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.
Kashyap Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT576TriDel
2. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed on the appellants.3. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance to the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as the applicants have not deposited Rs. 45,000/- as per stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).4. The applicants have relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shiv Textile Printing Mills v. CCE, Jalandhar, Final Order Nos.A/1460-1462/2003, dated 27-11-2003 to submit that in view of the decision of the Madras High Court, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable.5. The contention of the Revenue is that the appeal filed against the decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge is pending before the Division Bench and the Revenue relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, reported in 2004 (93) ECC 633 where Hon'ble High Court he...
Sbl Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Rajesh Gupta Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC435
1. M/s. SBL Private Limited is a manufacturer of Dilutions Eye Drops etc. The only issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the following products manufactured by them contained alcohol. If they do, they will not be liable to Central Excise duty in view of Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act; 1985 and if they don't they will be liable to Central Excise duty under Chapter 30. The items are: (i) Dilutions; (ii) CME Eye Drops; (iii) Ointments other than Graphite & Sulfur; and (iv) Speciality Tablets 2. The appellant's contention is that these items contained Alcohol and they have been discharging duty under Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act, 1955 and therefore levy of Central Excise duty is not permissible.They also produced certificates from Shriram Institute for Industrial Research, New Delhi and Oasis Test House, Ahmd. in support of their contention. Test reports made by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory during June 2003 also confirmed th...
Hotz Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC432
1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee two issues are involved -- one relating to an alleged clandestine removal of goods on which Central Excise duty would come to Rs. 30,467. The second relates to inclusion of freight and insurance charges collected from their customers in the assessable value.2. As far as the second issue is concerned, it is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE,(SC) and Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. v. CCE, 2002 (146) ELT 497 (SC). The first issue has arisen in the following manner: 3. The appellants had in the year 1992 taken Excise registration as they were engaged in the manufacture of industrial gases in their factory at Surajpur. Later they stopped manufacturing activity and the registration was surrendered. They carried, on the activity of filling of cylinders with gases brought in bulk tankers which did not amount to manufacture. With effect from 1.3.97 Chapter Note to Chapter 28 wa...
Addl. C.i.T., Special Range-5 Vs. Vestas Rrb India Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)275ITR81(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the revenue against the order dated 29.7.2000 of Ld CIT (A)-XIV, New Delhi raises the following grounds: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT (A) has erred in holding that no disallowance could be made under Section 43B in respect of late deposit of employer's contribution to PF and simultaneously no addition could be made under Section 2 (24)( x ) in respect of late deposit of employee's contribution to PF although such deposits are required to be made within the due date as per the provisions of Section 43B read with Section 36 (1) ((va) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that the due date for deposit of PF is 20^th (including 5days grace period) of the following month in which salary is actually paid to the employees instead of 15^thof the following month for which such salary is payable. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has e...
Vijay Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT751; 2004(75)DRJ312
R.C. Jain, J.1. These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') arise from a common judgment dated 12.5.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, in LAC No. 55/1996 thereby disposing of a Reference under Section 18 of the Act.2. Land comprised in different Khasra numbers situated in the revenue estate of village Jagatpur, Shahdara, Delhi, was acquired for public purpose namely for construction of embankment, vide notifications dated 12.1.1984 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.10,000/- per bigha and awarded compensation at the said rate besides other statutory benefits in accordance with law. A reference under Section 18 of the Act having being made, the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 22,575/- per bigha. Still not satisfied, the land owners have filed the appeals claiming further enhancem...
Dabur India Limited Vs. Emami Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT73; 2004(75)DRJ356; 2004(29)PTC1(Del)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the application, which is filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a temporary injunction. The plaintiff is a leading manufacturer of a large range of pharmaceutical products, toiletries, ayurvedic and other medicinal preparations. The plaintiff is manufacturing and marketing its products under the brand name 'Dabur', which is a well-known brand in India and abroad. The plaintiff in the course of its business also manufactures and markets Dabur Chayawanprash, which is being sold not only in India but also in various other countries. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has a market share of 63% of the total market of Chayawanprash through India. Chayawanprash , which is an ayurvedic formation, is primarily a health tonic and has therapeutic qualities for enhancing the immunity against various diseases.2. The defendant is also engaged in the manufacture of v...
Mr. R.S. Saini Vs. Bureau of Indian Standards
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT164; 2004(75)DRJ430; 2004(3)SLJ507(Delhi)
ORDERPradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Petitioner prays that the charge-sheet served upon him under memorandum dated 27.6.2000 be quashed. The statement of articles of charge against the petitioner which have been served under the impugned memorandum read as under:- Article I That the said Shri R.S.Saini, while functioning as Deputy Librarian at BIS-Central Laboratory, Sahibabad, has produced and exhibited the document marked 'Investigation dated 11-08-1998' in his amended writ petition no: 4692 of 1998 filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 30 Nov 1998, for which Shri R.S.Saini was not authorised to have access and to keep in his personal custody for personal purposes. Keeping such document by Sh.R.S.Saini, which was obtained fraudulently, in his possession, without permission, amounts to unauthorised communication of information by him within the meaning of Rule 11 of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.By this act as above said, Shri R.S.Saini has not only failed to maintain absolute integrity but...
M.K. Nambyar Saarf Law Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)29; 2004(75)DRJ438; [2004]269ITR556(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. M.K. Nambyar SAARC Law Charitable Trust has filed this petition against the order made by the Director of Income-Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi on 24.02.2004. The aforesaid Trust submitted two applications in Form No. 10A for registration under Section 12A and recognition under Section 80G of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The application was rejected on the ground that the applicant itself has admitted that the scholarships can be paid to the members even outside India. It is in view of this admission that the activities will be extended outside India as per objects laid down. It was held that the registration cannot be granted under Section 12A of the Act and approval of exemption under Section 80G also cannot be granted. 2. Section 11 of the Act refers to income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. The relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder:- (a)income derived from property held under trust wholly for chari...
S. Sohan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(75)DRJ274
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The question which requires to be determined in this case is as to whether the property/land, subject matter of this writ petition, was an evacuee property as on 23rd January, 1965 when Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the LA Act') was issued proposing to acquire this land? Since in the said Notification evacuee properties were excluded from acquisition, if the subject property was an evacuee property as on that date it would not be part of the acquisition. On the other hand, if the ownership of the property stood transferred to the petitioner before the said date then it was an evacuee property and was covered by Section 4 Notification dated 23rd January, 1965. In order to appreciate the controversy, necessary facts may first be noted.2. The land in question measuring 100 bighas situate in village Lado Sarai, Mehrauli, New Delhi and comprised in Khasra No. 357 (58 bighas 16 biswas) and Khasra No. 358 (41 bighas 4 biswas). A N...
inder Singh Solanki and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(75)DRJ413
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Vide Notification No.F10(9)/2003/L&B;/LA 23873 dated 20th January, 2004 issued under Sections 4, 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') notified the compulsory acquisition of land described as Khasra Nos.64/5/1(0-10), 65/1/1/1 (0-05), 1/2/1(0-1), 2/1/1(0-3), 2/2/1(0-2), 3/1/1 (less than one biswa), 3/2/1 (0-1), 10/1/1(0-3), 10/2/1(0-7), 12/1(0-10), 13/1(0-3), 68/11/11 (0-6), 11/2/1(0-3), 18/1(0-9), 19/1/1(0-7), 19/3/1 (0-3), 23/1(0-1), 24/1(0-10), 25/1(0-5), 25/2(0-3), 69/8/1/1(0-5), 8/2/1(0-3), 8/3/1(0-1), 7/1(0-8), 15/1(0-9), 166/1(0-2) measuring 6 bighas, in the revenue estate of village Palan, New Delhi whereby built up properties of the petitioners are sought to be compulsorily acquired at public expense for construction of approach road (probably fly over) connected Dwarka with NH-8 through Delhi Cantonment Area, under Land Development of Delhi.2. It may be stated at the outset that the petitioners are not challen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »