Delhi Court May 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.
Hindustan Rimmer Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC213
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of cosmetics and hair care products.The hair care products are three Gels. They are (1) Harmony Styling Gel (2) Jolen Country Born Styling Gel and (3) Jolen Country Born Styling Gel Hair Fixer. The first two varities are mostly for export and the third is for sale in the domestic market. Hair care products manufactured in India are liable to Central Excise duty under Chapter 33 which is for cosmetics, toilet preparations etc. More specifically, the classification is under Heading 33,05. That heading reads as under :- 2. The appellant classified 'Jolen Country Born Styling Gel Hair Fixer' under heading 3305.91 as 'hair fixer'. Classification lists were being filed from time to time and the Central Excise authorities raised no objection. However, on 18-7-2002, a show cause notice was issued alleging that, for the period March 1988 to February 2002, the appellant had evaded Central Excise duty by misclassifying the product under 3305.91 as 'hair fixer',...
G.R. Batra Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT571TriDel
1. This stay application seeks exemption from pre-deposit of duty and penalty imposed under Order-in-Original No. 25/03-Cus., dated 30-7-2003 of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Thiruvananthapuram.The total duty demand is over Rs. 38 lakhs. There is an equal amount of penalty.2. The stay application was originally posted for hearing on 20-2-2004.On that day the case was adjourned at the request of the appellant.Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned four times. When the matter came up on 6-5-2004 the appellant, Shri G.R. Batra appeared in person and requested for final adjournment to 12-5-2004 so that he could arrange for legal representation. On 12-5-2004 Shri Navnit Pawar, Advocate appeared and stated that his senior Advocate Shri Piyush Kumar was seeking to withdraw from the case. Shri G.R. Batra was not present also. We are not inclined to adjourn the case further. The appellant has been delaying the decision in the stay application by repeated request for adjournm...
Smt. Krishna Wanti Batra Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Delhi)550
1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1986-87 is directed against order of the CIT(A), New Delhi, dt. 16th Feb., 2000.2. The premises of the assessee were subjected to search under Section 132 of the IT Act in 1985. As per 'Panchnamas' marked as 'B-4', 'B-5' and 'B-l' prepared by the Departmental valuer, total jewellery found worked out to 2,846 gms. As per the assessee, part of jewellery belonging to her daughters-in-law, Smt. Sunita and Urmil Batra, was also included in the jewellery recorded in the 'Panchnamas'. The entire jewellery except for jewellery of value of Rs. 1,66,348 has been held to be explained. This way a sum of Rs. 1,66,348 has been added in the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources in the assessment year under appeal The assessment was confirmed on appeal by the learned CIT (A). It is seen that while confirming the assessment, the Revenue authorities have relied upon orders passed under Sections 132(5) and 132(1) of the IT Act.3. I have heard bo...
Late Shri Dinesh Chand Through L/H Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Delhi)770
1. These four appeals filed by the four assessees are directed against four separate orders passed by learned CIT, Bareilly Under Section 263 on 6/6/2000 and since common issues are involved therein, the same are being disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that all the four assessees are Directors and principal promoter shareholders of M/s Mansarovar Paper & Industries Ltd. The same company was earlier engaged in the business of doing bottling work for M/s Hindustan Coca-Cola North West Private Limited ('HCC' in short) in it's unit called as M/s Mansarovar Bottling Co. During the course of said business, all the four assessees being the Directors of M/s Mansarovar Paper & Industries Ltd. acquired confidential information regarding the bottling and distribution of trade mark beverages of Coca-Cola company.M/s Mansarovar Paper & Industries Ltd. suffered heavy losses and as per the BIFR ord...
Dinesh Chand Vs. Joint Cit, Special Range,
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: (2005)95ITD209(Delhi)
These four appeals filed by the four assessees are directed against four separate orders passed by learned CIT, Bareilly under section 263 on 6-6-2000 and since common issues are involved therein, the same are being disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that all the four assessees are Directors and principal promoter shareholders of M/s. Mansarovar Paper & Industries Ltd. The same company was earlier engaged in the business of doing bottling work for M/s. Hindustan CocaCola North West Private Limited (HCC in short) in its unit called as M/s. Mansarovar Bottling Co. During the course of said business, all the four assessees being the Directors of M/s.Mansarovar Paper & Industries Ltd. acquired confidential information regarding the bottling and distrilbution of trade mark beverages of Coca-Cola company. M/s. Mansarovar Paper & Industries Ltd. suffered heavy losses and as per the BIFR order, ...
Srichand P. Hinduja Vs. State Through Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT109
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.3.2004 of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi whereby the learned Magistrate vide that order framed charge under Section 120-B and Section 420, IPC read with Section 120-B, IPC against the petitioners and also framed a charge under Section 465, IPC against M/s. A.B. Bofors.2. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioners that the judgment of the High Court in Crl.M.C. 3938/2003 as also the connected matters dated 4.2.2004 has categorically stated the conclusions that have emerged from the discussion in the judgment and has stated as under:'To sum up following conclusions emerge from the aforesaid discussion--(i) Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120B/420, IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 165A read with Section 161, IPC against the petitioners for having entered into a criminal conspiracy ...
Gp Capt. A.K. Ghosh (Retd.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT812; 2004(75)DRJ321; 2005(1)SLJ244(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. The petitioner retired as Group Captain from the Indian Air Force. Petitioner was attached to unit 8 TAC as commanding officer and throughout during the period of controversy was attached to the said post. Air Force deputed the petitioner during operation 'Pawan' in Jaffna, Sri Lanka at Palaly Airfield, but he was always shown to be on the strength of his unit 8 TAC. The area in Sri Lanka, where the petitioner performed duty was an operational area. 2. The short controversy in this petition is whether the deployment of the petitioner at Palaly Airfield in Sri Lanka was to be considered as an operational area or a field concessional area and what allowances he is entitled to. According to the stand of respondents, the petitioner was in the field Concessional area and, thereforee, allowances/concessions permissible to him would be as per respondents' letter dated 3.9.1987. Additional affidavit has been filed by the respondent which has defined field concessional area...
Moti Lal JaIn Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(75)DRJ350
D.K. Jain, J. 1. Rule D.B.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage.3. Although this case has a chequered history, it is not necessary to state in detail all the facts. We are concerned with Award No.7/97-98 which is challenged as null and void, inter alia, on the ground that although the Notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') in respect of this land lapsed on the wrong presumption that there was stay operating in CWP No.621/74 which was dismissed on 14 December 1995, the impugned Award was made. This was factually incorrect as there was no stay in the said writ petition and the writ petition was in fact allowed and not dismissed as stated in the Award. It is alleged that on the basis of the said Award the respondents are threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question.4. What is required to be noted, for the purpose of adjudicating the aforesaid controversy,...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Automobiles
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)575; [2005]272ITR381(Delhi)
1. This reference is at the instance of the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1975-76 and the following two questions have been referred which are as under :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,500 paid by the assessed as penalty for late payment of sales-tax was an allowable deduction ?2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the sum of Rs. 13,170 being the unclaimed balances written off by the assessed was not taxable ?'2. So far as the first question is concerned, on examination of the facts, the Tribunal has recorded that the amount was not paid by the assessed as penalty for late payment of sales-tax but it was by way of interest. And if that be so, the answer is required to be given in favor of the assessed and against the Revenue. So far as the second question is concerned, the Tribunal, relying, upon the decision reported as J.K. Chemicals Ltd. v. C...
Karnataka Petrosynthesis Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT28TriDel
1. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 14-10-2003. In the above order the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the view that licence fee paid by the appellant to M/s. China National Chemical Construction Corporation, China (CNCCC) for supply of know-how manufacturing in India is to be added to the transaction value of capital goods, namely, Twin Screw Extruder machine with accessories and spare parts imported by the assessee. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Customs authority seeking to finalize the assessment by including know-how fee of US $ 38,000 paid to CNCCC to the value of capital goods imported. The adjudicating authority took the view that the licence fee is not includible in the value of capital goods except to the extent of US $ 2850. Department took up the matter in appeal and the appellant filed a cross-objection. The Commissioner (Appeals) under order dated 18-2-2002 al...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »