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.
intercorp Industries Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN408(Delhi)
ORDERThis appeal is filed by the assessed against the order dated 25-11-2003 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Dispute relates to two additions of Rs. 22,06,000 and 41,50,000 which were made by the assessing officer while assessing the income of the appellant herein. A perusal of the impugned order shows that before making these additions, the assessing officer had called upon the appellant to provide certain informations which appellant could not provide but wanted some more time for this purpose. The assessing officer refused to grant further time as assessment was getting barred by limitation. The appellant challenged the order of assessing officer before the CIT (A)-I, New Delhi who allowed the said appeal and deleted the additions made by the assessing officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against the order of CIT, the appeal of the revenue filed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been allowed vide impugned order and remanded the matter to the assessing of...
Technip Italy Spa Vs. Itat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN491(Delhi)
The return was filed by the assessed showing a loss and an assessment order was made. Thereafter, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Commissioner cancelled the assessment order and directed the assessing officer to re-frame the assessment. Against this order the assessed went in appeal being No. ITA 3736/2003 before the Tribunal and also filed an application for stay. The appeal has not yet been disposed of. Insofar as the application was concerned the prayer for stay was not pressed and the Tribunal directed that the appeal be posted for out of turn hearing and in the meanwhile the assessing officer was directed to frame the assessment but not to enforce the demand for a period of six months or till the hearing of the appeal whichever was earlier. Unfortunately the appeal has not yet been disposed of and we were told at the bar that the appeal was listed for hearing on 8-9-2004 but since there was no electricity in the Tribunal, the matter had to be adjourned and the ne...
Vimal Moulders (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC470
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order-in-original by dropping the duty demand of Rs. 4,84,567 for the period 1996-97 and 1997-98 upto 31.3.1998 and confirming the rest of the demand.2. The learned counsel has contended that there is no tangible evidence on the record to establish the shortage of the raw material involving modvat credit of Rs. 1,94,125 and also clandestine removal of the goods involving duty of Rs. 2,52,038 and that the impugned order has been passed on assumptions and presumptions and as such deserves to be set aside. He has also relied upon the ratio of the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Durga Trading Co. and Ors. v. CCE, Lucknow, 2003 (59) RLT 273 (CEGAT), which had been confirmed by the Apex Court as reported in 2003 (59) RLT F-6. Regarding imposition of the redemption fine in respect of the excess goods found, the learned counsel has contended ...
Org Marg Research Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: (2006)STR14
2. The applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 2,55,929/- and penalty of Rs. 87,720/-. The contention of the appellant is that as per the provisions of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, they are entitled to adjustment in respect of service tax paid in excess in the previous period. The contention is that they had paid excess service tax for the previous period which is not adjusted against the present amount.3. I find that Rule 6 of the above mentioned rule provides that in case the assessee has paid the service tax in respect of the taxable service which is not so provided by him either wholly or partially for any reason, the assessee may adjust the excess service tax so paid by him against the service tax liability for the subsequent period, if the assessee has refunded the value of taxable service and the service tax thereon to the person from whom it was received. In the present case it is to be seen whether the applicant has complied w...
insulators and Electricals Co. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(117)LC467Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat credit was disallowed in respect of polythene sheet as input on the ground that polythene sheet does not take part in the process of manufacture of final product.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Electrical Insulators and contention of the appellant is that these polythene sheets are used to cover the pugs to prevent the loss of moisture and these pugs are not covered with the polythene sheets. Some cracks will appear in these pugs due to loss of moisture. In case there are some cracks in the pugs then they become unsuitable for the manufacture of insulator. The appellant relied upon the Rule 57A during the relevant period to submit that Rule provides where the goods are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not.3. The contention of the Revenu...
Kdl Biotech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT224TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the refund of duty of Rs. 4,87,3217- to the appellants.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that the appellants cleared the goods "Amoxycillin Trihydrate Compact BP/USP" for export under AR-4 Nos. 26 & 27 both dated 26-4-2001 on payment of the excise duty of Rs. 4,87,321 /-. But since their export order was cancelled, they brought back those goods to their factory from their clearing agent's godown under Rule 173M. It is also evident that those goods were thereafter cleared by them again on payment of duty. They also sent intimation to the Department under Rule 173M. It is not the case of the Department that the goods cleared second time were not the same/different goods or that the goods initially cleared were not the same which were brought back to the factory by the appellants on account of cancellation of their ex...
Dabur India Limited Vs. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi102; 114(2004)DLT373; 2004(77)DRJ415; 2004(29)PTC401(Del)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Trade rivalries which lead to advertisements in which the product of an advertiser is extolled and the rival product deprecated have led to this suit by the plaintiff Dabur India Ltd. who makes Dabur Lal Dant Manjan Powder, against the defendant Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. who manufacture Colgate tooth powder. This suit and this application for interim injunction is occasioned by an advertisement aired on the visual media by the defendant. The sum and substance of the TV advertisement complained of is that a Cinestar Sunil Shetty is seen stopping the purchasers of Lal Dant Manjan powders. He further inform them of the ill effects of such Lal Dant Manjan by rubbing it on the purchaser's spectacles which leave marks which are termed by Sunil Shetty as being akin to sandpapering. He also endorses the defendant Colgate's tooth powder as being 16 times less abrasive and non damaging to the spectacles. He is heard telling the purchaser that it is easy to change spectacles...
Jindal Stainless Limited Vs. Icici Banking Corporation Limited and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi53; I(2005)BC87; 2004(76)DRJ577
ORDER AND BLANK ENDORSED MARKED 'FREIGHT PREPAID' INDICATING L/C NUMBER AND NOTIFY 1. APPLICANT AND 2. ICICI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, 9-A, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001, INDIA EVIDENCING SHIPMENT OF MERCHANDISE DESCRIBED ABOVE. SHORT FORM, CLAUSED AND THIRD PARTY BILL OF LADING NOT ACCEPTABLE.4. INSURANCE COVERED BY APPLICANT. COPY OF FAX INTIMATING THE INSURANCE COMPANY DIRECTLY AT THEIR FAX NUMBER 0091 1662 20476 OR 0091 1662 20499, CONVEYING FULL DETAILS OF SHIPMENT WITHIN 48 HOURS OF SHIPMENT, TO ACCOMPANY THE DOCUMENTS.5. PACKING LIST CUM WEIGHTMENT CERTIFICATE GIVING THE NETT. TARE AND GROSS WEIGHTS OF EACH CONTAINER.(ORIGINAL + 3 COPIES).6. BENEFICIARY'S QUANTITY AND QUALITY CERTIFICATE GIVING COMPLETE Chemical ANALYSIS FOR ALL ELEMENTS AND CERTIFYING THAT THE MATERIAL CONFORMS TO THE APPLICANTS PO NO. 99300125 (ORIGINAL + 3 COPIES). 7. CERTIFICATE FROM THE BENEFICIARY THAT THE MATERAL DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY TYPE OF ARMS, AMMUNITION, MINES SHELLS, CARTRIDGES, RADIATION/...
Allied Motors Ltd. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(76)DRJ720
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 28.01.1971 with the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent company for a dispensing pump and selling license in respect of a petrol pump situated at Vikas Marg, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. The controversy as arisen on account of an inspection carried out at the pump of the petitioner in the early hours of 15.05.2000 where an unauthorised tank lorry was found decanting product and samples were drawn. An FIR was registered and one Mr. Pradeep Gupta was arrested. The said Mr. Pradeep Gupta was managing the petrol pump in pursuance to a management agreement stated to have been executed with the Directors of the petitioner company and Ms. Kanta Talwar dated 28.09.1998. 2. The petitioner claimed to have learnt about the incident on 16.05.2000 and issued a notice to Mr. Pradeep Gupta as to why the management agreement should not be terminated. However, on the said date, the respondent company terminated the dealership agre...
Shri Rajbir Singh Sharma Etc. Vs. Shri Siri Ram Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(77)DRJ87
O.P. Dwivedi J. 1. This is a petition under section 115 CPC read with article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 9.3.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge thereby rejecting the petitioner's application under O. 22 Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC for bringing on record the LRs of the deceased Ram Richpal Sharma. 2. Briefly stated facts leading to this case are that on 21.12.96, Ram Richpal Sharma, since deceased, his wife Shanti Devi, his son Mukesh and one Smt. Kanti Devi, widow of Mahabir Prasad filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5 lakh on account of damages for various tortuous/criminal acts allegedly committed by the defendants on 21.5.82. It was alleged in the plaint that Ram Richpal Sharma, plaintiff No. 1, since deceased, along with his brother Netra Ram were owner of the property No. 641-D/1 and 641-D/2, built on khasra No. 2891/ 104, Village Chandrawali, Ram Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi Shahdara. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 and 2 w...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »