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.
Festo Measure Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT38TriDel
1. In the above captioned appeals filed by the appellants against two orders-in-appeal both dated 31-7-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the common issue regarding the correct classification of the goods known as "Steel Scales" manufactured by the appellants is involved. In Appeal No. E/2625/2002, the duty confirmed is Rs. 38,926/- for the period September, 1988 to February, 1989 while in the second Appeal No. 2624/2002, the period is from March, 1999 to August, 1999 and the duty confirmed is Rs. 66,944/- on the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of steel scales. The classification of these scales, claimed by the appellants is under sub-heading 9017.10 being drawing and mathematics instruments, while according to the department, it should be under sub-heading 9017.90.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the steel scales manufactured by the appellants are drawing and mathematical instructions as on the front side of the scales on the one edge, inches and on the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Itochu Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)31; 2004(75)DRJ337; [2004]268ITR172(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Against the order made by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in appeal Nos. 769-778/Del/2001 for assessment years 1989-90 to 1998-99, the present appeals have been preferred. We are disposing these appeals by a common judgment as the impugned judgment of Tribunal is common and for all the years same question is raised. We have heard these matters together and at length. 2. At the initial stage when the appeals were heard the following common question was raised by the Revenue: 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'3.We shall consider this in the light of facts in ITA No.17/2003. The respondent M/s Itochu Corporation is a company incorporated in Japan having its liaison office in Delhi for the business activities. Japanese employees were deputed to work in India. The remuneration was paid to these employees on the basis of the respondent's world-wide compensation policies for rendering servi...
Mohd. Shammi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT801; 2004(75)DRJ281
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Crl. A. No. 172/2003 arising out of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate held the petitioner and the co-accused guilty under Section 279/304A IPC and further vide separate order sentenced him to undergo RI for one year for offence under Section 304A IPC and also sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 279 IPC.2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, I have gone through the record of the case as also the depositions and the judgment under challenge. Learned counsel states that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction. I, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner has already undergone major portio...
Mukesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3830; 112(2004)DLT49; 2004(75)DRJ787
R.S. Sodhi, J.1 .This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Crl. A. No. 172/2003 arising out of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate held the petitioner and the co-accused guilty under Sections 279/304A, IPC and further vide separate order sentenced him to undergo RI for one year for offence under Section 304A, IPC and also sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 279, IPC.2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State, I have gone through the record of the case as also the depositions and the judgment under challenge. Learned Counsel states that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction. I, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by the learned Counsel that the petitioner has already undergone major po...
Brahm Prakash Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT812
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl. A. No. 28/ 2002 and Crl. A. 31/2002 arising out of the order of the learned ACMM, whereby the learned ACMM held the petitioner and the co-accused guilty under Sections 384/170 and 471, IPC and further vide separate order sentenced the petitioner and the co-accused to undergo RI for two years each.The Additional Sessions Judge vide its aforesaid order convicted the petitioner under Section 356 read with Section 379, IPC and acquitted him of charges under Sections 170 and 471, IPC and sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for 1 1/2 years.2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State, I have gone through the record of the case as also the depositions and the judgment under challenge. Learned Counsel states that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction. I, thereforee, con...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhagat and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)617
1. By these applications, on behalf of the Revenue, it is prayed that the Tribunal be directed to refer the following purported question of law to this Hon'ble Court. The question reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the assessed's appeal against the order of the AAC dismissing the assessed's quantum appeal, when there were no dispute on the quantum of income as admitted by the assessed in its return ?'2. The Tribunal rejected the application for making a reference and hence these applications are filed before this Court. The said question was referred on the basis of submissions in para 13 of the application that the Tribunal has held that the provisions of Section 166A (sic) are applicable for the asst. yr. 1976-77 and onwards. It was also contended that the section is merely clarificatory and confirms the position as it existed regarding the taxability of receipts of a firm even after dissolution. Th...
Cit Vs. Bhagat and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN298(Delhi)
By these applications, on behalf of the revenue, it is prayed that the Tribunal be directed to refer the following purported question of law to this Hon'ble Court. The question reads as under :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the assessed's appeal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissing the assessed's quantum appeal, when there were no dispute on the quantum of income as admitted by the assessed's in its return?'2. The Tribunal rejected the application for making a reference and hence these applications are filed before this Court. The said question was referred on the basis of submissions in para 13 of the application that the Tribunal has held that the provisions of section 166(A) are applicable for the assessment year 1976-77 and onwards. It was also contended that the section is merely clarificatory and confirms the position as it existed regarding the taxability of receipts of a firm...
Cit Vs. Lurgi Oil Gas Chemie Gmb.ii
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN348(Delhi)
ORDERAt the outset, we would point out that the revenue has preferred only one appeal and, thereforee, the revenue is directed to see that the court fee on the second appeal for the other year is deposited. The Registry is directed to give a separate number for the other appeal. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order.2. In these appeals, the following question is raised for adjudication :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the penalties imposed under section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not assessable on the assessed in respect of the financial years 1997-98 and 1998-99 ?'3. For the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1163 and 1164 (Del)/2001 held that there was reasonable cause for not depositing the tax on account of short deduction and against that decision, the revenue has preferred these appeals, inter alia, contending that the penalty which was levied under section 271C of the Income Ta...
Ashoka Transmissions Wire Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC434
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the inputs found in excess were confiscated and released on payment of redemption fine and in respect of the confiscation of ACC & ANT conductors, in his impugned order, the redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,0007 was imposed for release of the above mentioned goods.3. The appellants are not contesting the other demands confirmed by the impugned order.4. The contention of the appellants is that 6.994 M.T. of steel wire was the inputs for the manufacture of conductors and this wire was purchased from the traders and no Modvat credit has been availed in respect of the duty paid. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore v. Ajmer Food Industries, reported in 2004 (60) RLT 297 to submit that the confiscation of inputs is not sustainable. In respect of the confiscation of ACC & ANT Conductors, the contention is that these goods were manufactured on job work basis on the material sup...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Syncom Formulation (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT77TriDel
1. In this Appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether extended period of limitation for demanding duty under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act can be invoked after the detection of short payment of duty by the Central Excise officer.2. Mrs. Charul Baranwal, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that M/s. Syncom Formulation (I) Ltd. manufacture medicines namely Pefloxacin and diclofenac sodium which were classified by them under subheading 3003.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act whereas those medicines were appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10 as P or P medicine; that a show cause notice dated 4-8-2000 was issued to them for demanding the duty for the period from August, 1995 to February, 2000; that the Additional Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 44/2002, dated 23-12-2002, confirmed the demand after classifying the impugned products under sub-heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff besides imposin...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »