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.
Cce Vs. Kay Prompt Software P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC287
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the respondents made import of second-hand computers. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods on the ground that the second-hand goods requires special import licence and ordered release of the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. Two Lakhs and personal penalty of Rs. 50,000 was also imposed. On appeal filed by the present respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 40,000 and set aside the penalty.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellant contravened the provision of Import Export Policy by importing second-hand goods which requires special import licence. Therefore, the reduction in redemption fine and setting aside of the penalty is not sustainable.4. The contention of the respondent is that they are engaged in the manufacture of software development and the imported computers are to be used fo...
Vision Trade Links Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC487
1. The appellant imported in July 2003 a consignment of mulberry silk fabrics. The unit price of purchase was 1 US Dollar per metre. Under the impugned order it has been held that the purchase price should be rejected and the goods should be assessed at a unit value of US Dollar 1.29 per metre. The reason for assessment of the goods at the enhanced value is that contemporaneously there was other import at the said higher price, 2. The contention of the appellant is that the enhancement of value is contrary to settled law inasmuch as every imported consignment is required to be assessed at its transaction value and not at the price of other imported goods. The appellants also point out that the higher value for the compared consignment could also be on account of the lower quantity under purchase. The appellant's purchase was 60,000 metres in quantity while the compared import was only 20,000 metres.According to the appellants, the difference in price could have been on account of such...
Saroj Textiles Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC513
1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 17.4.2003 vide which the Commissioner as adjudicating authority, has confirmed the duty of Rs. 1,16,83,256 under Section 11-D of the Act on the appellants on the ground that they had recovered this amount in excess of the duty from the customers and also confirmed duty of Rs. 59,910 in respect of the processed fabrics of cotton shirting and duty of Rs. 39,093 regarding 12 bales of suitings, on them for having cleared these goods without payment of duty.2. The learned counsel has contested the validity of the impugned order confirming the demand under Section 11-D of the Act by contending that the provisions of this Section during the relevant period i.e.16.12.1998 to 28.2.2001 were not attracted to the appellants as they were paying the duty in terms of Section 3-A of the Act on the basis of the production capacity/number of chambers of the stenter and as such had nothing to do with the quantity of the goods...
Mohan MeakIn Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)1
1. We have perused the miscellaneous application along with the Tribunal's order dt. 31st Jan., 2001, in the appeal and other relevant materials on the file. We have also heard the learned authorized Representatives of both the sides.2. The learned authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that he would press only the points raised in paras 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the miscellaneous application. Other paras were not pressed.3. In the above paras it is contended that there are mistakes apparent from record in the Tribunal's order relating to the provision of Rs. 4,75,458 for leave encashment of permanent employees debited in the P&L a/c (Vide para 2 of the Tribunal's order), expenditure on advertisement, publicity, running and maintenance of motor car under Section 37(3A) (vide para 14 of the Tribunal's order), excess collection of sales-tax (vide paras 19 to 22 of the Tribunal's order), claim of excise duty (Vide paras 23 to 26 of the Tribunal's order) and expenditure...
ingersoll Rand India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR54(Delhi); 111(2004)DLT452; 2004(74)DRJ567
Mukundakam Sharma, J 1. A contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent for supply of 10 number of Rigs of two different capacities. In the execution of the aforesaid contract, dispute arose between the parties. Accordingly, the same was referred to the sole arbitrator Mr.K.D.Singh in terms of the arbitration clause between the parties. The learned arbitrator entered into the reference, received evidence and published his award on 1.4.1992. When the said award was filed in this Court, notices were issued to the parties. Thereupon objections were filed and this Court, after going through the award passed by the arbitrator, set aside the award and remitted the same and ordered that the respondent would appoint a new arbitrator for the purpose of adjudicating the disputes between the parties. It was also held that the new arbitrator so appointed would go into the question as to whether or not the price preference clause could be applied to the contractor, apart from ...
Ajit Arjani Vs. Roma Arjani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT545; 2004(77)DRJ382
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The legal quarrel between the spouses had started on 1st February, 1996 with the filing of a divorce petition by the Husband, namely Shri Ajit Arjani. It is not clear when the Wife, namely, Roma Arjani, was served with the summons of the divorce petition, or the date on which she gained knowledge of that petition. In April 1996 an F.I.R. was lodged by the Wife under Section 406/498A of the I.P.C. In those proceedings, on 15.5.1996, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the Husband to the Wife. It is the contention of the Husband that this sum was paid towards maintenance/settlement, but the Wife contends that this was towards repayment of a loan. On 31st May, 1996, a Suit for Maintenance was filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act (hereinafter referred to as `the H.A. & M. Act`) which was accompanied by an application for grant of interim maintenance. On 3rd October, 1997, interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month was awarded by the A...
Pritam Dass, Trading as Alka Food Industries Vs. Anil Food Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT603; 2005(31)PTC197(Del)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The present Petition inasmuch as it assails the dismissal of an amendment pursuant to an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable under Section 115 of the CPC. Such an Order does not fall within genre which, had it been in favor of the applicant, would have had the effect of finally disposing of the suit or proceedings. It is not maintainable in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur vs . Swaraj Developers and Others, : [2003]3SCR762 and Surya Dev Rai Versus Ram Chander Rai and other, : AIR2003SC3044 . 2. The Order which has been impugned in this Revision denies the amendment of the plaint. In Prem Bakshi and Others Vs . Dharam Dev and Others, : [2002]1SCR103 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is almost inconceivable that an Order permitting amendment of pleadings would cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. These observations we...
Smt. Phool Rani Trivedi, W/O Late Justice O.P. Trivedi and Shri Rajeev ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi424; 111(2004)DLT820; 2004(75)DRJ89
Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Additional District Judge where the suit for recovery of possession of the ground floor of 8, Ishwar Nagar East, Mathura Road, New Delhi along with damages for use and occupation was dismissed. In the plaint the case set out by the appellant/plaintiff was that they were the owners and landlords of the premises. Entire ground floor with garage on a monthly rent of Rs.4000/- was leased by lease deed dated 3rd May, 1984 for a period of three years to the respondent. The lease was to expire on 2nd May, 1987. The respondent did not vacate the premises after 2nd May, 1987, lease having been expired after efflux of time. The appellant by way of abundant precaution served upon the respondent registered notices dated 13.9.1989 and 3.10.1989, the appellant also claimed compensation/manse profit from 3rd November, 1989 to 18th November, 1989 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- and from the date of institution of the suit till the date of rec...
Kanwal NaIn Bahadur Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT900
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order framing charge dated 1.5.2003 whereby the learned Judge has been pleased to frame a charge under Section 498-A. I have heard Counsel for the parties and find no good grounds to interfere at this stage.2. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein is a resident of France and is doing business there. He submits that his personal appearance may be exempted but further undertakes to be represented through Counsel and not claim any prejudice on account of his absence. He says that the petitioner shall be present in person as and when required by the Trial Court. Counsel for the State has no objection to this.3. Having heard Counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of this case, the personal appearance of the petitioner is exempted. He shall be represented through Counsel. He shall not claim any prejudice on account of his non-absence during evidence or at any other stage of the ...
Cce Vs. Machino Montell (i) Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC180
1. The issue raised for consideration before the Larger Bench is whether penalty under Section 11AC is liable to be imposed on the assessee or whether interest under Section 11AB is liable to be levied on duty, in cases where the duty has been deposited by the assessee before issue of show-cause notice. It is contended by the Id. counsel on behalf of the assessee that since they have deposited the duty amount before issue of show-cause notice, penalty under Section 11AC can not be imposed. In support of the above contention, reliance was placed on the following decisions of the Tribunal : (1) Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai [2003 (55) RLT 816 (CEGAT-Chennai)] (2) Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd Vs. CCE [2003 (161) ELT 285 (Tribunal-Bang.)] 2. The Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that when fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement of suppression of facts, etc. are alleged against the assessee, penalty under Section 11AC can be imposed irrespective of the fact that the assessee has de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »