Delhi Court September 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.
G and P Engineering Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT197TriDel
1. In this appeal the issue involved is whether the Drilling Rigs mounted on motor vehicle chassis are classifiable under Heading 87.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as decided by the Collector under the impugned order or under Heading 84.30 as claimed by the Appellants.2. Shri J.M. Sharma, learned Consultant, submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by two decisions of the Appellate Tribunal; that in the case of LMP Precision Engg. Co.Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda, 1994 (70) E.L.T. 580, it was held by the Tribunal that water well drilling rigs mounted on motor vehicle chassis is classifiable under Heading 84.30 and not under Heading 87.05; that the said decision was followed in the case of Sparr Equipments (P) Ltd. v.CCE, Bangalore, 1994 (73) E.LT. 53 (Tribunal). He also submitted that the drilling rig is required for digging the earth and for that purpose it has to be moved from place to place and as such the basic function of drilling rig...
Mark Auto Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC113
1. Assessee is the appellant. Along with appeal it has also filed petition seeking stay of recovery of the amounts covered by the orders passed by authorities below. In other words, appellant prayed for waiver of pre-deposit as contemplated by Section 35F of the Act for entertaining the appeal. On hearing the petitioner, we felt that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. So we heard Learned Counsel representing the appellant and the Learned Departmental Representative at length. We are disposing of the appeal. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under Chapter Heading 8708 and 9401 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Certain components/inputs were received free of cost by the appellant from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. While determining the value of goods manufactured utilsing the inputs received from Maruti Udyog enhanced value was not included, in the sense that duty element, sales tax, freight charges were not taken into consideration. Henc...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. National Steel Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT376TriDel
1. This reference application is filed by the Revenue to refer the following question on the ground that point of law arises with reference to the final Order No. A/87-88/99-NB dated 05.02.1999 [2000 (126) E.L.T. 709 (Tri.)]. (i) Whether the date of accrual of Modvat Credit under Rule 57A would be the date of entry of stock/quantity in RG 23A Pt. I account or else the date of taking of duty credit in RG 23A Pt. II account. (ii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in allowing the Mod-vat Credit on the strength of invoices issued and received much before six months of taking Credit of duty in RG-23A Pt. II, when it has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Tribunal that even prior to the amendment of Rule 57G on 29.06.1995, the reasonable time-limit for taking of Credit of duty would be six months from the date of receipt of inputs. (iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the amendment to Rule 57G vide Notification No. 28/95-C.E. (N.T.) dated 29.06.1995 canno...
Collr. of Cus. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT139TriDel
1. The respondents, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) imported consignments of petroleum (crude oil) through Visakhapatnam Port and filed into-bond Bills of Entry. Subsequently, they filed ex-bond Bills of Entry for clearance of the bonded consignments. The into-bond Bills of Entry were assessed provisionally under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 and clearance was allowed on ex-bond Bills of Entry, pending test and receipt of Ullage Survey Report (in short, "US Report") and other documents. HPCL, later on, furnished US Reports and also the Cargo Intake Certificates (in short, "CI Certificates") duly attested by Central Excise authorities, and requested for finalisation of assessments on the basis of the quantities of crude oil received into the bonded tanks as per the CI Certificates furnished. The Customs authorities found that, in respect of each consignment, the quantity of crude oil discharged as per the vessel's US Report was in excess of the quantity specif...
Amrit Steels Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT674TriDel
1. The assessees/applicants seek reference of the following questions of law purported to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order No.A/803/97-NB (SM), dated 15-9-2000 : 1. Whether the orders of CEGAT in the instant case would be a valid decision when there are contrary decisions on similar issue by CEGAT, especially when one of the same was followed by the appellate authority. 2. Whether the decision of CEGAT deciding that the lubricating oil is not used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, is legally correct without discussing the use of the said item or its importance in the manufacture of respective final product? 2. The brief facts leading up to the filing of the application are that the assessees availed Modvat credit during the period April to October, 1995 on lubricating oil used for the purpose of lubrication of various machinery items and parts including generating sets. Credit was disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that it is not an in...
Maj. Gen Rajinder Singh Chowdhary Vs. S. Manjit Singh Chowdhary and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1157; AIR2001Delhi15; 88(2000)DLT173; 2000(55)DRJ518
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This matter was placed before the Full Bench on the basis of a reference made by one of us (S.K. Mahajan, J). Reference was felt necessary as the Hon'ble Judge was of the prima facie view that the Division Bench decision of this Court in Raghbir Singh Vs . Budh Singh : AIR1978Delhi86 may not be good law in view of decision of the Apex Court in Gopala Menon v. Sivaraman Nair and Ors 1981 SCC 586. 2. Factual matrix giving rise to the reference is as follows: Plaintiffs had filed the suit for partition of property No.2-C/23, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi on the allegation that the property was owned by S. Mohan Singh, who expired on 27.5.1989 and during his life time he had left a will dated 22.7.88 by which he bequeathed all his moveable as well as immoveable including the property in question in favor of his wife Smt Ved Kaur. Said Smt Ved Kaur died intestate leaving plaintiff and defendants as the legal heirs. That being the position, it was pleaded that each o...
Bhishma NaraIn Singh Vs. Estate Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1238; AIR2001Delhi36; 88(2000)DLT456; 2000(56)DRJ695
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner had filed this writ petition, seeking quashing of the judgment/order dated 7.8.1998, passed by the Additional District Judge in P.P.A. No. 2/98, by which the appeal of the petitioner against the eviction order dated 19.12.1997 was dismissed. 2. The petitioner happens to be the former Governor of States of Assam, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh. Petitioner claims that on account of the duties discharged by him in the aforesaid assignments and public offices, there is a grave threat to his life from several terrorists bodies. The petitioner's case is that on account of security considerations, the petitioner had been allotted the flat No. C-1/1, Pandara Park, New Delhi by the Government. The petitioners was initially placed in 'Z' security category. This was subsequently reduced to 'Y' category. 3. The petitioner in this writ petition as well as in other writ petition bearing No. 1536/96 had challenged the categorisation of his securit...
Rishi Ram Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)143
ORDERN.G. Nandi,J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been praying for direction to the respondents to pay all the retirement benefits including pension, etc. to which the petitioner is entitled under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme vide circular No.ADM-1- 5(41)/93 dated 3.3.1993 and also quashing of circular No.PC/96/307 dated 2.4.1996. 2. The say of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed for the post of Trainee Conductors in respondent corporation and that on completion of the probation period, the petitioner started rendering his services as conductor; that on 3.3.1993, the respondents issued a circular bearing Memo No.ADM-1-5 (41)/93 dated 3.3.1993 relating to Voluntary Retirement Scheme along with a proforma; that as per the said circular, the eligibility for the voluntary retirement was the completion of 10 years service or who have attained the age of 40 years and that such eligible candidates shall get pension...
Dr. Radhey Shayam Aggarwal Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: [2002]254ITR425(Delhi)
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioner has approached this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for setting aside/quashing the order dated August 20,1998, passed by Shri M. K. Gupta, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, in Criminal Complaint No. 5164 of 1989 (Case No. 198 of 1994) titled as ITO v. Radhey Shayam Aggarwal.2. It is incorporated in the petition that the petitioner, Dr. Radhey Shayam Aggarwal, is a medical practitioner having a nursing home at A-22, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi. The petitioner is an income-tax assessed. The brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under :The petitioner received cash loans during the assessment year 1987-88 from Rakesh Aggarwal and Renu Gupta. The details of the cash loans taken during that period are set out as under :SerialNo.Nameof the person from whom loan was acceptedAmountof cash (Rs.)Dateof receipt1.RakeshAggarwal10,00016-10-19862.RenuGupta4,00016-10-19863.RenuGupta...
New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Dr. Ajit Singh Sabharwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi102
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. This is second appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed on 6-11-1982 by Shri Mahender Pal, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appeal of the appellant and thereby confirming judgment and decree passed on 18-9-1980 by Shri P. D. Jarwal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi restraining the appellant from proceeding or attempting to recover house tax over and above the amount already remitted by the respondent. 2. The plaintiff/respondent alleging that property No. 21. Curzon Road, New Delhi was taken on lease hold basis by their father in 1981 filed a suit seeking decree for injunction against the appellant from proceeding to recover the house tax demand for the period from 1-7-1975 to 31-3-1976, inter alias on the following ground :-- 'United Nations Development Programme (hereinafter called) as UNDP was a tenant in the main building and the plaintiffs were residing in the out houses. M/s UNDP was a tenant in the main building and the plaintiffs as...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »