Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. National Dyes
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC271
1. The Revenue seeks reference of the following questions of law purported to have arisen from Tribunal's Final order No 308/98-C dated 6.5.98: Whether the order No. 308/98-C dated 6.5.98 of the Tribunal rejecting the appeal of the Department on the ground that the SLP filed by the Department against the Faridabad Tools case was dismissed by the Supreme Court is maintainable in view of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP only on limitation and not on the merits of the case? (2) "In view of the above, whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in upholding and giving greater credence to the decision of a three Member Bench in the case of Faridabad Tools, when there is a contrary decision of a Five Member Bench given subsequently in the case of Kamani Foods on a similar issue, which is in favour of the Department.2. The brief facts leading up to the filing of the application are that the respondents herein who are manufacturers of synthetic resins falling under Ch...
Rajneesh Kumar Singhal Vs. the State (National Capital Territory of De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)37; 2001CriLJ1192; 89(2001)DLT511; 2001(57)DRJ411
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India was assigned to a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the petition should be heard and decided by a Division Bench in view of the fact that the impugned order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated December 11, 1996 entrusting investigation of the case under section 498A/306/34 I.P.C. to the D.C.P. (Crime) was based on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ No. 359/96 dated August 26, 1996 taking the view that under sub-section (3) of section 156 of the Code a magistrate always has the power to order investigation into a crime and this power does not get extinguished with the filing of the challan before him under section 173(2) of the Code, which was contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh Rana v. State, rep...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. All India Institute of Medical Science and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: 2001(58)DRJ148
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner, a handicapped person, suffering from 50% permanent disability of bony analysis, had applied for and was allotted an STD/ISD/PCO booth at Masjid Moth, Doctors Hostel of AIIMS. The respondents had invited applications by a tender/advertisement, which appears as annexure-D page 39, for the allotment of STD/ISD booths. The petitioner, whose license for the booth had been renewed from time to time from 1995, also applied for renewal of the agreement for the STD/ISD booth.3. Petitioner's grievance in the writ petition is that license agreement in his favor was not renewed and the booth has been allotted to respondent No, 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended before me that the license though being renewed from time to time was really on a perpetual basis and the understanding was that the same would be continued, unless the service of the petitioner was found to ...
Abdul Gaffar Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)192; 90(2001)DLT330; 2001(58)DRJ48; 2001RLR249
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The present application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the appointment of an Arbitrator. Briefly stated t he case of the petitioner is that he had entered into a contract with the respondent for carrying out sundry construction, in terms of the respondent's letter dated 23.7.1992. A Legal Notice dated 28.4.1997 had been issued on behalf of the petitioner notifying all is claims. In this Legal Notice it had been specifically stated that the Executive Engineer, Northern division Bench No. 10 of the respondent had deliberately avoided to issue a copy of the agreement. The Legal Notice was accompanied by a copy of a proposed application for appointment of an Arbitrator which also contained Claims 1 to 15. A copy of Clause 25, the Arbitration Clause, has also been filed by the petitioner. In its reply the DDA has categorically denied that any Arbitration Agreement exists between the ...
R.B. Poly Sacks Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT549TriDel
1. In this case the appellants vide Stay Order No. S/757/2000-NB(SM) dated 10-10-2000 of this Bench were directed to make a deposit of Rs. 1,38,4627- on or before 21-11-2000. The matter is listed today for reporting compliance of the direction of the pre-deposit. The aforesaid order dated 10-10-2000 was passed in the open Court in the presence of Shri A.L. Upadhyay, Advocate for the Appellants.2. Today when the matter is called, the appellants are not represented.I have heard Shri R.C. Sankhla, JDR for the Respondent. The appellants have sent a communication dated 18-11-2000 in which it is requested that the Stay Order dated 10-10-2000 may be modified and appeal may be heard without asking for any deposit of the duty. I have considered these submissions. As already stated, the order dated 10-10-2000 for pre-deposit was made in the presence of ld. Advocate of the appellants.The date of reporting compliance for pre-deposit i.e., 23-11-2000 is also known to the appellants, as the same wa...
Indian Farmers Fertiliser Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC365
1. The appellants are a cooperative society, engaged in the manufacture of fertilisers falling under Chapter 31 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The dispute involved in the present appeal relates to their unit manufacturing urea fertiliser at Aonla, Bareilly. For the manufacture of urea, the reactants are Ammonia and Carbon dioxide. The ammonia required in the urea plant is generated by a plant which uses natural gas, steam and air as raw-materials. The steam required for the purpose is produced in a boiler by firing furnace oil (fuel). During the period from September 1993 to December 1994, the appellants had procured a total quantity of 38,292.720 KL of furnace oil at nil rate of duty "for the manufacture of urea" by claiming exemption under Notification No. 75/84 dated 1-3-1984 as amended. The Department issued show-cause notice [which was received by the appellants on 30-6-1998] alleging that total exemption from payment of duty on the furnace oil was available on...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Telco
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT592TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 15-12-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Pune. The dispute is in respect of products i.e. control panels, controllers falling under CSH No. 8537 and parts of manipulators falling under CSH.No. 8431. Whether they are entitled for exemption in terms of Notification No. 281/86 is the issue to be considered in this appeal.The Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Partap Steel Rolling Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore - Misc.Order No. E/209/93-B and final order No. E/301/93-B. 4. I have gone through the submissions of the appellants. The Tribunal in the case of Pratap Rolling Mills v. CCE - Order No. E-301/93 B-I dated nil October 93 has held that rollers which are manufactured and used in the rolling mills, which can be considered as complete machinery. It has been emphasised by the appellant tha...
Sagar Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT206TriDel
1. In these fourteen appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 563-577/CE/DLH/2000, dated 22-5-2000, the issue involved is whether duty of excise is leviable on Cold-Rolled Pattis/Patta.2. Shri J.S. Agrawal, ld. Advocate, submitted that all the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of S.S. Pattas/Pattis, circles and utensils falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that they purchase duty paid S.S. Flats and avail of Modvat Credit of the duty paid under Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules ; that they, after cutting the said S.S. Flats into small pieces, feed them into Hot Rolling Machines; that S.S. Pattas/Pattis are formed falling under Sub-heading 7219.90/7220.90 of the Tariff attracting 'nil' duty; that these hot-rolled Pattas/Pattis are cold-rolled falling under Sub-heading 7219.00/7220.00 depending on their width; these cold-rolled Patta/Pattis are cut into circles classifiable under Sub-headings 7222.40 and 7222.50 depending up...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sompura Ceramics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC567
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The issue relates to the clubbing of clearances of five units. Shri M. Chandra Sekharan, ld.Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants raised preliminary objection that appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as issue with reference to clubbing of clearances cannot be heard in isolation without hearing the other affected parties. He said that at the first instance, show cause notices were not issued on other four units but notices were issued on partners of the respective units/firms. Since the charge was against the firms/units, without issuing the show cause notices to the firms, that notice issued to the partners was non-est in law, relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in a case of Hindustan Foam Indtistries reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 33. Further, on being dropped the proceeding by the Commissioner, the Board has reviewed the order and the Department has chosen to file only one appeal against the appellants M/s. Sompura Ceramics. Subse...
Shivansi Ferrous (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT413TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Shivansi Ferrous (P) Ltd., the matter relates to the abatement in the payment of central excise duty when the unit was closed during the period 7-6-1998 to 2-7-1998. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur-I, had disallowed the abatement claim on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 96-ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The grounds for the rejection of the abatement claim had been given as under - (i) The reading of the electricity meter had not been given when the production was stopped in the factory. (ii) The meter reading and stock position at the time of restart of production had not been given. (iii) The declaration as prescribed at the time of sending intimation that their factory had remained closed for a continuous period from the date ... to the subsequent date ... had not been given.2. Shri Amit Awasthi, advocate, appearing for the appellants, submitted that in their case the electric meter was within an enclosure...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »