Delhi Court April 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.
Sandeep Kakkar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT291
A.K. Sikri, J.1. In this writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, following prayers are made:'It is, thereforee, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, Prohibition and Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Directions to respondents, in the nature of:A.I. Declaration that the Notification No.F.15(III)/59-LSG date d 13.11.1959 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Map enclosed with the said notification does not cover and does not relate to petitioners' land comprising Khasra Nos. 3984/2500/1934/1, measuring 2 Bighas 15 Biswas, situated in the Revenue Estate of village Basai Darapur, Tehsil Patel Nagar, West District, New Delhi, corresponding to Municipal Property Nos. WZ-90, WZ-92A, WZ-92B and WZ-92C, Raja Garden, facing Ring Road, New Delhi 110 015 owned and possessed by petitioners, and all notifications, declarations and notices including Corrig...
State Bank of India Vs. Diwanji Buildwell (India) Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas161(Delhi); 111(2004)DLT267
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application for review/recall of the order dated 18.11.2003 on behalf of the respondent Bank. The first issue is that on the date on which the order dated 18.11.2003 was passed to some mistaken impression the Counsel for the respondents was unable to be present and put forward the case of the respondent bank with regard to the return of title deeds to the petitioner No. 2. The learned Counsel who appears today for the bank states that while it is correctly recorded in the matter that the loan taken by the petitioner had been fully repaid, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the Title Deedswere not being retained by the Bank in respect of the loan taken by petitioner No.1 from the respondent Bank for which the petitioner No. 2 stood guarantor but was being retained in respect of another transaction in which the petitioner No. 2 being a partner of M/s. Shakti Cement Corporation had transactions with the bank. Learned Counsel appearing fo...
Gabs (Groups Apparel Business Services) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT522; 2004(77)DRJ365
ORDER1. This group of petitions have been filed challenging the provisions contained in the Securitisation and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The controversy has been settled by the Apex Court in Transfer Case (Civil) Nos. 92-95/2002; Mardia Chemicals Ltd., etc. etc. v. UOI and Ors. etc. etc., : (2004)IILLJ697Del on 8.4.2004. We re-produce paragraphs 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 of the judgment.'Under the Act in consideration, we find that before taking action a notice of 60 days is required to be given and after the measures under Section 13(4) of the Act have been taken, a mechanism has been provided under Section 17 of the Act to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The above noted provision are for the purposes of giving some reasonable protection to the borrower. Viewing the matter in the above perspective, we find what emerges from different provisions of the Act, is as follows: 1. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 it is incumbent u...
ito Vs. Selchem Engineers (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Del)101
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-II, New Delhi, dated 30-9-1999, whereby he allowed the unabsorbed depreciation for the earlier years to be set off against the income of the assessed from house property for the year under consideration, i.e., assessment year 1997-98 as claimed by the assessed.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the assessed's claim to set off the unabsorbed depreciation for earlier years against the income from house property for the year under consideration (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned claim of the assessed') was disallowed by the assessing officer keeping in view the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996, with effect from 1-4-1997. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, allowed this claim of the assessed relying on the speech of the Finance Minister in Parli...
Cce Vs. Metro Tyres Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT493TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Revenue, is whether Tyre Bead Wire Rings manufactured by M/s. Metro Tyres Ltd. are chargeable to Central Excise duty.2. Shri D.N. Chaudhary, learned SDR, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erroneously held that Bead Wire Rings are not marketable as another manufacturer namely, Hindustan Tyre Co., Ludhiana, is discharging duty on such Bead Wire rings used in the manufacture of exempted tyres that goes to show that Bead Wire Rings are marketable and hence duitable; that the impugned products are having low shelf life which per se is not determinative of marketability of the goods; that for instance, ice-cream has a shelf life in minutes and still then it cannot be said that the same is not marketable.3. On the other hand Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Trubunal in the Respondents' own matter has held vide final Order No. 231/2002-C dated 8.11.2002, that Bead Wire Rings manufactured by them and captively cons...
Alcobex Metals Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC167
1. M/s. Alcobex Metal Ltd. manufactured brass and copper articles. They cleared these items on payment of Central Excise duty as applicable under Chapter 74 of the Central Excise Tariff. They also disposed of "Industrial Dust" arising in the factory. Under the impugned order duty demand of about Rs. 25.5 Lakhs has been confirmed in respect of the said "Industrial Dust" and equal amount of penalty has also been imposed. alongwith demand for interest, on the ground that the appellant had evaded duty on "Industrial Dust'.2. The "Industrial Dust" in question arises during the manufacture of brass and copper articles in the following ways:- (ii) The various raw material, copper and brass, scrap etc., are melted in electrical induction, melting furnace. During the process of melting and casting different type of fluxes and covering material such as charcoal, borax and some specially desired fluxes are used to protect the molten metal from oxidization which is not desirable for quality reaso...
Tata Teleservices Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT181TriDel
1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s. Tata Teleservices Ltd., arising out of two Order-in-appeals, the issue involved is whether Fixed Wireless Terminal LSP-340 and LST - 250 are classifiable under sub-Heading 8525.20.17 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act and the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1.3.2002 (Sl. No. 313) is available.2. Shri Anil P. Datar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Fixed Wireless Terminal imported by the Appellants working on Cellular Technology on CDMA platforms and, therefore, is classifiable under sub-Heading 85252017 of the Customs Tariff which applies to "Cellular Telephone"; that the benefit of Serial No. 313 of Notification No.21/2002-Cus which provides partial exemption to Cellular Phones and Radio trunking terminals has to be extended to the product imported by them; that the Deputy Commissioner has classified the imported goods under sub-Heading 8525.20.19 (others) and disallowed the benefit of the N...
Agro Dutch Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT295TriDel
1. In these 6 appeals, arising out of two Orders-in-Appeal, the common issue involved is whether duty of Excise is chargeable from the appellants on the quantity of inputs obtained duty free without complying with the conditions of the Notification No. 1/95-C.E., dated 4-1-95 as amended.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that all the appellants are 100% Export-Oriented Undertakings; that they were procuring High Speed Diesel Oil under Notification No. 1/95-C.E. on presentation of CT-3 certificates; that the appellants had obtained CT-3 certificates prior to 15-3-98 for procurement of H.S.D. oil and they continued to receive the same free of duty on the strength of the said CT-3 certificate; that Notification No. 1/95-C.E. was amended by Notification No. 31/98-C.E., dated 15-9-98 in terms of which the fuel, lubricants and consumable can be obtained as approved by the Commissioner of Customs on the recommendation of Development Commissioner; that the Central Excise duty had...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Escorts Piston Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC647
1. The respondent is a manufacturer of Piston & G. Pin. They purchased Circlips and Rings from the market and supplied them along with the Pistons and G. Pins manufactured by them, whenever the buyers wanted Circlips and rings to be supplied along with the Piston and G. Pin. The Circlips and Rings are required for installing Pistons in the engine.The Jurisdictional Central Excise authority held that the value of Circlips and Rings should also form part of assessable value of Piston and G. Pin, despite the respondent's contention that the bought out items are only accessories and the price of bought out accessories is not to be included in the assessable value of manufactured goods.2. When the matter went before the Commissioner (Appeals) he noted that this issue remains specifically covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of India Piston Ltd. He also noted that this view was in conformity with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sri Ram Bearings Ltd. v. CCE ...
Narmada Drinks (P) Ltd., Shri Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC262
1. All these appeals are directed against a common order of adjudication. Therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of under this common order.2. The dispute relates to central excise valuation of aerated drinks, Thums Up/Coca Cola manufactured by M/s Narmada Drinks (P) Ltd.. The goods were under provisional assessment from 1.4.94. Under the impugned order, higher assessable value has been fixed from 1.4.94 to August 1997 and differential duty of over Rs. 12 lakhs demanded Penalties have also been imposed on the appellants 3. Assessable value has been fixed after rejecting the appellant manufacturer's sale price to their distributors on account of their being dummies and working out fresh assessable value by allowing certain deductions from the invoice price of the dealers. The dealers in question are M/s Bilaspur Agency for the period 1.4.94 to 20.10.94 and M/s Chattisgarh Agency for the subsequent period. It is the finding that these distributors were dummies because prop...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »