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.
Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT526; 2004(75)DRJ296
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner has filed the contempt petition alleging violation of the order dated 21.1.2003 in Civil Writ Petition 6455/1999. 2. The petitioner had been allocated a Category III flat on the ground floor in Pocket 2 and 3 Block B, Vasant Kunj and on the petitioner depositing the first four installments, the petitioner was allotted a specific flat bearing No.2353. The allotment letter was, however, not issued to the petitioner. The reason for the same was stated to be that the petitioner had not completed the necessary formalities for mutation of the flat in his name which was originally booked by his father under the scheme and who had passed away. Subsequently, the demand letter was issued at fresh cost. Since the petitioner was not found at fault, the fresh demand letter was quashed and a writ of mandamus was issued to issue a demand letter in terms of the directions contained in the order.3. The fresh demand letter was issued on 7.4.2003 in compliance of t...
Pol Securities Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC686
1. In these two appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal, the issue involved related to confiscation of imported goods/indigenous procured goods without payment of duty and imposition of penalties on both the appellants.2. Shri J.M. Sharma, learned Consultant, submitted that POL Securities Ltd., a 100% EOU, had imported 40 computers and procured 4 UPSs indigenously without payment of duty; that on verification by the Departmental officers, it was found that 7 computers were transferred by them to their sister concern, Granada Services Ltd., and 32 computers were outside the bonded godown but within the appellants' STP Unit; similarly, one UPS was installed outside the bonded premises and 3 UPSs had been transferred to Granada Services Ltd.; that the Joint Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 10/02 dated 31.5.2002, confiscated 3 computers and 4 UPSs and imposed penalties on both the appellants, besides imposing penalty on their Directors and also confirmed duty on the ...
Acit Vs. Star Ferro Alloys (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)90ITD63(Delhi)
1. The Hon'ble President, vide order dated 5.1.04, has nominated me as Third Member Under Section 255(4) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short as Act) to express my opinion on the questions referred to by the Members constituting the Bench. Both the Members have referred their separate questions. The learned Judicial Member (JM) has referred the following questions: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Judicial Member is right in upholding action of the Assessing Officer under Section 147 reversing CIT(A)'s order on the grounds that: (1) The reasons recorded and the formation of belief that there was escapement of income for initiating the action under Section 147 were proper and valid; (2) There was no change of opinion of AO because assessment under Section 143(3) had not been completed in the case and processing of return Under Section 143(1)(a) was not tantamount to assessment under Section 143(3). (3) Since there was no assessment the provisions of explanat...
Satya Sagar and ors. Vs. Indian Airlines and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT578; 2004(74)DRJ665; 2005(1)SLJ142(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners are working as Senior Helpers/Helpers with the respondent. They claim that the next promotional post available to them is post of Trainee Technician, promotion to which post has to be effected by way of selection. Their grievance relates to the fact that while effecting promotion to the post of Trainee Technician in the year 2001 and 2002, claim of the petitioners was overlooked. Elaborating on the claim made by the petitioners, they allege that on 4.10.1999, applications were invited from the eligible Helpers/Senior Helpers to fill up 10 posts of Trainee Technicians. The Bench Fitting Test prescribed as per the promotional policy was held on 25.4.2001. Petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 qualified at the said trade test but they were not selected.2. On 6.7.2001, the respondent invited applications to fill up 58 further vacancies. Petitioners applied and were required to undergo the trade test afresh. As per the petitioners, such of the petitioners who had qua...
Peekay Electronics and Mr. Pramod Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC289
1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 402 & 403/ACU/D-1/2003/2361 dated 11,11.2003 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Delhi. Under the impugned order the Commissioner has up-held the Order-in-Original passed against the appellants. The dispute related to Floppy Diskettes imported by the appellants in June 1995.They were confiscated on the ground that the description and value had been misdeclared and customs duty evaded by such misdeclaration. The declared value was enhanced by 73% on the basis of import of identical goods at Mumbai.2. The submission of the appellants is that the goods had been cleared through the customs after proper assessment. It is also pointed out that before the assessment of the goods customs authorities had increased the value of the goods by 0,18 per piece in terms of some special investigation branch (customs) enquiry. It is the appellants submission that in a case where goods had been duly assessed after enhancement of value, it ...
Om Metals and Minerals Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC548
1. The assessee has come up against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 23.12.2003 to the extent he has imposed penalty and demanded interest. We find the view taken by the Commissioner quite strange.2. The Commissioner had initially determined the annual production capacity of the appellant's unit by order dated 29.9.97 at 9600 MT. The above order was successfully challenged by the assessee before this Tribunal. By order dated 9.9.99 case was sent back to the Commissioner for re-determination. On second time the Commissioner re-determined the capacity at 9600 PMT under order dated 21.1.2000. This order was also set aside by this Tribunal under final order dated 5.9.2000 directing the Commissioner to re-examine the capacity. Therefore, the Commissioner passed order dated 7.2.2002. It was also set aside by this Tribunal under order dated 4.9.2002. The case was. again sent back and therefore, the Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 5.1.2004.3. The Commissioner determined...
Narinder Engineering Works Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(115)LC826Tri(Delhi)
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the benefit of deemed credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.1997 was denied to the appellants on the ground that manufacturer of the inputs had not discharged the duty.3. Appellants were availing the benefit of deemed credit in respect of the inputs cleared by the manufacturer who were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants denying the benefit of deemed credit on the ground that invoices were not bearing the declaration that appropriate duty had been paid by the manufacturer. Thereafter, the Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The appeal filed by the appellants was 'also dismissed.4. The contention of the appellants is that the dispute is in respect of four invoices and all the invoices bearing the declaration that appropriate duty has been paid. Therefore, the demand on the basis that no such declaratio...
Olympic Petro Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT490TriDel
1. The issue raised in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is whether they are entitled to come under Clause (b) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 57AG of the Cenvat Rules. The relevant rule reads as under:- "(b) An independent texturiser who manufactures texturised yarn (including draw-twisted or draw-mould yarn) of polyesters falling under Heading No. 54.02, and also other goods, shall be allowed to take Cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs used for the manufacture of such other goods, lying in stock as on the 1st day of March, 2000 or received in his factory on or after the 1st day of March, 2000." 2. It has come out in this proceeding that the appellants are manufacturing Slide Fasteners. They were using polyester filament yarn for the manufacture of Slide Fasteners. Duty paid by the appellant on POY is availed as Cenvat credit and used for the manufacture of texturised yarn, which is entirely consumed captively for the manufacture of Slide Fasteners. A reference to the order pa...
Vikas Laminaters Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT464TriDel
1. The challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30-5-2000.2. The appellants are manufacturer of Printed and Laminated Sheets and Pouches falling under Heading 39.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.They removed certain inputs from their unit to sister unit situated at A-46, Sector-58, Noida after reversing the amount of credit availed by them on those inputs. Proper invoice as per provisions of Rule 52A of Central Excise Rules were also issued. RT-12 returns were being filed enclosing therewith other related documents. While so, show cause notice dated 7-3-2002 was issued to the appellant alleging that the appellant have contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 173C, 173F, 173G of the Central Excise Rules and Section 4 of Central Excise Act read with Rules 7 & 9 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 and evaded Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,69,45...
Bharti Mobinet Limited, Vs. Dss Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT554; 2004(75)DRJ95; [2005]60SCL473(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This application is filed by the applicant-objector under Rule 6 read with Rule 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 praying for exercise of the inherent powers of this Court for recalling and setting aside the order dated July 29, 2003 whereby this Court approved and granted sanction to the scheme of arrangement. 2. Two-fold grounds have been advanced by the counsel appearing for the objector-respondent in support of the prayer for recalling and setting aside the said order. The first submission which was advanced was that the petitioner-M/s. Bharti Mobinet Limited, who filed the Company Petition No. 167/2003 connected with C.A. (M) No. 41/2003, did not come to this Court with clean hands and did not disclose all material facts and in fact they perpetrated fraud on this Court and, thereforee, this order is liable to be set aside, quashed and recalled. The second submission was that the said petitioner got shares transferred to it and got sanction of the scheme ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »