Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Unison Metals Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ahmedabad I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC395
Whether the amount of 8% debited from the RG-23A part II in terms of the provisions of Rule 57CC(1) and collected from the customers is required to be deposited with the Govt. in terms of the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act.2. The facts leading to raising of the reference are that the assessees are engaged in the manufacture of both cold rolled (dutiable) and hot rolled (non-dutiable) steel pattas and patties. Assessees producing non-dutiable final products are not entitled to modvat credit in respect of duty paid on inputs. However, the assessees producing both dutiable and non-dutiable final products can avail themselves of modvat credit on all inputs, (including the inputs going into the production of non-dutiable goods) subject to the condition that they shall "pay an amount equal to 8% of the price" of the goods which are not dutiable (Rule 57CC). In the present case, the assessees made payment at 8% while selling the non-dutiable goods. The assessees recovere...
Jcb India Limited Vs. Action Construction Equipment Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ700
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This is a petition under Order 39 Rule 2A and Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 whereby the respondents are alleged to be in contempt of order of this Court dated 12th March, 2001 which reads as under:12.3.2001Present: Mr. Chander M. Lali for the Plaintiffs.Mr. A.K. Matta for the Defendants.S. No. 959/98.Learned Counsel for the Defendants states that their clients will not introduce in the market excavator loaders in violation of the copyright of the plaintiffs, if any. This was a statement made by learned Counsel for the Defendants on 22nd May, 1998 and learned Counsel for the Defendants stands by this statement.He further says that his clients stand by the written statement and reply to is which have already been filed.In the event that the Plaintiffs feel that the Defendants have violated the copyright, the Plaintiffs will be entitled to apply for contempt of Court. This does not preclude the Defendants f...
Kamla Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT519; 2006(91)DRJ636
S. Muralidhar, J.CMs 261/2004 and 2388/20051. These two applications are filed in Writ Petition (C) 3250/1997 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 15.7.2002. 2. The writ petition was filed on 7.8.1997 by the petitioner (since deceased and now substituted by legal representatives) questioning the validity of a Notification dated 25.11.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a declaration dated 6.6.1985 under Section 6 of the Act and an Award No. 18/87-88 dated 5.6.1987 in respect of the land of the petitioner admeasuring 25 bighas and 1 biswa, situated within the revenue estate of Village Tughlakabad, in the city of Delhi. 3. One of the contentions of the petitioners was that neither possession had been taken by the respondents nor any compensation paid. The stand of the respondents was that there were encroachments on the land that prevented the respondents from taking possession. On 22nd May, 2001, thi...
The College Section Officers Association (University of Delhi) Vs. Uni ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT467; 2006(91)DRJ741
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.7.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing CW No. 1272 of 1986, filed by the appellants herein seeking the following reliefs:to issue appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions:(i) declaring the petitioners entitled to the scale of Rs. 840-1200 with effect from 1.1.1973 or alternatively to at least to the scale of Rs. 650-1200 with effect from 1.1.1973 and/or still alternatively to the scale of Rs. 840-1200 (Grade I) and Rs. 650-1040 (Grade II) with effect from 1.1.1973 to 22nd June, 1982 and to a common scale of Rs. 650-1200 with effect from 22.6.1982 with arrears of pay and other consequential benefits. (ii) directing the respondents to pay the scales to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.1973 as mentioned in Clause (i) above with arrears of pay, allowances etc.2. The facts of the present case are that members of the Appellant No. 1 association and Appellants N...
Sandeep Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ707
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 13.2.2004 by which the OA filed by him was dismissed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Petitioner in the OA had challenged the order bearing No. 8702/Rectt.Cell/PHQ/AC-I dated 29.5.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, confirming the show cause notice issued and cancelling his candidature for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in Delhi Police.2. Facts culminating in the filing of the present writ petition may be briefly noted:(i) Sandeep Kumar applied for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in Delhi Police on 24.2.1999. He had duly filled the application form for the post of Temporary Head Constable (Ministerial) bearing Sl. No. 047559 on 24.2.1999. He successfully qualified all the tests. On 3.4.2001, an attestation form was filled where he mentioned that because of a dispute with the tenant, a case had been registered against him, his mo...
Goyal Mg Gases Ltd. Vs. Premium International Finance Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC147; 138(2007)DLT259; 2009(93)DRJ831
Gita Mittal, J.1. This application has been filed under the provisions of Order 37 Rule 4 read with Rule 3(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant No. 2, Shri Sumaj Jain thereby seeks setting aside of the ex parte judgment/decree dated 29th August, 2000/11th October, 2000 and stay of the execution proceedings in Execution Case No. 234/2002. The applicant has also sought condensation of the delay of one day in filing the Memo of Appearance and leave to defend the suit. 2. The plaintiff herein is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is the claim of the plaintiff that it had been approached by the defendant No. 1/company for grant of financial assistance in the form of bill discounting facility. On terms and conditions contained in the plaintiff's letter dated 12th September, 1995, the plaintiff had agreed to provide bill discounting facility to the defendant No. 1 to the extent of Rs. 55.0 lacs. Terms were duly accepted for a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujral Estates P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: [2008]303ITR197(Delhi)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated June 30, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', in I.T.A. No. 2056/Delhi/2003, relevant to the assessment year 1991-92.2. It appears that the assessee is a builder and had sold some flats to several purchasers. On behalf of these purchasers, the assessee used to collect the house tax and pay it to the municipal corporation.3. For the relevant assessment year, though the house tax liability on the purchasers was to the extent of Rs. 13,61,747, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has noted that the assessee actually collected Rs. 3,98,421 which was paid to the municipal corporation. Over and above this, the assessee appears to have paid an amount of Rs. 3,281 which was debited in the profit and loss account.4. The liability of house tax due from the purchasers was initially shown as liability in the balance-sheet of the assessee and was, therefore, taken as the income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Devayhi Beverages Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR41(Delhi)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated June 21, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', in ITA No. 1667/Delhi/02 relevant for the assessment year 1998-99.2. The assessed carries on the business of manufacturing and sale of soft drinks. For the relevant assessment year the assessed claimed breakage, leakage and burst, etc., of bottles and debited an amount of Rs. 1,38,54,100 under this head. Out of this amount the assessed voluntarily added back a sum of Rs. 85,52,347 leaving a balance of Rs. 53,01,853 which was claimed as discount, etc., allowed to dealers for breakage, leakage and burst, etc.3. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire amount and added it to the income of the assessed.4. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the assessed filed a paper book in which all the claim letters, debit notes, etc. raised by the parties were filed. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered the material on record and did not disp...
Ester Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Del)260
ORDER1. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that even though several questions have been framed by the appellant, only two substantial questions of law would arise for our consideration. These are as follows:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the levy of MAT is permissible while issuing intimation to acknowledge the receipt of return filed by the assessed under Section 143(1)(a) when the levy of MAT involves substantial legal issues and grounds and the same could not have been done without notice of hearing, opportunity to the assessed and by passing a speaking and reasoned order, after proper application of mind, which are neither done nor contemplated under Section 143(1)(a)?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any basis or justification valid in law to accept the plea of the Revenue for upholding the illegal levy of MAT through intimation...
Asian Alloys Limited and Mr. Pawan Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC383
1. All the four appeals have been argued together by the parties relying upon the complete record placed in Excise Appeal No. 3742 of 2003 and are therefore disposed off by this common judgment.2. These two appeals are preferred against the order of the Commissioner dated 09.09.2003, determining that the central excise duty of Rs. 4,21,34,053/- was leviable on the goods removed clandestinely to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) as per the ledger account of the appellant unit and ordering the said amount to be paid under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, determining that the unit should also pay under the said provision, a further, central excise duty amount of Rs. 1,21,76,522/- on 49275.32 kgs. of hosiery knitted fabrics, which were found short in comparison to the balance recorded in the bond register, determining that the appellant unit should pay central excise duty of Rs. 23,49,22,178/- on the fabrics manufactured by the unit on job work, imposing penalty of Rs. 28,92,32,7...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »