Delhi Court June 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.
Aviat Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce (Service Tax)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC465
1. When the matter was posted for hearing on 14.5.2004 for consideration of stay application, upon hearing both sides, it was felt that the appeal itself could be disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with the requirement for pre-deposit, we took up the appeal for hearing and disposal.2. We have perused the records and heard both sides. The appellant is a manufacturer of medicines. It entered into an agreement for patents, trademarks, brand names, etc. Under Registered User Agreements, and/or Licensed User Agreement, the appellant allowed other manufacturers to produce medicines under trademarks owned by it. Under the impugned order, the Revenue authorities have directed the appellants to pay service tax in respect of the receipts under these agreements. The Revenue authorities have taken the view that the relationship between the appellant and other parties is that of "Consulting Engineer" to a client.3. The contention of the appellant is that trademark is in the nature of prope...
Adline Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT18TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). (ii) 5 pieces of hydra PAC 2000/XP Docking Kit with connecting cable, (iii) 20 pieces of hydra PAC 2K/XP multimedia kit with connecting cable, and 3. Appellants filed two bills of entry claiming classification of hydra PAC mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 to 3 above under Customs Tariff heading 8473.10. In respect of software CD appellants claimed classification under heading 85.24 of the Customs Tariff and claimed benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. The adjudicating authority classified the software CD under heading 8473.30 of the Customs Tariff with hardware. Appellant filed appeal. The same was dismissed.4. The contention of the appellants is that software CDs are only software locks which prevent the same from piracy and these are not parts of the software sets which are classified by the appellants under heading 8473.30 of the Customs Tariff. The software CD i...
Coronation Spinning India Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT143TriDel
1. In Misc. No. C/6/2004 & C/144 7/98-MAS, it is submitted that the Revenue has paid interest, taking into consideration the relevant date as the date of expiry of three months from the date of the Tribunal's order. We do not find any reason to modify our earlier order dt.16-10-2003 as prayed by the petitioner.2. In Misc. No. C/5/2004 & C/2784/90-NB, the prayer is for granting interest from the date of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dt.12-8-99 [1999 (113) E.L.T. 376 (S.C.)] remanding the case back to this Tribunal for decision. Pursuant to the order of remand, this Tribunal passed final order only on 11-7-2002 [2003 (161) E.L.T. 218 (Tri.)].Since the appeal was allowed only by order dt. 11-7-2002, the applicant cannot claim interest from 12-11-99. We find no reason to modify our order dt. 14-11-2003. Misc. applications are dismissed....
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Deepak Iron and Steel Rolling
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-2004
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC575
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents.3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of hot-rolled non-alloy products and they are liable to discharge their liability of payment of Central Excise duty under the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The duty as determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise was not paid at due dates, therefore, issuance of show cause notice, the duty is confirmed and adjudicating authority imposed equal amount of penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty on the ground that Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Beauty Dyers v. Union of India and Ors. reported in [2004 (166) E.L.T.27 (Mad.)] = 2002 (52) RLT 635 set aside the rules formulated under the Compounded Levy Scheme.4. The contention of the Revenue is that Hon'ble Madras High Court set aside the rules i.e...
Maya Prints and ors. Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC38
1. This is appeal against the final order dated 16.1.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') in O.A. 615/95 filed by the respondent-Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') against the appellants (who are defendants in the O.A., and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendants'), and the orders passed on the application dated 7.2.2000 filed by the respondent-Bank for release of the amount realised by the sale of the hypothecated goods, 2. The O.A. is for the recovery of Rs. 35,44,357.73 with interest and costs from the appellant-defendants. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned final order dated 16.1.2002, accordingly passed the final order for the recovery of the above said amount. He also directed the appropriation of the amount realised by the sale of the hypothecated goods. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal. The respondent-Bank has fi...
All India Primary Teachers Vs. Director of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-2004
Reported in: (2005)93TTJ(Delhi)155
1. The only ground in this appeal of the assessee preferred against the order dt. 23rd Aug., 2001, passed by Director of IT (Exemption) (hereinafter referred to as "DIT") under Section 12A of the IT Act is against the action of DIT in not condoning the delay in filing the application for registration.2. Facts of the present case are that the appellant is a society which has 'sought registration under Section 12A(a) of the IT Act vide application dt. 6th Feb., 2001, which was though allowed by DIT but it was allowed w.e.f. 1st April, 2000. In its application for registration and in its application for condonation of delay dt. 6th Feb., 2001, it was admitted by the appellant-society that there was delay in filing the application on account of several reasons and therefore it was requested to DIT that the delay in filing the application for registration be condoned. DIT in his order dt. 23rd Aug., 2001 though granted the registration but granted the same w.e.f. 1st April, 2000.Delay invo...
Anil Gupta Vs. Assessing Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-2004
Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)798
In this appeal, the assessee has objected to the order of the CIT(A), dated 26-9-2003, by way of following grounds : 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by summarily dismissing the appellant's contention that the proceedings were pending on the date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and, therefore, the entire assessment proceedings were illegal and liable to be quashed.3. The entire procedure followed for reopening the assessment was without jurisdiction and invalid.4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the aforesaid contention of the appellant without appreciating or even considering the detailed facts and various judicial pronouncements in spite of heavy reliance having been placed on the same by the appellant.5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to consider and appreciate the fact that, the reassessment proceedings were initiated through a mere change of opinion by the Assistant Commissioner.6. The learned CIT(A) ha...
income Tax Officer Vs. Rajiv Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)1095
ORDERRambahadur, J.M.This appeal, preferred by the revenue, is directed against Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 30-12-2003 relating to assessment year 1996-97.2. Reproduced below are the ground of appeal raised by the revenue :'On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in law :'in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,69,500 made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being unexplained credits in assessed's bank account.'3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessment in this case was completed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The said assessment was reopened on receipt of intimation from the DDI (Inv.) stating that the long-term capital gain declared by the assessed was false and that the transaction was not genuine and a cheque had been taken by the beneficiary, i.e., the assessed by paying cash amount equivalent to the cheque amount and the premium thereon. The assess...
All India Primary Teachers Federation Vs. Dit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-2004
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN50(Delhi)
ORDERM.V. Nayar, A.M.The only ground in this appeal of the assessed preferred against the order dated 23-8-2001 passed by Director of Income Tax (Exemption) (hereinafter referred to as the 'DIT') under section 12A of the Income Tax Act is against the action of Director of Income Tax in not condoning the delay in filing the application for registration.2. Facts of the present case are that the appellant is a Society which has sought registration under section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act vide application dated 6-2-2001 which was though allowed by Director of Income Tax but it was allowed with effect from 1-4-2000. In its application for registration and in its application for condensation of delay dated 6-2-2001, it was admitted by the appellant society that there was delay in filing the application on account of several reasons and thereforee it was requested to Director of Income Tax that the delay in filing the application for registration be condoned. Director of Income Tax in his o...
National Cables Indus. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC511
1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of duty of Rs. 54,17,020 and penalty of equal amount.2. The duty was confirmed on the ground that there is shortage in the finished product as also there is difference in the quantity of final products as per the RG I record and the record prescribed by the BIS.3. Applicants are engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables. They are also registered with Bureau of Indian Standard for manufacture of ISI marked wires and maintaining the statutory records prescribed by the BIS. In respect of shortage, there was no explanation of the Applicants at the time of visit by the Central Excise officer. On verification of the records, it was also found that the Applicants were reflected the total production of wires and cables in the RG I register and subsequently on the request of the Customers, they were also supplying ISI marked goods and entered the said ISI goods with BIS register prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standard. BIS register clear...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »