4. It is the plaintiff's case that the plaintiff is proprietor of the trademark BUDDHA-BAR being used in relation to music albums in several countries around the world since the year 1999. The mark was registered in many countries in Class 9 and 41. The mark was first adopted and ...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Del)474; [2004]270ITR237(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) has approached 'this Court by this writ petition, inter alia, requesting the Court to issue a writ of certiorari, writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing the notice of attachment under Section 226(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), dt. 8th March, 2004 issued by the respondent No. 2 (AO).2. It is also further prayed that the order made by the respondent-authorities under Section 220(6) of the said Act be quashed. An order of assessment came to be made under Section 143(3) of the said Act creating a demand of Rs. 608,01,81,325 vide order dt. 30th Oct., 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that against the said order an appeal has been preferred before the CIT(A) and the same is pending even today. It appears that in view of the demand after adjustment raised by the Revenue, the p...
Uttam Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC487
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). One appeal is filed in respect of the dispute where the benefit of Notification No. 135/94-C.E., dated 27-10-94 was denied. The other appeal is in respect of the consequential demand.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium circles and utensils. The appellants filed classification list with effect from 27-10-94 whereby the appellants claimed benefit of Notification No.1/93, dated 28-2-93 as well as benefit of Notification No. 135/94. The classification list was approved after denying the benefit of Notification No. 135/94. Consequential demand was also raised.4. The contention of the appellants is that they were entitled to the benefit of this notification as they were clearing the aluminium circles for use in the manufacture of utensils and they were not availing the benefit of the Modvat credit in respect of the circles so cleared. The appellants were maint...
Cce Vs. Explicit Trading and Marketing
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC679
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.227/2003 dated 30.6.2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed Modvat Credit to the Respondents M/s. Explicit Trading & Marketing (P) Ltd. 2. When the matter was called noone was present on behalf of the Respondent. Shri Balbir Singh, Learned Advocate, by his letter dated 9.3.2004 has requested for adjournment which is not acceded to in view of the submissions made by the learned SDR that the issue involved has been decided by the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Albert David Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut,2003 (151) ELT 443 (Tri-Del.) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the Civil Appeal of M/s. Albert David Ltd. has been dismissed as reported in 2003 (157) ELT A81.3. Shri O.P. Arora, learned SDR, submitted that the Respondent manufactures Fruit/Juice based brinks and mineral water; that their products were exempted from payment of duty w.e.f. 1.3.2001 under Notification No. 3...
Noida Industrial Beltings Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC271
1. The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 8/99 dated 28.2.99. That exemption is for small scale manufacturers, and one requirement under that Notification is that aggregate value of clearances for home consumption should not exceed Rs. 3 crores. The dispute that arises in this appeal is whether the value of goods cleared by the appellant under another exemption Notification (No.5/99-CE) was required to be excluded while computing the aggregate value of clearances for the purpose of exemption under Notification 8/99. Serial No. 70 under General Exemption No. 66 is the relevant entry for the purposes of Notification No. 5/99. The terms of the exemption under that serial No. are as under:"70 (a) on aggregate value of clearances upto Rs. 85 lakhs, Nil calculated from 2nd June, 1998 in the (b) on aggregate value of clearances 8% exceeding Rs. 85 lakhs, calculated from 2. It is clear from a perusal of (a) & (b) under serial No. 70 that that exemption is based on the valu...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »