Delhi Court February 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.
Works Manager, Irrigation Deptt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT137TriDel
1. Shri Subodh Markandey, Sr. Counsel with Shri Arbind Verma, ld.Counsel appears for the applicant and prays for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. Ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the applicant manufactures goods covered by Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. He submits that the applicant is a factory maintained by the State Govt. He submits that their case is, therefore, covered by Sub-clause (ii) of Clause A of Notification No. 1/93 read with Explanation VIII to this Notification. Ld. Sr. Counsel therefore, submits that no duty was payable by the applicant. He, therefore, prays that pre-deposit of duty and penalty may be waived.2. Opposing the request for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty Shri Mewa Singh, ld. DR submits that this point was not taken by the applicant before the authorities below. He submits that the applicant has been from time to time assuring for production of SSI Certificate and that this was the first time that they hav...
Viswanath Khanna Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC280
1. Shri L.P. Dhir, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant may be given relief in pre-deposit of penalty. He submits that the appellant is facing financial hardship and so he is not in a position to deposit the amount so ordered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. He submits that in case the appellant's application for modification of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is not acceded to, then the applicant's substantive right of Appeal, shall be lost.2. He submits that this Tribunal had directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs. Against this, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which after hearing the appellant reduced the amount to Rs. 15 lakhs. He submits that against this the appellant filed an Appeal before the Apex Court which did not like to interfere with the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. He submits that the amount thus to be deposited is Rs. 15 lakhs, but he is not in a position to de...
Modi Xerox Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC688
1. In the instant case, the Appeal has arisen because of rejection of refund claim on account of unjust enrichment. The refund claim arose because the appellants reduced the price of Photo Copier and filed the revised price list (reducing the price). The price was reduced by the appellant. Pending approval of the price list, appellant was paying duty under protest at the quantum as was applicable to the higher price before reduction. When the price list was finally approved, the appellants filed a refund claim for the period from the date of filing the price list to the date of approval. The authorities below have held that sanction of this refund claim shall amount to unjust enrichment and therefore rejected the refund claim.2. Arguing for the applicant, Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, Ld. Counsel submits that similar cases in the past have been referred back to the concerned authorities, as the issue can be examined only in the light of documents available with the assessee which need detaile...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC272
1. These appeals have come before a larger Bench on a reference made by a single Member of this Tribunal. Issue referred is clear from the order of reference. It reads :- "The issue involved in all the cases is common and that is whether the original copy of the invoice issued under Rule 52A could be called to be an enabling document for taking Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57G." "A number of judgments was cited before me. Two judgments given by the same Bench directly deal with this issue but give seemingly different ratio. In the case of Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 164 (Tribunal), it was held that even prior to the amended Rule 57G by way of Notification No. 23/94-C.E. (N.T.), credit could be taken on the basis of original copy of the invoice. The ratio of the same Bench in the case of Nestle India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 443 (Tribunal) is that no credit...
Prithvi Pal Singh @ Munna Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)181; 84(2000)DLT464; 2000(53)DRJ201; 2000(71)ECC402
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.10.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 42/94 convicting the appellant under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 15.7.1993 at about 7.05 p.m. a police party led by the ACP J.S. Rana (P.W. 11), upon information received, apprehended the appellant near the Imperial Cinema, Pahar Ganj. The appellant was given the option (Ex. PW-4/B) of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He declined the offer. At that time, the appellant was holding a rexene bag, which was delivered to him by the coaccused Devki Nandan. On search, the said bag was found to contain 100 grams of heroin, which ...
Jitender Kumar Vs. Director of Education and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)444; 118(2005)DLT119
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. It is the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as Driver in the respondent school w.e.f. 16.1.1998 on regular basis. His allegation in the present petition is that on 14.5.1999 he was given a letter dated 19.4.1999 stating that the same is his promotion letter. After he received the same, he came to know that it was his termination w.e.f. 15.5.1999. He was not allowed to resume duties w.e.f. 15.5.1999. He sent representation dated 18.5.1999. As no heed was paid by the respondent petitioner filed the instant petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of appointment, petitioner was told that his services will be regularised after 3 months and the nature of job was permanent. It is further submitted that petitioner was not being given benefits and allowances which he is entitled to as per Rule 125 of the Delhi Education Rules and respondents were violating provisions of Sec.15 of the Delhi School Education Act as contract of ser...
M.G.F. (India) Ltd. Vs. Dula Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)606
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a petition on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking for a direction to the respondents for filing the original Arbitration Agreement in the Court and also for the reference of disputes to the named arbitrator. 2. It is stated that the Guarantor Shri Shanti Lal, i.e. respondent No. 2 herein has been deleted from the array of respondents by filing an amended memo of parties on 1st August, 1997. Accordingly, the application as per the Order dated 31st January, 2000 is not required to be filed now. 3. The matter is proceeded ex-parte against respondent No. 1 as per Order dated 15th October, 1998. 4. The arbitration agreement, contained in the Lease Agreement dated 11.2.1988 between the parties reads as follows : '38-A-All disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of this agreement shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act 1940 or any statutory amendments thereof and ...
Dinesh Singh Vs. Director of Education and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR743]
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. It is the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as Driver in the respondent school w.e.f. 16.1.1998 on regular basis. His allegation in the present petition is that on 14.5.1999 he was given a letter dated 19.4.1999 stating that the same is his promotion letter. After he received the same, he came to know that it was his termination w.e.f. 15.5.1999. He was not allowed to resume duties w.e.f. 15.5.1999. He sent representation dated 18.5.1999. As no heed was paid by the respondent petitioner filed the instant petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of appointment, petitioner was told that his services will be regularised after 3 months and the nature of job was permanent. It is further submitted that petitioner was not being given benefits and allowances which he is entitled to as per Rule 125 of the Delhi Education Rules and respondents were violating provisions of S. 15 of the Delhi School Education Act as control of servi...
Shanti Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC292
1. Shri Rajesh Chibber, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellants are having a re-rolling mill; that in the re-rolling mill there is an electric motor for operating the mill the RPM of the said electric motor was taken as 240 at the time of computing provisional Annual Production. He submits that a team of officers visited the factory and found that RPM of the motor was 760 and that without affording an opportunity to the appellants, the very next day the final Annual Production Capacity was determined on the basis of taking the RPM at 760. He submits that since the appellants did not have the requisite expertise in regard to determination of the RPM of the motor, they signed the papers but when they consulted the experts on the subject it was stated by the experts that the RPM of the electric motor was only 720. He submits that since no opportunity was given to the appellants before determining the filial Annual Production Capacity, therefore, he prays that ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Standard Sulphonator (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)LC734Tri(Delhi)
1. Revenue has filed the above Application for reference of the following questions of law stated to have arisen out of the Tribunal Final order Nos. A/216-217/99-NB, dated 9-4-1999 :- 1. Provisions of Notification No. 175/86 i.e., during the period in which clearances where effected at nil rate of duty no Modvat credit will be available, can be overridden by the Tribunal. In other words, whether simultaneous availment of Modvat credit and benefit of full exemption is permissible under the law. 2. The assessee can adopt their own procedure without any backing of the statutory rules i.e., Rule 57A read with 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 to reverse the credit, since reversal of credit availed on inputs used in manufacture of final product cleared without duty has no legal sanctity. 1. Provisions of Notification No. 175/86 i.e., during the period in which clearances were effected at nil rate of duty no Modvat credit will be available, can be overridden by the Tribunal. In other words...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »