Delhi Court September 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.
Upper Ganges Sugar and Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(117)LC830Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal which has been filed against the order in original, the question which falls for consideration is as to whether the appellants are entitled to have single Central Excise registration or not for their two units. The adjudicating authority has denied the single registration on the ground that although the two units are located in close proximity but they have separate gate and are separated by railways line.2. I have heard both the side and gone through the record. From the record, it is quite evidence that the appellants have two units in the same premises - in one unit they are manufacturing VP sugar, (levy and free) and molasses, while in the other unit, which is known as their Distillery unit, they are manufacturing Ethyl Alcohol (Denatured). They are having common accounts, balance sheets and common Board of directors. The molasses manufactured by them in one unit are being transferred to another unit where the same are being utilized as inputs for the manufacture...
British Health Products (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT75TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order in appeal, the issue relates to the rejection of their refund claim of Rs. 5,41,781/- and adjustment of duty of Rs. 4,89,909/-.2. I have heard both the sides. The refund claim of Rs. 5,41,781/- of the appellants have been rejected on the ground of limitation as the duty was not paid under protest. But it remains undisputed that order under which the duty was paid by the appellants, was challenged by them before the Tribunal and the same was set aside. Therefore, the payment of duty has to be treated as payment under protest in view of the ratio of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries v. UOI [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247] which has been wrongly interpreted. In that case, the Apex Court has categorically ruled that payment of duty by assessee, under an order which was appealed against before the higher forum, shall be deemed to be under protest. These observations of the Apex Cou...
Shri Jaswant Rai Vs. Shri Prem Chand Gaddodia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT298; 2004(77)DRJ213
ORDER XXIII Rule 3 WITHDRAWAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF SUITS3. Compromise of suit.- Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise [in writing and signed by the parties], or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith [so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit]. [Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjourn...
Bikana Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bikanerwala Foods Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT389; 2004(77)DRJ426; 2004(29)PTC414(Del)
ORDER In the light of statement of deft. No. 2 for himself and as Director of deft. No.1 and authorised representative of deft. No.3 and that of Shri Ajay Sahni, counsel for the plaintiff; the suit is disposed of as compromised in terms of statements recorded. Of course, the parties are bound by the statements given. No order as to costs. Suit file be consigned to Record Room. Announced in open court:- 8.11.2001 ADJ/ 8.11.2001' 4. After availing the protection under Order 8.11.2001 for four months for continued user of the trade mark Bikana, defendant No.1 and 3 who are petitioners in CR No. 500-501/2001 500-501/2001 respectively filed two similar applications under section 114/151 and 153 CPC for recalling the said compromise order dated 8.11.2001 on the ground that defendant No.2 Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal had no authority to make any such statement on behalf of the defendant No. 1 and 3. Applications were contested by the plaintiff/ respondent. After considering the respective submissi...
Aerens Infrastructure and Technology Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)542; [2004]271ITR15(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The block assessment Under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was made on March 31, 2004. The assessed, who is the petitioner herein, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the same is pending. In fact, hearings are in progress.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the issuance of a show cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of the powers Under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with regard to the same block assessment order dated March 31, 2004. The petitioner relies upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CWT v. Sampathmal Chordia, Executor to the Estate of Late Neni Kavur Bai : [2002]256ITR440(Mad) to show that the show cause notice itself would be without jurisdiction. We feel that the decision of the Madras High Court would not be of any help to the petitioner. In the said decision, the revision had been held to be invalid as the subject-matter of...
Acme Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ250Del
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by a notice dated January 16, 1989 and follow up action taken thereupon including a letter dated April 17, 1989 and an apprehension of prosecution under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act).2. The question that arises in this case is whether a firm of advocates is amenable to the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn my attention to Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, which reads as follows:-'1. Short title, extent and application.(1) &(2) xxx xxx xxx(3) Subject to the provisions contained in Section 16, it applies-(a) xxx xxx xxx(b) to any other establishment employing twenty or more persons or class of such establishment which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.Provided that the Central Government may, after giving not less than two months' notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the O...
Choithram Hospital and Research Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)(118)LC81Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Choithram Hospital & Research Centre, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 1.3.1988 is available to the goods imported by them.2. Sh. A. Upadhyay, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellant is a Registered Charitable Trust and is running a hospital on no profit no loss basis; that they had imported certain medical equipments after availing the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 1.3.1988 and after obtaining the Customs Duty Exemption Certificate and Customs Clearance permit from the Director General of Health Services; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order, has confirmed the demand of duty besides confiscating the equipments and imposing penalty on the ground that the condition of the Notification regarding providing free treatment to the patients, has not been complied with by them. He, further, submitted that para 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification is not applicable to them as...
Golden Laminates Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC255
1. The issue in dispute is whether Special Excise Duty (SAD) of 8% is leviable on decorative printed paper imported by the appellants herein under Bill of Entry dated 2.6.98. The appellants' claim for refund of Rs. 2,47,508 representing 8% SAD has been rejected since the since the Bill of Entry was filed on 2.6.98 on which date SAD was imposed for the first time by insertion of Section 3A in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the goods are to be treated as having been imported on that date, namely, the date of filing of the Bill of Entry and therefore, SAD has been correctly paid. The contention of the appellants that the goods were imported on 12.5.98 was the IGM is of that date and therefore, the import has taken place prior to the levy of SAD, has been rejected.2. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits. Hence we heard the learned DR and perused the records. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied on the Apex Court decision in Golden Silk Mills v. UOI, 1999...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)70; 113(2004)DLT840; 2004(76)DRJ562
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), inter alia, contending that : i) The trustees of the assessed trust are not to be assessed in the status of 'individual'; ii) the assessed is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 80L of the Act as an 'individual' as also is not entitled for capital gain as is applicable to an 'individual' ; andiii) the income of the assessed trust under the head 'income from other sources' is to be taxed at maximum marginal rate as per Section 164(1) of the Act.2. Facts are taken from ITA No. 86 of 2004. For the assessment year 1995-96 return of income was filed on 30th August, 1995 declaring total income of Rs. 17,85,270/- including long term capital gain of Rs. 17,50,690/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act to the assessed. The assessed claimed the status of 'Resident Individual'. However, t...
Flex Industries Ltd. Vs. Uttam Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi101; 114(2004)DLT160; 2004(76)DRJ572
R.C. Jain, J.1. The above-named plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 36,75,500/- against the defendant with the averments and allegations that it is a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and Mrs. Banmala Jha, Legal Officer of the plaintiff and also a general power of attorney holder is authorised to sign and verify the plaint and institute the suit. Plaintiff company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in various kinds of laminates of polyester type and based printed material for packaging, glassine, paper, board etc. The defendant company placed orders upon the plaintiff for supplying the packaging material required by them from time to time and the plaintiff company had been supplying the same to the defendant as per its orders. It is alleged that the defendant failed to pay the full value of the bills in respect of which the defendant had accepted the material. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 20,64,888/- ...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »