Delhi Court August 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.
Hind Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC612
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order in original, the issue relates to excisability and duty liability of products namely Meat, Tallow/Tallow Waste, Bone and Soft, St. and Int/Head and Hooves/Brain/Neck, Hides manufactured by the appellant. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand in respect of these products against the appellants for the period 1-4-1999 to 2-10-2000 of Rs. 49,51,979/- with penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs by denying them the benefit of Notification No. 8/97-C.E., dated 9-3-1997 and applying the subsequent Notification No. 13/98, dated 2-6-1998.2. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The appellants are 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of fresh and frozen meat falling under Chapter Heading 0201. During the course of manufacture of these goods, the above detailed products also come into existence. These are infact by -products classifiable under different chapter headings of the CETA as detailed in...
Unicure Remedies Pvt., Shri Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC638
2. The appellants filed these appeals under a common adjudication Order dated 31.10.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the appellant M/s Unicure Remedies P. Ltd. are selling their whole production of 'Vital-Z' to their related Person Redkine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. at a lower price with intent to evade payment of duty. The demand was also confirmed on the ground that M/s Unicure Remedies Pvt. Ltd. cleared their product without payment of duty. The benefit of small scale exemption notification was denied to M/s Helviina Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. on the ground that in fact this unit was also of M/s Unicure Remedies P. Ltd. 3. In respect of allegation of clandestine removal that appellant cleared all of their product 'Vital-Z' cleared to M/s. Redkine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., their contention is that before the adjudicating authority the appellant has specifically pleaded that they were not clearing all of their goods...
Bechtel India Private Limited Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)92ITD205(Delhi)
1. By this application, the assessee company is seeking the Tribunal to stay recovery of demand of Rs. 8,73,29,309/- including tax and interest outstanding against its name for assessment year 2000-01, appeal for which filed by it is pending with the Tribunal being ITA No.3316/Del/2004.2. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee at the outset made an attempt to show that the assessee company has a good prima-facie case to succeed on merits in its aforesaid appeal pending before the Tribunal. In this; regard, he submitted that out of the three major additions made by the Assessing Officer in an assessment completed Under Section 143(3), the addition of Rs. 89,15,188/- was made on account of advances received from customers treating the same as income of the assessee for the year under consideration ignoring totally that the said income was not accrued to the assessee in the year, under consideration and the; same was duly declared by it in the subsequent y...
Dy Cit Vs. Deepak Seth
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)1SOT35(Delhi)
This appeal of the revenue is directed against the order dated 25-9-2000 passed by CIT (A), New Delhi for assessment year 1997-98.The ground of appeal states that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in accepting the claim of exemption under section 23(2) in respect of property of Sushant Lok, Gurgaon owned by the minor son of the assessee who was residing with his parents in B-76, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is deriving income from property, business and other sources for which the assessee filed its return of income at Rs. 17,30,820. The assessing officer noticed that Master Pulkit Seth, minor son of the assessee. Shri Deepak Seth owned (1) flat No. 308A at Raheja Vihar, Bombay (2) at Flat No. F-92 DLF Qutab Enclave and (3) at Sushant Lok, Gurgaon and (4) Flat at D-301, Bombay. Thus the assessee was asked to explain as to for what purpose the said properties were used and why no rental income was s...
Rohtash Vs. M.C.D. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(76)DRJ657
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The relevant facts, as urged by the counsel for the petitioner and relevant for disposal of this writ petition are being noticed:3. Petitioner had worked during the year 1978 as a daily wager. Petitioner was working in what is known as BHC Anti Malaria Operation of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is stated that during the period 1980-86, petitioner was not working. He was re-engaged on 25.3.1986 and had worked up to 7.6.1986. 4. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition in December, 2002, seeking a direction to the respondent to include his name in the seniority list and regularize his services with all consequential benefits, in terms of the directions that had been given by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CM.4344/87 in W.P.(C).No.2698, vide order dated 18.1.1988. By the said order, a direction was given to the respondent to prepare a joint seniority list of workers/beldars...
Smt. Sudesh Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT520; 2004(76)DRJ465; [2005(104)FLR1151]
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1.This writ petition was initially filed seeking inter alias issuance of directions to the respondents to grant extraordinary pension, payment of Rs.5.00 lacs as ex-gratia payment and Rs.4.00 lacs from Seema Prahari Beema Yojna.2.During the pendency of the writ petition, however, the respondents issued a direction that extraordinary pension be paid to the petitioner. thereforee, the present petition now survives only for the purpose of consideration of as to whether or not a direction should be given to the respondents to grant ex gratia payment of Rs.5.00 lacs and another sum of Rs.4.00 lacs from Seema Prahari Beema Yojna 3.The petitioner is the widow of late Constable Ajay Kumar, who was serving in the Border Security Force and died in harness on 14.9.2000 due to cardio respiratory failure following the disease Cerebro Vascular Accident. Upon his death, normal family pension and other pensionary benefits as admissible in case of normal death were released in favo...
Samim Akhtar Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(76)DRJ457
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of discharge passed by the respondents on November 28, 2000. The petitioner has prayed in the writ petition that the aforesaid order of discharge be set aside and quashed and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 2.The petitioner was provisionally selected in the Border Security Force for the post of Constable on temporary basis. A letter dated December 23, 1998 was issued to him intimating the petitioner that he has been selected for the aforesaid post on temporary basis. It was made clear in the said letter that the aforesaid appointment was provisional and subject to verification of his caste certificate, character and antecedents. It was intimated that if the antecedents are not satisfactory, the service of the petitioner would be terminated forthwith without assigning any further reasons. The petitioner was also informed that if any declaration given or infor...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Through Its Commissioner Vs. Shri Daul ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT395; 2004(76)DRJ436
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. This writ petition challenges an Award dated 16th November, 1989 passed by the learned Labour Court in ID No.634/1986. 2. The question that was referred for adjudication is as follows: - 'Whether the dismissal of Sh. Daulat Ram from service is legal and/or justified and, if not, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?' 3. The case of the Respondent-Workman was that he was posted as a peon in the Terminal Tax post in Dilshad Garden, Delhi. His duty was to intercept trucks and other heavy vehicles carrying taxable goods and release them only after payment of tax. 4. On 22nd November, 1974, a truck carrying paddy was intercepted. However, since the terminal tax Moharrir was absent on that day, the Respondent-Workman prepared and issued the terminal tax receipt. Originally, the Respondent-Workman issued a receipt for Rs.784/- because he had heard the driver of the vehicle to say that he was transporting 'desikhand'. However, when...
Delhi Transport Corporation, Through Shri J.S. Malhotra, Regional Mana ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(76)DRJ418
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Petitioner has challenged an Award dated 26th May, 2003 passed by the learned Labour Court in ID No.53/1989. 2. The issue referred for consideration was as follows:- 'Whether the termination of the services of Sh. Radhey Kishan is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'3. The only contention that has been urged by learned counsel for the Petitioner is with regard to the quantum of punishment that has been imposed on the Respondent/workman. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, there was absolutely no reason for completely setting aside the punishment of termination from service and directing reinstatement of the Respondent/workman with 40% back wages. 4. To appreciate the contention of learned counsel, it is necessary to elucidate the facts of the case. 5. The Respondent/workman was a bus driver with the Petitioner. At about 9.00 pm on 6th June, 1986, one Sat Prakash Gup...
Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT119TriDel
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Choksi Heraeus Pvt.Ltd. is whether the Silver Palladium wire manufactured by them is classifiable under sub-heading 7101.60 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under 7101.90 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order.2. We heard Shri Ravinder Choksi, Chairman of the appellant-Company and Shri Kumar Santosh, learned Senior Departmental Representative. The main contention of the appellants is that impugned wire manufactured by them contains 70% silver and 30% Palladium and as the silver pre-dominates by weight, the product is to be classified as silver wire under sub-heading 7101.60. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative has relied upon Note 4 read with Note 3(b) to Chapter 71, according to which an alloy containing 2% or more by weight of palladium is to be treated as an alloy a platinum. He has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »