Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 1 of about 214 results (0.020 seconds)Saahil Trends Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC103
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Saahil Trends, relates to enhancement of the assessable value of the goods imported by them.2. Shri Krishna Kant, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants imported 1000 MT PVC Resin from Korea through M/s. G.A. International, Dubai in 1995; that the Bill of Entry was filed on 4-1-1996 in which the value declared by them was US Dollars 600 PMT; that the Department wanted to ascertain international price of the product as prevalent at or around the time of import; that on going through the "PLATT" magazine, the Department was of the view that the price trends of the PVC Resin in Far East Asian countries was in the range of US Dollars 590 to 650; that a show cause notice was issued to them for enhancing the assessable value from US Dollars 600 to US Dollars 640 PMT; that, subsequently, an Addendum to show cause notice was issued on 18-3-1998 enhancing the assessable value on the basis of some computer print out; that the Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkumar Mills Private Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT356TriDel
2. The issue involved in these appeals pertains to determination of assessable value of the processed fabrics. The Revenue is of the view that value of pre-shrunk fabrics is required to be taken into consideration to arrive at the assessable value while the assessee is of the view that assessable value of processed fabrics is to be arrived at taking into consideration the shrunk fabrics as emerged after processing.3. The issue was referred to the Larger Bench in view of the conflicting decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gemini Dyeing & Printing Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 195 (Tribunal) and in the case of Indian Rayon & Indus. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-IV, reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 388 (Tri.-Kolkata).4. The contention is that during processing of fabrics, due to shrinkage there is some difference in the length of fabrics, which was received for processing. The contention is that duty in r...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kapoor Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT280TriDel
1. In these two appeals, filed by Shri Sunil Kapoor, the issue involved is whether any penalty is imposable on him under Section 114 of the Customs Act.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, mentioned that the appellant is a bona fide trader of ready-made garments, the price of which ranges between Rs. 30/- to Rs. 40/- per piece; that the appellant had supplied some consignments of ready-made garments to one Shri Dheeraj Sharma at the rate around Rs. 37/- per piece; that the Customs Department has made out cases against Shri Dheeraj Sharma for exporting the ready-made garments after inflating the prices considerably for the purpose of claiming drawback; that the Commissioner (Customs), under both the impugned Orders, has disallowed the drawback claim to Shri Dheeraj Sharma and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakh each under both the impugned Orders on the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not only sold the garments to the said Dheeraj Sharma, but he did so with the guilty knowl...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Zarda Factory Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT980TriDel
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of unbranded chewing tobacco. Under the impugned order a duty demand of Rs. 69,262/- has been made in respect of the unbranded chewing tobacco manufactured by the appellant.A penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has also been imposed.2. The duty demand is the Additional Excise Duty (AED) held to be payable on unbranded chewing tobacco cleared by the appellant during the period June 1998 to March 1999. The finding is that there was no exemption from AED during the particular period in question. Prior to and thereafter unbranded chewing tobacco remained exempt from AED.3. The demand has come to be made in these circumstances, Notification No. 9/96 dated 23rd July 1996 gave exemption from AED to many items which were specified in the Notification. Notification No. 28/97 dated 7th May 1997 inserted the following entry in the above notification so as to include unbranded chewing tobacco among the items exempted from AED.1A. Chewing tobacco and preparations containing ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Chawla and ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)94ITD1(Delhi)
1. A Special Bench was constituted by the Hon'ble President, Tribunal, under Section 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), to hear the appeals in the cases of S/Shri Raj Kumar Chawla, Rajiv Chawla and Ajay Chawla for asst. yr. 1995-96 and by general consent the questions required to be answered are taken as under: "1. Whether the proviso to Section 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961, which mandates the service of notice within 12 months from the end of the month in which return is filed, also applies to the returns filed pursuant to notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 2. If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative then what is the effect of non-service of notice under the proviso to Section 143(2) within the time prescribed, to the return filed pursuant to Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 ?" 2. Shri K. Sampath appearing for the appellant contends that proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act enjoins a duty upon the AO to serve notice on the assessee before expiry of twel...
Tag this Judgment!Legal Heirs Beg Raj Saini Vs. Wealth Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Delhi)934
1. These appeals filed by the assessee against a consolidated order of learned CWT(A) dated 5/2/2004 for assessment years 1987-88 to 92-93 involve common issues and the same, therefore, are being disposed of by a single order.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that the assessee was a co-owner (1/2 share) of agricultural land in Khasra No. 4681 of Hisar measuring 41 Kanals 4 Marlas i.e. 24926 sq.yards. The said land situated in municipal limits of Hisar was acquired by HUDA under Haryana State Government Notification dated 23/5/83. Actual possession of the said land was taken over by HUDA on 7/5/86 and compensation @ Rs. 48,000/-per acre i.e. Rs. 2,47,200/- was awarded to the assessee and the other co-owner i.e. assessee's brother. The assessee and his brother challenged the quantum of compensation so awarded to them in an appeal filed before the District Judge, Hisar who vide his order dated 22/9/90 fixed the cost of acquisition of the said land @ Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Aryan Educational Society Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)93ITD546(Delhi)
1. Though various grounds have been raised but the effective ground is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in refusing registration to the assessee Under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act).2. Briefly stated, the facts are these: The assessee is a society registered with the Registrar of Societies, UP, as per copy of the certificate dated 22^nd May, 2000 appearing at page 4 of the paper book. It was formed on 8^th May, 2000 as is apparent from Memorandum of Association appearing at pages 5 to 13 of the paper book. Though various objects have been mentioned in the memorandum of association but the dominant object of the society is to impart education by running schools. Accordingly, an application Under Section 12A dated 1^st March, 2001 though addressed to the Commissioner of Income-tax, was filed in the Office of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax on 14^th may, 2001 as is apparent from page 1 of the paper book. According to the AO, it was not accompanied by ...
Tag this Judgment!Bikanervala Vs. New Bikanerwala
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(30)PTC113(Del)
R.C. Jain, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of is 1138/2004, an application moved on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 135(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (in short ''The Act'') and Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 27(2) of the Act read with Section 134(1) and 135 of the Act and Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, passing ff and rendition of accounts. The suit has been filed with the averments and allegations that it is a partnership firm; the forefathers of the plaintiff's were in the business of manufacturing and marketing ethnic foods including sweets and nankeens for the last about 100 years and have inherited a vast treasure of recipes of traditional Indian sweets and nankeens developed and perfected down the generations. In the year 1981 the plaintiff established a major outlet in...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Arvindra Kumar Singh Vs. Smt. Hardayal Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT417; 2005(80)DRJ1; (2005)140PLR16
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. is No. 7245/2004 is the application filed by defendant No. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint. Grounds on which rejection is prayed for are:'a) That the plaintiff has not come to the Hon'ble Court with clean intention and has tried to mislead the court into believing that the plaintiff is the purchaser in possession for that property comprised in B-301, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi.b) That the plaintiff claims to be the owner by virtue of an unregistered and deficiently stamped document of agreement to claim his title to the property which is not open in law to the plaintiff as the plaintiff has not claimed specific performance of the contract thereby due to have abandoned his right to claim the relief by virtue of provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The suit, thereforee, is liable to the rejected.c) That the plaintiff relies on a basic document dated 04.04.2003 which was only an agreement to sale 'inscribed' on a stamp pa...
Tag this Judgment!Bikanervala Vs. Aggarwal Bikanerwala
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT255; 2005(30)PTC156(Del)
R.C. Jain, J.1. This is an application under Section 135(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, made on behalf of the plaintiff seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, stockists, distributors, agents and retailers from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in food articles for human consumption under the impugned trade trademark/tradename/infringingartistic label 'AGGARWAL BIKANER WALA' annexed as Annexure-B to the plaint or from using any trade mark/trade name/infringing artistic work containing the name/mark 'BIKANER WALA/BIKANERVALA' or any other name/mark/artistic work which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's copyright and/or its famous trade mark/trade name 'BIKANERVALA'.2. Plaintiff has filed a suit under Section 27(2) read with Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for p...
Tag this Judgment!