Delhi Court August 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 4 of about 150 results (0.024 seconds)Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dabur India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Del)375; [2006]283ITR197(Delhi)
1. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. : [1972]2SCR937 the Supreme Court declared that if the main object underlying the contract is to transfer property in or deliver the possession of a chattel as chattel, then the contract is one of sale. The test, observed their Lordships, is whether or not the work and labour bestowed end in anything that can properly become the subject of a sale. Neither the ownership of the materials nor the value of the skill and labour, as compared with the value of the materials is conclusive, although such matters may be taken into consideration in determining whether the contract is in substance one for work and labour or one for the sale of chattel.2. Relying upon the above decision, the Tribunal of Pune Bench in Wadilal Daily International Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT held that buying packing material was tantamount to purchasing goods for the purpose of packing and that just because some printing was required to be done by the supplier ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Diamond Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(195)ELT236TriDel
2. Heard ld. SDR. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the redemption fine in respect of the goods which were seized, was set aside on the ground that the goods were not available and these were released on provisional basis and also set aside the penalties on the ground that duty has been paid prior to issuance of show-cause notice.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala. On 15.7.2001 the Revenue officers intercepted a Metador, which was, carried 15 bags of Gutkha without cover of any duty-paying document. The goods were seized and thereafter released on provisional basis to the respondents. The appellant could not produce any document showing the payment of duty in respect of the goods seized outside the factory. Therefore, show-cause notice was issued for confiscation of the goods and proposing demand of duty and also for imposition of penalties. The adjud...
Tag this Judgment!Home Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(197)ELT110TriDel
2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund of Rs. 45,398/- was rejected on the ground that the appellant failed to produce application form i.e. ARE-I in respect of goods exported by them.3. The contention of the appellant is that as per the provisions of Notification No. 11/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002, the Revenue prescribed a procedure for refund of CENVAT credit in respect of the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products which were cleared for export. The contention is that as per the conditions of the Notification, the manufacturer has to submit an application in the prescribed form to the Dy. Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner along with Bill of lading or export application duly certified by any officer of customs to the effect that goods have in fact been exported.The contention is that the appellant produced along with application of shipping Bill, bill of lading and bank rel...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Manoj Kumar Agrawal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2007)8STR95
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim filed by the respondent was allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order after going through the account books maintained by the respondent gave a finding of fact that burden of duty has not been passed on by the respondent to their buyers.3. The contention of the Revenue in the present appeal is that respondent have collected excess amount to the tune of Rs. 22.5% of the basic price which is even more than excise duty and this amount is nothing to excise duty, therefore, the burden of duty has been passed on to their customers.4. The contention of the respondent is that they had produced the account books where the excise duty paid, regarding which refund is filed is described in their account book 'amount receivable' from the Revenue department as refund. The respondent also submitted that for income-tax purposes the appellant had taken into conside...
Tag this Judgment!Jandial Shoe Factory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT128TriDel
1. The duty demand of rupees 1,64,344/- has been confirmed and penalty of rupees 2,000/- imposed upon the appellants, herein, who are engaged in the manufacture and export of footwear on the ground that they failed to produce proof of export of certain quantity of footwear.3. The documents, filed by the appellants to evidence the export of footwear, are photocopies of shipping bills/bill of lading and airway bills. What is required to be produced to establish the export, is attested copies of bill of lading/shipping bills along with relevant copies of airway bills. Since the documents produced are not acceptable for the purpose of establishing the export of the goods, there was no option with the authorities below but to hold that sufficient proof had not been produced and confirmed the duty and imposed penalty on these basis. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, uphold the same and reject the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Richhpal Singh Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Reported in: IV(2005)BC95
1. Appellant is the principal borrower and the 1st defendant in O.A.214/2002 instituted by the 1st respondent-Bank.2. During the course of the trial, this appellant entered into some sort of compromise with the respondent-Bank and filed I.A. 515/2005 under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC for recording compromise. The said application came up for consideration before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal, by order dated 22.7.2005, dismissed the said application solely on the ground that there are other defendants 4 to 8 who have also furnished security and as long as those defendants are not joined as parties, such compromise could not be recorded. It is this order which is challenged before this Court in the present appeal.3. I have heard Mr. M.C. Kochhar, Counsel for the appellant and Mr.V.K. Dhar, Counsel for the 1st respondent -Bank. On the basis of submissions made by both the Counsel, the point for consideration is whether the lower Court was justified in rejecting the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Remineni Vs. Indian Institute of Technology and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 124(2005)DLT166; 2005(84)DRJ325
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This petition challenges the decision of the IIT, Delhi conveyed by its Dy. Registrar (UGS) in terms of letter dated 25.7.2005 which reads as follows:Sub: Termination of RegistrationThe academic performance of student Ajay Kumar Ramineni, 2003MT50427 during the end of 2nd semester 2004-2005 as well as that of proceeding semesters was examined by the Standing Review Committee (SRC) of the Senate. In view of the fact that the cumulativeperformance is below the required minimum level for continuation, the registration of Ajay Kumar Ramineni is hereby terminated and his name is struck off the rolls of the Institute.This has approval of the Chairman, Senate.2. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is that the academic requirements mandating that a student in the general category must complete at least 50 credits at the end of 4th semester is irrational and bears no nexus to maintain exemplary academic standards leading ultimately to a Masters Degr...
Tag this Judgment!Aditya Institute of Technology Vs. All India Council for Technical Edu ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(84)DRJ319
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. In this writ petition, it is prayed that an appropriate writ, direction or order may issue quashing the letter dated 18.2.2005 issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE in short) and further that an appropriate writ, direction or order be issued directing the Respondents not to refuse the extension of approval to the Petitioner-College for the academic Session 2005-06 on the ground of non-shifting of the College to its own building. In 1995, on the recommendation of the Department of Training and Technical Education (DTTE in short), the Petitioner was allowed to enroll 60 students in Computer Engineering (C.E.), Electronics and Communication Engineering (E.C.E.) and Medical Lab Technology (M.L.T.) for the academic year 1995-96. In the following year 60 students were permitted to be enrolled additionally in the course of Pharmacy. This position continued till 2000-01. In the academic year 2001-02, only 30 students were permitted to be enrolled ...
Tag this Judgment!Misuki Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sterling India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas657(Delhi); 123(2005)DLT489; 2005(84)DRJ87
Vijender Jain, J.1. In a first appeal no reply to the appeal has to be filed. However, if the court is desirous of looking into the pleadings before the trial court it can always call for the records. In this view of the matter reply to the appeal is directed to be taken off the record.2. The appellant, M/s Misuki Exports Pvt.Ltd., has filed this appeal impugning the order passed by the learned Company Judge dated 9.11.04. We have perused the suit record, as well as, the impugned order.3. The main submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Company Judge erred in not appreciating the fact that in the balance sheet of the appellant company up to 31.3.02 the name of the respondent was shown as a creditor. However, on 15.4.2002, a debit note was raised against the respondent company for a sum of Rs.3,19,250/- and in view of that debit note the appellant was not liable to pay any amount to the respondent.4. From a perusal of the record we find that in the balance sh...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 123(2005)DLT604; 2005(84)DRJ256
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule D.B. 2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner was recruited in the Central Industrial Security Force as Constable on 1st October 1992 in the sports quota due to his being an excellent athlete. The petitioner participated in the 47th All India Police Aquatic & Cross Country Championship 1998 and has secured favorable results. The petitioner's main grievance is that inspire of his excellent performance he was not given promotion as envisaged by the policy guidelines laid down in Govt. of India, ministry of Home Affairs, Department of personal and Administrative Reforms Office memorandum No. 14015/1-78 Estt (O) dated 4th August 1980.4. This writ petition is for seeking consideration of the petitioner for the promotion to the rank of Head Constable on the basis of guidelines of the policy laid down for giving out of turn promotion to the outstanding sports personnel. The policy in question reads as under:...
Tag this Judgment!