Advanced Search Results

Dans Energy pvt.ltd vs.ge Power India Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Arbitration

264/2018 Page 15 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Section 11(D)(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said provision is reproduced hereinbelow:-"“11D. Duties of excise collected from the buyer to be deposited with the … cannot be interfered with in exercise of power under Section 34 of the Act. In Associate Builders vs. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC49 the Supreme Court has held as under:-"“42. In the 1996 Act, this principle is substituted

Delhi Development Authority vs.m/s S. Ghosh & Associates.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

as it provides for applicability of the relevant O.M.P. (COMM) 98/2019 Page 14 of 29 sections of the Central Excise Act 1944 as in force from time to time i.e. the future amendments in the provisions of the Central Excise … Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission of India(2010) 11 SCC296 The observations in paragraph 36 thereof are instructive in this behalf … the balance fees at the factor of 95 %.7. The objection of DDA is that the learned Arbitrator has wrongly held that the Respondent had … Mannan and Ms. Konika Mitra, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA, J1 The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) challenges the award dated

Satya Developers Pvt Ltd. and Another Vs. Pearey Lal Bhawan Associatio ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service Tax

of business or commerce; ? 18. Section 83 of the Finance Act, 2007 makes certain provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as in force from time to time applicable in relation to Service Tax as they apply in relation … favour of the plaintiffs holding them entitled to recover amount payable towards the service tax from the defendants. 11. Learned counsel for Satya contends that the learned Single Judge erroneously relied upon the provisions of Sales of … pay all or any taxes, levies or charges imposed by the MCD, DDA, LandDO and or Government, Local Authority etc ?. The defendant also relied

Ajit Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : CivilProperty

Acts : Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Sections 416; Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 - Rule 6; Central Excise Rules; ;Central Excise Act

Reported in : 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)259; 107(2003)DLT555; 2003(70)DRJ766

16. In the case of Kimat Baldev Chhiber, we find that he was granted L-4 license in 1968 Central Excise Rules framed under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 for the ' manufacturing of goods liable to … especially since the lis was already pending when the judgment was delivered. 11. The Supreme Court in the judgment of Ambitious Enterprises & Anr.'s case … judgment of Ambitious Enterprises & Anr.'s case (supra) considered the plea of DDA that rejection of the request of plots was principally on two grounds, … plots was principally on two grounds, which are as under :-(i) The applicants were not having license under Section 416 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957; and (ii) Rule 6(v) of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal

Delhi Development Authority Etc. Vs. M/S. Ambitious Enterprises and An ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Property

Acts : Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Sections 56; Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Sections 416

Reported in : AIR1997SC3263; JT1997(6)SC119; 1997(4)SCALE497; (1997)6SCC420; [1997]Supp2SCR50; 1997(2)LC250(SC)

dismissed.17. In the case of Kimal Baldev Chhiber we find that he was granted L-4 licence in 1968 Central Excise Rules framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for the 'manufacture of goods liable to Central … 14 of them 11 were dismissed. Delhi Development Authority (for short 'the DDA') had filed Letters Patent Appeals against the judgment of the learned single … ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. Special leave granted.2. These 11 appeals are directed against the judgment dated July 29, 1994 of the … for allotment of plots was principally on two grounds : (1) the applicants were not having licences under Section 4(6) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and (2) Rule 6 (v) of the Delhi Development. Authority (Disposal

J.N.J. Industries and ors. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (1999)(83)LC251Tri(Delhi)

Matched in: Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Faizabad Ayodhya Development Authority Vs. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

72-74, para7) “7. Both these notifications, as the opening part shows, are issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and since the definition of “duty” in Rule 2, clause (v) must necessarily be projected in … also be interpreted in the same sense, namely, duty of excise payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the exemption granted under both these notifications must be regarded as limited only to such duty of … on the ground that on the date on which the Act, 2013 came into force, no award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1894”) was declared with respect to … is five years for the executive authorities to take the requisite steps, DDA v. Sukhbir Singh [(2016) 16 SCC258 observed that what the legislature is

Rajdoot Paints Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (2004)(171)ELT230TriDel

clearance at the factory is not negligible; that, therefore, the proposal to proceed to Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot arise. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Indian Oxygen Ltd, v. C.C.E., 1988 (36) … the containers as under : Spred manufactured by Rajdoot Paints Ltd., 19, DDA Commercial Complex Extension, Zamrudpur, New Delhi.8.2 Learned S.D.R. mentioned that Captain Manoj … (Para 32 of O/O No. 15/2001; Para 39 of O/O No. 14/2001 and Para 35 of O/O No. 11/2001) 12.3 In respect of other 4 units, the Commissioner has recorded the following findings : "Since Noticee No.

Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. R. Raju and anr., Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : AIR1972SC2504; 1972CriLJ1699; 1973LC17(SC); 1978(2)ELT410(SC); (1972)2SCC410; [1973]1SCR812; 1973(5)LC280(SC)

were prosecuted for violation of Rules 9, 53, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 66 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules punishable Under Section 9(b) and (d) of the Act and also Under Section 420 read with Section … falls for consideration in these appeals is the interpretation of Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to for brevity as the Section and the Act. The section is as follows:-No suit, prosecution … issued by the Central Government to levy Conversion charges is binding on DDA for converting the leasehold into freehold. However, such a power also must … thrust upon the other party to the contract. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872[C.A.No.1/1872] Section 115: [S.B. Sinha & H.S. Bedi, JJ] Estoppel Housing scheme by Development Authority

Chowgule and Co. (Hind) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (1985)LC99Tri(Delhi)

the Table below, falling under Item No. ISA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from so much of the duty excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the … Application to the Central Government against the Order-in-Appeal No. II-1517/75, dated 23-2-1976 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay whereby he confirmed the Order No. V (ISA) 2-5/74/4046, dated 1-3-1975 passed by the Assistant Collector of … Tribunal, it came to be transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as … earlier demand dated 14-11-1969 was invalid since the DDa demand of 14-11-1969 could not be combined with … also modified the demand on the appellants to a figure of Rs. 11,62,215.16.6. Aggrieved with this order, the matter was pursued in appeal by the