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.
Sanjay Rana Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC85; 2005(1)CTLJ74(Del); 111(2004)DLT455; 2004(74)DRJ556
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19th April, 2004. We are doubtful whether the appeal is maintainable but since we do not find any merit in the entire case, thereforee, we are not determining the question of maintainability in this appeal.2. The appellant was permitted to display hoarding from 18th April, 2002. He was granted first renewal by the Divisional Commercial Manager, New Delhi by the order dated 13th October, 2003 from 28th April, 2003 to 22nd October, 2003. The appellant was granted second extension from 23rd October, 2003 to 22nd April, 2004. The second extension has also expired and thereafter admittedly no extension has been granted to the appellant. The appellant has placed reliance on letter dated 18th April, 2002. According to the interpretation of the said letter by the appellant, the contract has been awarded to him for a period of one year but that has to be renewed in his favor from year to year in c...
Nestle India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Del)70
B.C. PATEL, C.J.1. The petitioner in this petition has prayed for directions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India:(i) for quashing the reasons communicated vide letter dt. 8th March, 2002 for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 to reassess the income for the asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95.(ii) for quashing notices dt. 29th March, 2001 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, for asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95.(iii) for restraining the respondent from taking any steps or proceedings in pursuance or furtherance to the notice dt. 29th March, 2001 issued under Section 148 for asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95.2. In view of the decision of the apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO and Ors. (2003) 259 ITR 19 , this petition is required to be disposed of by giving directions hereinbelow. The apex Court in a similar situation pointed out that when a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, is issued, the proper course of action for the notice i...
Sahilendra Kumar Singh Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(94)ECC371
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C in a case under Sections 132/135 of the Customs Act.2. Briefly stated, the allegations against the petitioner is that while working as Engineer Project of M/s NEC Engineers Pvt. Ltd., he Along with other co-accused persons had facilitated 12 export consignments valuing US $ 10,14,247 in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act and in violation of Import Export Policy Under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. Complaint has already been filed in the court in the month of February 2003.3. Anticipatory Bail is claimed mainly on the ground that all co-accused persons have already been released on regular bail after undergoing varying periods of custody. thereforee, no useful purpose will be served by sending the accused to the prison. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the personal liberty of the individual should not be compromised except ...
Ashfa Himarc Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(172)ELT147(Del)
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks quashing of the auction notice dated 2-4-2004 and the auction proceedings, issued by Respondent No. 3. Petitioner also seeks quashing of order dated 11-3-2004, passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, confirming the demand of custom duty of Rs. 13,95,063/- together with interest @ 24% per cent per annum for failure to fulfill condition No. 6 of Notification No. 30/97 and the failure to submit export obligation discharge certificate, required under the EXIM policy.2. Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. Mr. Naveen Chawla accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. As only a short point is involved, with the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. The impugned order dated 11-2-2004, quashing of which has been sought, relates to the goods imported at Delhi and which already stand cleared. The demand is of duty for failure to fulfill the conditions of ...
Best and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC475
1. The appellants had imported from M/s. Kalo Holdings Corpn., LLC (USA), 1,000 pieces of what was claimed to be "Online Computer Hardware", and had filed Bill of Entry, dated 21-4-2003 for their clearance. The goods were valued at EURO 5,50,000. The Bill of Entry was accompanied by a copy of invoice, dated 31-3-2003 issued by the said company, wherein also the value of the goods had been shown as EURO 5,50,000. The department subsequently gathered a copy of another invoice, dated 27-3-2003 issued by an Italian company viz. M/s.Technost Systemmi, wherein the value of the goods had been shown as EURO 17,90,000 and the goods were described as "Online Computer Hardware and Software". The "Supply Agreement" between the appellants and their supplier referred to the goods as "Online Lottery Terminals".From the documentary evidence gathered, it appeared to the Department that the appellants had misdeclared the value of the goods and filed the invoice with lesser value with intent to evade pa...
Kanchan Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT453TriDel
1. This is an application of M/s. Kanchan Industries for restoration of their appeals, which were dismissed for non-compliance with the Stay Order Nos. 453-60/91 -WRB, dated 13-11-1991.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate submitted that the Tribunal vide Stay Order, dated 13-11-1991 had directed M/s. Kanchan Industries to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs, M/s. Neha Industries Rs. 20,000/- and M/s.Kanchan Kitchen Aid Rs. 20,000/- towards penalty; that they had deposited the said amount and informed the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal under their letter, dated 11-5-1992; that the Applicants had deposited the entire amount as directed by the Tribunal and intimation was also sent later to the Assistant Registrar, Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal; that when the appeal came up for hearing before the Tribunal at New Delhi, unfortunately nobody could appear on their behalf; that it also seems that the compliance reports filed with the Mumbai Bench were not recorded before the Tribunal at New Delhi and for t...
Birla Ericsson Opticals Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT163TriDel
1. Under order dated 25-11-2003 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5173-5178 of 2001 [2003 (158) E.L.T. 673 (S.C.)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has remanded the above appeals to this Tribunal for fresh consideration with certain directions.2. In paragraph three of the above order the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the norms to be adopted in the matter of claim to confidentiality made under Rule 7 of the Customs Tariff (Identification), Assessment and Collections of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. The above paragraph is quoted below : "3. In our view, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of this matter as we propose to send the matter back to CEGAT after laying down certain guidelines. From what has been argued before us, it appears that in pursuance of Rule 7 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 the Designated ...
Procter and Gamble India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT409TriDel
1. In these five appeals, filed by M/s. Procter & Gamble Ltd. and M/s.Richardson Hindustan Ltd., the common issues involved are whether the products namely Vicks Vaporub, Vicks Inhaler, Vicks Medicated Cough Drops, Vicks Herbal Throat Drops and Vicks Blue/Hunnies Drops are classifiable under sub-heading 3003.30 or 3003.19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and whether the product namely Chatpat Churanets is classifiable under sub-heading 3003.30 or 1704.90 of the Tariff.2.1 Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, mentioned that the main raw materials used for the manufacture of Vicks Vaporub are:- 2.2 He submitted that all these ingredients are mentioned in authoritative books on Ayurveda notified under Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act; that all these ingredients were also used in Vicks Vaporub manufactured in the Appellants Hyderabad unit; that the Commissioner (Appeals), after the matter was remanded to him by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Richards...
India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC606
1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. dated 1.3.2001 (serial No. 348) is available to CVR (Cardiotomy/Venous Reservoir With filter) imported by them.2. Shri Willingdon C., learned Advocate, submitted that oxygenator in question is an improved model keeping in view the constantly changing cardiac surgery environment and the new improved model is only updated old model oxygenator; that the imported goods is clearly described in the catalogue etc. as Oxygenator and is capable of and in fact is performing the major and primary functions of oxygenator; that the oxygenator is with an additional attachment on cardiotomy venous reservoir which is an integral part and inseparable from oxygenator; that Oxygenator cannot function without the help of the CVR; that the catalogue of the product makes it very clear that the impugned goods is nothing but an oxygenator meant for performing an important role...
Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT86TriDel
2. The applicant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat credit of Rs. 5,29,893/-was disallowed.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of TV picture tubes and they were clearing the same on payment of appropriate duty. The appellants were also exporting the goods manufactured by them. Subsequently, the appellants were filing rebate claim under Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules in respect of the goods exported by them. The rebate was allowed as claimed by the appellant. Subsequently, on verification it was found that appellant claimed higher rebate. Therefore, the Revenue wrote a letter dated 16-6-1998 directing the appellant to deposit the excess amount of rebate sanctioned to them. The appellant deposited the amount of Rs. 5,29,893/- in pursuance to this letter. After depositing this amount the appellant took credit in their RG 23A Part-II as Modvat credit. A show-cause notic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »