Delhi Court July 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gurind Sales Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT399TriDel
2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that fixation of the duty paid mirror on MDF Board amounts to manufacture.3. The contention of the applicant is that they are receiving duty paid mirrors and fixing these mirrors on the Board. Mirror remains mirror even after fixing on the board. The board is fixed to strength of mirror so that mirror can be hanged properly.4. The contention of the Revenue is that after process is undertaking by the appellant putting the mirror on the board comes into existence a new product, therefore, it amounts to manufacture.5. We find that there is no dispute regarding the process undertaking by the appellant. The duty paid mirror and simply pasted on board and the mirror remains mirror and no new product comes into existence. In these circumstances, the activity undertaking by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, the impugned order is set...
Dee Development Engineers Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC223
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.95 was denied to the appellants.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture Accessories for Boilers and Tube or Pipefittings of Iron & Steel. The appellants cleared the goods without payment of duty, claiming the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.8.95, to M/s. Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Limited and the goods were further supplied to M/s. Kakatia Cement Sugar & Industries Limited who were executing Project, which is financed by Asian Development Bank. The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.8.95 on the ground that goods were supplied to the Project, which is financed by Asian Development Bank.3. The benefit was denied on the ground that appellants had not produced any certificate granted by the Project Implementing Authority in favour of the ...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Delhi)103
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dt. 29th June, 1998 of CIT(A)-II, Meerut, pertaining to 1995-96 assessment year. "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in directing to allow enhanced deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act, 1961 at Rs. 47,59,806, whereas the AO restricted the deduction at Rs. 22,33,156. 2. Learned CIT(A) is not justified in directing that the deduction under Section 80-IA is admissible with regard to the profits of the entitled industrial undertaking without setting off of losses of other unit against the profits of the entitled industrial undertaking. The order of learned CIT(A) is not justified in view of the provisions contained in Section 80AB and 80B(5) of the IT Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing relief under Section 80-IA without adequately appreciating the ratio of decision given by Hon'ble Courts as follows: (i) Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 84 (...
Distinctive Properties and Leasing Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)1SOT460(Delhi)
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (A) on the following grounds : "1. The addition under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act sustained by CIT (A) was wrong on fact and bad in law with regard to amount of accrued liability not paid.2. The CIT (A) has erred to sustain the addition of Rs. 1,00,450 received in preceding year under section 41 (1) without any basis and said addition was bad in law and against the facts of the case." During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee has opted not to press ground No. 1. Accordingly, the same is dismissed, as not pressed.Apropos ground No. 2 it is noticed from the record that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 1, 14,800 from Shri Sudershan Kapoor during the financial year 1989-90 on booking of flat No. 205 in Devika Apartments, Vaishali, Ghaziabad and this amount was shown as a credit liability. No further payment was received from him on account of various instalments due and ultimately du...
Raj and Associates and anr. Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR614(Delhi); I(2005)BC509; 113(2004)DLT318; 2004(76)DRJ60
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Plaintiffs Firm has filed this Suit for recovery of Rs. 9,70,417/- in which it has arrayed Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited ('VSNL' for short) as Defendant No. 1, Rail India Technical & Economical Services Limited ('RITES' for short) as Defendant No. 2. and the Bank of India ('BoI' for short), Muzaffarnagar Branch as Defendant No. 3. The Prayers in the Plaint are reproduced below in order to adumbrate that it fails to indicate against which of the Defendants the prayer for recovery is directed:'a) be pleased to grant a decree for recovery of sum of Rs. 6,10,896.00 (Rupees Six Lacs Ten Thousand Eight Hundred & Ninety six only), the balance amount of payment on the said work plus Rs. 1,32,580.00 (Rupees One lac Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred & Eighty Only) amount of FDRs plus Rs. 62,000.00 (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand only) amount of Bank guarantee, total amount of Rs. 9,70,417.00 (Rupees Nine Lacs Seventy Thousand Four Hundred & Seventeen Only), in favor of the plai...
Sps Engineering Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT70; 2004(76)DRJ259
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By an order dated 10.04.2003, the Deputy General Manager (PJ) of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'IOCL') informed the petitioner (SPS Engineering Ltd) (hereinafter referred to as 'SPSEL') that it had been decided to place it on the 'Holiday List' and to debar it from entering into any contract with IOCL for a period of three years w.e.f. 10.04.2003. The petitioner (SPSEL) seeks the quashing of this order on, inter alia, the grounds that the order was passed:- a) without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to SPSEL and; b) when the very basis for passing such an order was in dispute and was pending before an arbitrator. 2. The sequence of events leading to the passing of the order dated 10.04.2003 is as under:- 2.1. SPSEL had been awarded the following two contracts with regard to the water system for the Paradip Refinery Project of IOCL at Paradip, Orissa:- 2.2. According to SPSEL, there was a slow-down in the works i...
U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Farid and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC192; 113(2004)DLT174; (2005)139PLR25
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 10th February, 2004, of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Shahdara, Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in Suit No. 58/2003 (New) 197/1999 (Old) and Suit No.57/2003 Old 195/1999, whereby the learned Tribunal has held that the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's bus was involved in the accident and that the same has been rashly and negligently driven by the driver, which resulted in causing injuries to the respondents. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,82,740/- to Mohd. Farid and Rs.1,88,680/- to Master Javed.2. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that this was a case of contributory negligence and thereforee, such an award could not be awarded. He submit that the award is on high side since as far as Mohd. Farid is concerned, he has only hurt one leg which is four inches short and is a permanent disability. He further contends that such an injury is not of a nature that should invite such ...
Hansa Industries (P) Limited Vs. Mmtc Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: [2005]124CompCas314(Delhi); 113(2004)DLT474; 2004(76)DRJ269
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner herein has filed this winding up petition under Sections 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') seeking winding up of the respondent company, namely, The Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited (`hereinafter referred to as `the respondent company'). It is a public sector undertaking. The cause for filing the present petition has arisen in the following circumstances:2. The petitioner is the agent of M/s Thyssen Stahlunion GmbH, Germany ((hereinafter called `the principals'). For the relevant period i.e. in the year 1990, MMTC Ltd. was the canalising agency for import of steel etc. Any party in India seeking import of goods of this kind had to move through the respondent company. Another public sector undertaking, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) was in need of such material. In order to facilitate this import for HPCL, the respondent company placed an order dated 11th Ja...
Motorola India Ltd. Vs. Dss Mobile Communications Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: [2005]127CompCas318(Delhi); (2005)3CompLJ95(Del); 113(2004)DLT176; 2004(76)DRJ214; [2004]56SCL601(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Before I take up these application it would be necessary to recapitulate the progress made in Company Petition No.357/99, and in the process, referring to and/or highlighting certain relevant court orders passed in this petition from time to time. 2. Company Petition No.357/99 is filed by the petitioner under Sections 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') for winding up of the respondent company, namely, M/s. DSS Mobile Communications Ltd. This petition is founded on the averments that the respondent company owed a sum of Rs.9,83,78,310/- (Rs.8,2245,429/- towards principal and Rs.1,61,32,881/- towards interest till 30th April, 1999) as on the date of filing of the petition. Notice dated 25th May, 1999 was served upon the respondent under Section 433(e) read with Section 434 of the Act calling upon the respondent to pay the said ...
Mohan Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC495
1. M/s. Mohan Steels Ltd., have filed the present appeal against Order-in-Original No. 34/2001 dated 31.12.2001 by which the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty and has imposed penalty on the ground that they had manufactured and cleared clandestinely excisable goods without payment of duty.2.1 Shri R. Swaminathan, learned Consultant, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture M.S. Ingots, bars and rods; that the raw materials mainly are M.S. scrap, sponge iron and ferro alloys; that the dispute relates to the alleged suppression of production and clandestine removal; that the proceedings were initiated by issue of a show cause notice dated 28.12.94 for demanding duty for the period from December 1989 to January 1993; that the Commissioner, under Order-in-Original dated 23.9.96 confirmed demand of Rs. 59.44 lakhs and dropped the remaining demand, on the basis the 11 kgs. of ferro alloys would be required to manufacture one M.T. of the final product; that the Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »