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.
Shri Fateh Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi264; 110(2004)DLT716; 2004(75)DRJ493
R.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.3.1979 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, in LAC No. 157/1978, thereby answering a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and dismissing the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation in respect of his acquired land.2. Land of the appellant situated in the revenue State of village Khampur, Delhi, was acquired under a Notification dated 12.4.1972 issued under Section 4 of the Act for a public purpose namely for the construction of embankment to drain No.6. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award No. 15/73-74 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,000/- per bigha by holding that the land is gair ab-pash (non-irrigated). Before the Reference Court, the petitioner claimed compensation @ Rs.5,000/- per bigha. Besides he also claimed Rs. 7,000/- for loss of alleged crops growing on the land, Rs.20,000/- towar...
Cce Vs. Ram Shiv Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC507
1. The Revenue has filed these three appeals, being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No. 181-183/03 dated 23.7.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Shri Virag Gupta, learned DR, submitted that respondents, M/s. Ram Shiv Industries Ltd. & Ors., manufacture iron and steel products that on the basis of specific information that they were indulging in suppression of production of goods and their removal without payment of duty, the Central Excise officers visited their factory premises on 4.12.98 and detected shortage of 37.262 MT of M.S. Round and recovered 32 numbers of duplicate set of invoices showing clearances of 378.150 MT saria without payment of duty; that the officers also searched the residential premises of Shri P.N. Mishra, authorized signatory and recovered certain incriminating documents. The scrutiny of these documents revealed that the respondents had cleared 61.060 MT of saria without payment of duty and that they had not accounted for 127.165 MT of ingots re...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Design Auto Systems Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT91TriDel
1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original No.2/COMMR/CEX/IND/2003, dated 23-1-2003.2. Mrs. Charul Barnwal, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. Design Auto Systems Ltd. manufacture vacuum and gas filled bulbs and availed facility of fortnightly demand of Central Excise duty as provided under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001; that as they had defaulted in payment of duty instalment for 3rd time in a financial year, the Deputy Commissioner, under order dated 28-9-2001, withdrew the facility of fortnightly payment of duty and the respondents were ordered to pay duty from account-current on consignment basis; that it was also, further, ordered that in the event of failure to make payment in the said manner, it would be deemed as if such clearance of goods had been made without payment of duty and, consequently, penalties would follow; that the said order was effective from the date of communication i.e. 15-10-2001; that, however, the scrutiny of monthly...
Hy-grade Pellets Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT190TriDel
1. Heard both sides. The assessee was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 6,46,96,989/- for the shortfall in export obligation. The contention of the applicant that the above demand is not sustainable in view of the clearance granted by DGFT authorities. This contention of the appellant is prima facie supported by the Board Circular No. 25/2003, dated 1-4-2003.2. The demand of Rs. 11,99,29,516/- is on the ground that design and engineering charges are to be added to the assessable value of the imported goods under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules. It was pointed out by the appellant that design and drawings were not required for the manufacture of the imported goods but required for the fabrication of the plant in India. If that be so, ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of SRF Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2003 (161) E.L.T. 721 (S.C.) = 2003 (58) RLT 249 and Essar Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 362 would be applicable to the...
Cce Vs. S.T.L. Exports Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)(114)LC803Tri(Delhi)
1. In these two appeals, filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether Zinc Dross/Ash are leviable to Excise duty.2. Mrs. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, submitted that the Respondents M/s. STL Exports Ltd, a 100% Export Orient Undertaking, galvanise black M.S. pipes; that during the process of galvanization, remnants in the form of Zinc dross/Scaling come into existence which contain less than 20% Zinc contents; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order has held that Zinc dross are not chargeable to Central Excise duty relying upon the decision in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd. v. CCE 2001 (135) ELT 1142 (Tribunal) and UOI v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. . She, further, submitted that Zinc which is left in electrolytic process is a residue recovered as Zinc dross and it is generally used for recovery of chemical and as such is classifiable under Chapter 79 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that Zinc dross and Zinc Ash are sold by the Respondents...
Rati Ram Gotewala Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)513
1. This is an application filed by the assessee under Section 254 of the IT Act praying therein that the mistakes pointed out in the application may kindly be rectified or be withdrawn and the matter be ordered to be heard de novo.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present application is that the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No. 151/Del/2000 was heard and disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dt. 7th Aug., 2003. Through the present application the assessee has pointed out certain defects.Amongst the other defects pointed out the assessee has contended that through one of the grounds of appeal the challenge to the validity of search was made by the assessee. The case of the assessee is that the assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Dr. A.K. Bansal v. Asstt. CIT (2000) 67 TTJ (All)(TM) 721 : (2000) 73 ITD 49 (All)(TM) which was a Third Member case. It was contended by the assessee that in that judgment the T...
Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)90ITD720(Delhi)
1. These appeals are preferred on behalf of the assessee against the confirmation of penalty levied by the assessing officer under section 271-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).2. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeals, but all grounds relate to the validity of levy of penalty under section 271-C of the Act.3. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the documents placed on record.4. The facts in brief are that a Form No. 26-C for payment made to contractor under section 194-C filed by the assessee for the financial years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were taken up for verification by the assessing officer and notice under section 133(6) was issued to the assessee. During the course of verification it was noticed that the assessee has made payment to Pradeep Oil Corporation of Rs. 23,07,000/- in financial year 1998-99 and Rs. 81,42,000/- in financia...
Florentine Estates of India Limited and ors. Vs. Cref Finance Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR579(Delhi); 110(2004)DLT742; 2004(74)DRJ101
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1.By this judgment and order I propose to dispose of the petition filed by the petitioners under section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `the Act') praying for execution of the alleged award dated January 12, 2001 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ranganathan, the learned Sole Arbitrator, in I.A. No. 8 of 2000 in the arbitration proceedings pending before him upon reference from this Court by order dated April 12, 1999 in A.A. No. 362 of 1998. Disputes having arisen between Puri Construction Ltd. and CREF Finance Ltd., the same were referred for adjudication through the process of arbitration of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ranganathan by order of this Court dated April 12, 1999. The said reference was made on the basis of an agreement between the aforesaid two parties dated July 30, 1997 which contained an arbitration clause. Pursuant to the aforesaid reference, the learned Arbitrator entered into the reference and when the said arbitration p...
Dharshan Lal Dhuper Vs. Smt. Motia Rani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT516
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. These applications have been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 and Smt. Neena Oberoi, widow of Mr. Virender Kumar for herself and her minor children and partnership firm Plaza Cosmetics (India). A rectification petition for cancellation of the registered trade mark No. 374796 in Class-III was filed in this Court. The said petition was filed under Sections 46 and 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act for cancellation of the registered trade mark No. 374796 in Class-III. Notice was issued on the said petition. The said notice was served on the respondents and a Counsel appeared on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. At the request of Counsel who appeared for respondents 1 to 3 time was granted to file the power of attorney and the reply by order dated 24th August, 1994. However, the power of attorney came to be filed only on behalf of respondent No. 3. The Registry of this Court took notice of the same and passed an order on 23rd January, 1995 directing for filin...
M.S. Rana Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR311(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The appeal is directed against an order dated 20th November, 1981 passed by the learned Sub-Judge First Class in Suit No. 344/79.2. Certain disputes arose between the parties and the appellant raised certain claims. It appears that a learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajender Sachar) was pleased to direct the Chief Engineer of PWD to appoint an Arbitrator in accordance with Clause 25 of the contract between the parties. Mr. V.V. Vaze was appointed as the sole Arbitrator and he entered into the reference on 17th July, 1972. He subsequently resigned as the sole Arbitrator and in his place Kumari K.P. Sarojini was appointed as the sole Arbitrator. She, however, resigned as the sole Arbitrator on 21st September, 1977 and thereafter Mr. N.C. Gupta was appointed as the sole Arbitrator on 20th April, 1978.3. It is submitted that Mr. Gupta unfortunately did not consider the claims of the appellant, but instead took the respondent as the claimant and p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »