Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 23 of about 273 results (0.022 seconds)C.C. and C.E. Vs. Poly Twines
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT151TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether poly propylene twines manufactured by M/s. Poly Twines are classifiable under sub-heading 5607.41, as claimed by the Revenue or under sub-heading 3926.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order.2. Shri Randhir Singh, learned D.R, submitted that M/s. Poly Twines, manufactured poly propylene Twines; that heading 56.07 specifically applied to twines and sub-heading 5607.41 refers to binder or baler twine; that in HSN also the twine is also specifically classifiable under heading 5607 only; that there is no mention of poly propylene twines under Chapter 39; that as per Rule 3 (a) of the Rules for the interpretation of the Schedule, the heading which provides the most specific description should be preferred to heading providing a more general description while arriving at the correct classification of the goods. The learned D.R. also placed relia...
Tag this Judgment!Khushal Fertilizer (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT114TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Khushal Fertilizer (P) Ltd., is whether the extended period of limitation is invokable for demanding Central Excise duty from them.2.1 Shri P.C. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture steel tube and pipes and claim exemption under Notification No. 202/98-C.E., dated 20-5-1988; that the tubes and pipes manufactured out of flats not exceeding 5 mm in thickness are exempt from duty under the Notification; that the demand pertains to the period from 26-3-1990 to 30-3-1992; that when the matter was first heard by the Appellate Tribunal the same was remanded vide Final Order No. 1937/2000-B dated 23-11-2000 [2001 (127) E.L.T. 210 (Tri.)] to examine the time bar issue afresh and also to work out the correct duty payable by the Appellants.The learned Advocate, further, submitted that during the relevant period a dispute was going on between the department and the suppliers of raw material regarding correct classifi...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Heavy Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT774TriDel
1. These are two applications by M/s. Prem Heavy Engineering Works P.Ltd. for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal.2. We heard Shri R.K. Rishi, learned Advocate and Shri H.C. Verma, learned DR.3. The impugned Order No. 51/52/04 dated 19.2.2004 was despatched to the applicants on 19.2.2004 itself at their known address. The appeals have been filed by them on 18.1.2005 and as such, there is a delay of little less than eleven months. The learned Advocate submitted that the impugned order was never received by the applicants as their factory premises are lying closed; that they came to know about the order only when recovery memo was received along with the impugned order; that after the receipt of the said order, the delay in filing the appeal is only 41 days which has occurred on account of sickness of the Managing Director of the applicants who is the only responsible person left in the factory. The learned Advocate finally submitted that the delay is not attr...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Dr. Willmar Schwabe India (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Delhi)53
1. These four appeals preferred by the Revenue against a common order of learned CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi, dt. 30th March, 2001, for financial years 1995-96 to 1998-99 involve some common issues and the same, therefore, are being disposed of by a single order along with cross-objections filed by the assessee for financial years 1996-97 to 1998-99.2. The first issue which is raised by the Revenue in its appeal for financial year 1998-99 relates to the deduction of tax at source in respect of contract payments amounting to Rs. 39,17,581 made by the assessee for which provisions of Section 194C are held to be inapplicable by the learned CIT(A).3. The assessee in the present case is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and distribution of homeopathic and herbal medicines. It requires bottles, caps, labels and other packing material for packing of the medicines which is purchased from various suppliers as per assessee's own specification. Such specification of pack...
Tag this Judgment!Glaxo Smith Kline Asia (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)2SOT457(Delhi)
By this application, the assessee seeks a stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand of Rs. 7,05,04,010 for assessment year 2001-02.The assessee-company is in the business of manufacturing and trading of pharmaceuticals and oral health care products. It had declared a total income of Rs. 15,56,58,680 for the year under consideration. The assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at a total income of Rs. 36,18,26,520. One of the major additions was that of disallowance of Rs. 16,63,01,800 out of total administrative expenses of Rs. 27,59,36,430. The assessee-company did not have its own marketing set-up and hence had entered into an agreement with Smith Kline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SBCH). In order to compensate SBCH for the services rendered by them, the agreement was reached on the basis of an independent study made by Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chatro Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT9
ORDER1. By separate two judgments, we have dealt with, at length, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in the above and other 80 connected writ petitions. With the exception noticed hereinafter, there is unanimity of view. The cases falling in the category specified by Madan B. Lokur, J. in the separate judgment would have to be referred to a Third Judge, in accordance with rules and practice of this Court. The cases which would require reference to the Third Judge in regard to question and villages, should fall in the following category :-41. This being the legal position, I do not think that proceedings under Section 5A of the Act can be taken in such a casual manner as the respondents have done in respect of village Chhatarpur, Khanpur, Satbari, Tughlakabad, Khirkee and Deoli. Consequently, I would, with respect, follow the view taken in Balak Ram-III and hold that the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act conducted in respect of the petitioners in the present batch of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sudhish Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)77; [2005]276ITR563(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, has questioned the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, dated 23rd July, 2004 wherein it held that the Assessing Officer does not have the power under the Act to refer the Valuation Officer, the question of cost of construction of the property, subject matter of the present writ petition.2. The assessed had filed return for the assessment year 1996-97 declaring a total income of Rs.59,210/- which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 31st March, 1998 on the returned income. Subsequently, and with the prior approval of the competent authority, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued. The assessed attended the proceedings in furtherance to the said notice. Documents including the map plan of the property was also filed. The cost of construction was shown as Rs.5,50,000/- for 4000 sq. ft. approximately, giving ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Kunj Enclave Housing Welfare Society, Through Its President and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT801
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this judgment I would dispose of the above three writ petitions as a common question of law in regard to application of mind for dispensation of the provisions of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act by the appropriate authority while exercising the powers vested in it, under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on somewhat similar facts and circumstances.2. It is not really necessary for me to refer to the facts of each writ petition in greater detail and for the purposes of brevity, I would be referring to the facts stated in W.P.(C) No. 4789/1985. Petitioner no.1 is stated to be a registered welfare society under the Society Registration Act, 1860 of which petitioners no.2 to 38 are stated to be the members. They claim to be the owners of the land situated in Revenue Estate of Village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri. Notification bearing no. F-9/(12)/95/Land/LA/8432 dated 1.6.1995 under Section 4 of thmae Act was issued...
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Kunj Enclave Housing Welfare Society and ors. Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT826
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. In this batch of 25 writ petitions, the principal challenge is to two Notifications issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act). These Notifications are:-(i) Notification dated 27th June, 1996 bearing No. F. 9(12)/95/L and B/LA/9743 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act in respect of 1337 bighas and 4 bids was of land required for a public purpose, namely, for development of Vasant Kunj Phase - IV under the planned development of Delhi.(ii) Notification dated 10th January, 1997 bearing No. F.9(12)/95/L and B/LA/1046 issued under Section 6 of the Act declaring that 1337 bighas and 4 bids was of land is required for the development of Vasant Kunj Phase - IV under the planned development of Delhi.2. There is also a challenge to a Notification bearing No. F.9(12)/95/LandB/LA/9739 dated 27th June, 1996 issued under the provisions of Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act in respect of 13...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Usha Stud and Agriculatural Farms P ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)237; 118(2005)DLT705; 2005(81)DRJ393; [2005]276ITR25(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Same questions arise for consideration in the above referred 18 appeals, which relate to the same assessed, for the same activity, of course for different assessment yeaRs. Thus, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these 18 appeals by a common judgment. While disposing of all these petitions by a common judgment, we would be referring to the facts of I.T.A. No. 129/2003.2. The assessed company, respondent herein, is a private limited company carrying on the business of breeding and maintenance of horses. It also carries on agricultural activity, the produce of which is used as feed and fodder for the horses. During the relevant assessment year the respondent-company filed the return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 37,078/- and net agricultural income of Rs. 12,41,904/-. As per records, the assessed maintained a single composite account for both the business of horses and the agricultural activities. After issuing a notice to the assessed, the Assessing Offi...
Tag this Judgment!