Delhi Court July 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.
Sheffield Appliances Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC601
1. In this appeal which has been preferred against the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order of the adjudicating authority, the issue relates to the denial of the modvat credit of Rs. 2,00,413.20 to the appellants.2. The learned Consultant has contended that since the appellants have purchased the goods from Raydak Projects Ltd. who in turn got the delivery of the goods on the strength of bill of entry in question vide which. Polar Industries Ltd. imported the goods. Therefore, they are entitled to take modvat credit of the amount in question.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.5. From the record, it is evident that. Polar Industries Ltd. imported the goods vide bill of entry dated 19.12.95. The plea of the appellants that Raydak Projects Limited who purchased the goods on high sea sale basis from the importer company, further sold the goods to them, has been rightly not accepted by ...
Venkateshwan Strips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT323TriDel
1. By Stay Order dated 17-5-2004, appellants were directed to deposit Rs. Six lakh and report compliance today. By a letter dated 25-5-2004 received in the Registry of the Tribunal on 31-5-04, the appellants have stated that at the time of provisional release of the goods, in question, they furnished a security of over Rs. 9 lakh and executed a Bond for an amount of Rs. 38,52,908/- and state that order or pre-deposit can be complied with only after redemption of the Bond and release of the security by the Department, 2. The financial arrangement of the appellants with the Revenue authorities is of no consequence as far as the compliance with the Tribunal's pre-deposit direction is concerned. In the absence of any proof of pre-deposit, we dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with the statutory requirements of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....
Amitex Silk Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC264
1. In all these are four appeals from the appellants, who are a 100% E.O.U. The dispute relates to duty liability in respect of Rejects and Waste of grey fabrics and twisted yarn cleared by the appellants from their E.O.U. to the domestic tariff area (D.T.A). In the show cause notices following two common grounds are raised: (b) After 1.4.1999, the Exim Policy prescribed D.T.A. entitlement based on F.O.B. value of export i.e. physical export only and not deemed exports.1.1 The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demands raised in each of the four show cause notices and imposed equal amounts of penalties in each case as indicated thereunder: 2. The appellants attack against the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority is on two main grounds: (i) The words "50% F.O.B. value of exports" would also include deemed export under para 9.9 of the policy. (ii) In case of Rejects, Waste etc., no D.T.A. permission is required.4. On perusing the contents of the impugned order, we n...
Shri Vijay Singh @ Bijender Singh Vs. Shri Narinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT644; 2004(75)DRJ563; (2004)138PLR15
Vikramajit Sen, J. is No.1511/2003 in CS (OS) No.568/20011. This is an application filed by the Plaintiff invoking Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC for rejection of the Counter Claim filed by the Defendant. My attention has been drawn to paragraph 15 of the Counter Claim which reads thus:-'15. That parties are in joint occupation and/or symbolic possession of the suit properties, thereforee, for the purposes of Jurisdiction is valued at Rs.Two Crores, however for the purpose of court fee fixed court fee of Rs.20 has been affixed on fixed valuation. The suit as regards the relief of rendition of Account is valued at Rs.18,54,500, however fixed court of Rs. 20 has been affixed on the fixed valuation. The counter claimant undertakes to pay ad-valorem court fee on the amount adjudicated upon by this hon'ble court on rendition of account by defendant No.1. The counter claimant shall pay the required stamp duty at the time of passing of the final decree of partition as prov...
Milap Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT91; 2004(76)DRJ126
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage.3. This is one more case of a retired Government servant who has been refused reimbursement of the full medical expenses incurred by him despite numerous judgments on this issue. The respondents chose to act in complete violation of the principles of law laid down by various judgments negating the Central Government Health Scheme (hereinafter to be referred to as, `the CGHS'), which was propounded as a health facility scheme for the Central Government employees so that they are not left without medical care after retirement. It was in furtherance of the object of a welfare State, which must provide for such medical care that the scheme was brought in force, but the repeated cases which have come to the Court show every effort of the respondents to dilute the effect of the said Scheme. The respondents continue in their conduct, which is contempt...
New State Academy Senior Secondary School Vs. the Lieutenant Governor, ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC854
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner school purchased a school bus No. DL-IV-0996 from Bosco Public School in the year 1996. A certificate of registration dated 5.7.1996 was issued in favor of the petitioner school accepting the transfer with a transfer date given as 24.6.1996. Against the column in respect of payment of road tax, it was endorsed 'Tax Exmpt'.2. In terms of the requirement of running such a bus, fitness certificate was obtained year-to-year by the petitioner. The last such relevant certificate is dated 18.10.1999, which was valid till 17.10.2000. This certificate was also endorsed with tax exemption.3. In October, 1999, a meeting is stated to have been held between the representatives of the petitioner and the respondents as part of the process of such discussion with various schools by the respondents. This arose on account of the fact that it was brought to notice of the petitioner that from that year onwards exemption would be required annually from payment of tax...
Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC76
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. is whether they have fulfilled their export obligation.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Polyester Filament Yarn, Polypropylene filament yarn, etc.; that they imported capital goods under EPCG Scheme and obtained the benefit of Notification No. 160/92-Cus., dated 20-4-92; that they were under an obligation to export finished products equivalent to 4 times the CIF value of the goods imported within a period of 5 years from the date of issue of licence i.e. 2-4-1993; that they fulfilled the export obligation to the extent of 64% up to 1-4-98 and remaining obligation could not be fulfilled due to conditions in the international market.The learned Advocate, further, mentioned that the Appellants are having other manufacturing units in the name of M/s. Parasrampuria International and Parasfab International, both divisions of Parasrampuria Synthetic Ltd. which are...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Uikam Investment and Finance (P)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)195
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dt. 20th Dec., 2000, of CIT(A), New Delhi, relating to asst. yr. 1997-98. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue read as follows : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the right of the assessee to receive the principal amount got extinguished due to unilateral termination of agreement and specific denial by the debtors to pay any interest. If as has been held, the action of the debtors was unilateral, the same would not affect the right of the assessee to receive the amount. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that really no income had become due to the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the attachment notices issued by the Department to the debtors had the effect of only attaching the income which accrued to the assessee, and thus s...
Cement Corporation of India Vs. S. Sultan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR458(Delhi); 112(2004)DLT919
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The question which arises in these Petitions is whether this Court ought to exercise territorial jurisdiction in respect of the Award made and published by the Sole Arbitrator on 22.9.1997. The Respondents have filed Objections under Sections 30 and 33 of The Arbitration Act, 1940. The Arbitration Clause is contained in the Stockistship Agreement admittedly executed between the parties which stipulates that - ''This agreement shall be deemed to be made at Delhi and subject to the provision of clause 9, Courts at Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction to decide or adjudicate upon any disputes which may arise out of or be in connection with this Agreement''. Shri S.K. Taneja, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Claimant, namely, Cement Corporation of India, has relied heavily on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hakam Singh vs . M/s. Gammon (India) Limited, : [1971]3SCR314 . The Arbitration Clause in this case was in the following words:- ''12. .... ...
Sh. Tanvir Ahmed Mir Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3777; 112(2004)DLT631; 2004(75)DRJ644
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This writ petition essentially seeks the issuance of a writ of quo warranto in respect of the respondent No.3's authority to hold the office of Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the Government of NCT of Delhi for this High Court. The petitioner is also an advocate and at the time of filing of the petition he had a standing of seven years.2. According to the petitioner, the office of the Standing Counsel (Criminal) is a public office and the requisite qualifications and prescribed eligibility criteria for appointment to such office were duly notified at the time when the applications were invited from eligible persons for, inter alia, the said post vide letter dated 30th December, 1998 issued by the Secretary (Law, Justice & C.A.), Government of NCT of Delhi to, inter alia, the Registrar High Court of Delhi under the subject--appointments of Government counsel on various panels of the Government advocates for Delhi Government. Annexure-I thereto prescribed the el...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »