Delhi Court January 2002 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2002 Page 1 of about 316 results (0.021 seconds)Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT139TriDel
1. M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd. have filed a Stay Application No.E/S/1496/2001-NB praying for stay of recovery of the duty demanded for Rs. 28,56,901/- (Rupees twenty eight lac fifty six thousand nine hundred one), in Appeal No. E/1921/2001-NB. The applicant has filed Miscellaneous Application No. E/M/537/2001-NB for modification of the Stay Application stating that in the Stay Application the applicant had prayed for stay of recovery of duty whereas actually the stay application was filed for staying interest under Section 11AA amounting to Rs. 9,71,880/- (Rupees nine lac seventy one thousand eight hundred eighty). Arguing the Miscellaneous Application Shri Sanjay Grover, learned Counsel submits that the mistake has crept in inadvertently and, therefore, the Miscellaneous Application may be allowed.2. We have perused the Misc. Application as well as the request made therein. Miscellaneous Application is allowed and the matter shall now remain confined to stay of interest amounting to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Diamond Tiles Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC622
1. These appeals at the instance of the Revenue are directed against common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal Nos. 373 to 377/95 (129-133-Raj.) 1 CE./Collr. (Appeals), Ahmedabad.2. The issue that has come up for consideration in these appeals is whether the respondents herein who are manufacturers of ceramic glazed tiles falling under subheading 6906.10 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 are entitled to avail Modvat credit on input, namely, ceramic glazed frit which were consumed in broken tiles. Following the two earlier decisions of this Tribunal CCE v. Somany Pilkington (P) Ltd. [1992 (59) E.L.T. 451 (T)] and Orient Ceramic & Industries ltd. v. CCE [1993 (65) E.L.T. 426 (T) the Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the broken ceramic glazed tiles are different from ceramic glazed tiles, it cannot be considered as marketable goods and therefore, not excisable to duty. It was also held that the manufacturers are entitled to the benefit of Modvat c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. J. Mitra and Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC541
2. Revenue filed this Appeal against the portion of the adjudication Order where, the Commissioner of Central Excise held that the provisions of Sections 11AC and Section 11AB of Central Excise Act are applicable only in respect of demand of the period after 28.9.96.3. The contention of the Revenue is that when the Commissioner in the impugned Order held that there is suppression on the part of the assessee during the period in dispute, therefore, the provisions of Sections 11AB and 11AC are applicable to the whole of the period in dispute.4. We find that this issue is now settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE v. Supra Foundry Services (P) Ltd. Hon'ble High Court has held that penalty under Section 11AC and penal interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act is not leviable where the alleged offence and removal of the goods took place before introduction of these Sections i.e. 28.9.96. Hon'ble High Court relied upon the decision of the Apex...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Saharia Wire Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT830TriDel
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby a refund claim filed by the assessee beyond the period of six months from the date of payment of duty was held to be not barred by limitation, 3. It appears from the record that the demand of duty amounting to total amount of Rs. 82,890/- had been confirmed against the assessee by the jurisdictional adjudicating authority in early 1996, that the assessee preferred appeal against the order of adjudication to the Commissioner (Appeals); that during the pendency of such appeal the department recovered the duty amount under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the assessee's appeal was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 25-5-99; that subsequently, the assessee filed the subject refund claim; that the jurisdictional Dy.Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground of time-bar and that the assessee's appeal against the order of the Dy. Commissioner was allowed by the Commissione...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Durga Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT733TriDel
1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 18-4-2001 vide which the Commissioner as adjudicating authority has disallowed their abatement claim for the disputed periods.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots/billets. They filed abatement claims under sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Act read with Rule 96ZO(2) of the Rules for the periods (i) 31-3-1998 to 23-4-1998; (ii) 16-10-1998 to 26-10-1998; (in) 23-11-1998 to 30-12-1998; and (iv) 4-1-1999 to 17-2-1999. Their claim for 31-3-1998 to 23-4-1998 had been allowed by the Commissioner, while for other three periods the same was disallowed solely on the ground that they did not sent any intimation regarding the closure of their unit to the jurisdictional Superintendent as required under Rule 96ZO(2)(a and c) of the Rules. They, however, sent the intimation to the Asstt. Commissioner as required under the said Rules.3. The learned Counsel has contented that th...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Corp Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)81; 96(2002)DLT679; 2002(62)DRJ542
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner, Modi Corp Ltd. by this writ petition seeks a direction to the Union of India to permit the petitioner along with 3 consortium members to participate in the dis- investment process fo respondent No. 2, Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as VSNL). Petitioner also seeks that it be govern 15 days time for conducting its due diligence on respondent No. 2 for the purpose. An interim application C.M. No. 335/2002 seeking the same prayer as in the writ petition is made. 2. Notice to show cause was issued in the case on January 10, 2002, returnable on January 28, 2002. Learned counsel at the time of issuance of notice also made submissions that the petitioner be permitted to carry out due diligence of VSNL respondent No. 2, so as not to delay the processing of the financial bid, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner should be permitted to participate. It was observed that the Court would consider further directions being...
Tag this Judgment!Rattan Bala Vs. Prahlad Swarup Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)88; 97(2002)DLT168; I(2002)DMC652
R.C. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 19.9.1996 by which an application moved by the petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking interim maintenance and litigation expenses, has been disposed of allowing litigation expenses of Rs. 2500/- but refusing the grant of maintenance pendente lite. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioner-wife herein is facing a petition of divorce filed by the husband. She made an application under Section 24 of the Act with the averments that the respondent-husband has income from various sources viz interest income of Rs. 1,000/- per month on the money lent by him; further income of Rs. 200/- as interest on bank deposits, rental income of Rs. 50/- per month. He has also received a sum of Rs. 24,952/- from LIC; Rs. 5883/35p plus Rs. 2186/15p from Nagrik...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Sondhi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT99; 2002(63)DRJ482; 2003(1)SLJ19(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner has laid a challenge to the withdrawal, on 18.7.2001, by the Union of India of his nomination as the Chairman of the Indian Council for Social Science Research (for short ICSSR). Although no reasons were given in this impugned order some were spelt out in the Government Press Note of the same date. It has been stated that the Government had received numerous complaints regarding the functioning of the ICSSR from Members of its Council. These complaints included non submission of accounts and budget, the undertaking of a number of new projects without the approval of the Council, upgradiation of pay scales of the staff of the Council, non observation of quorum and rules, injudicious spending of funds provided by the Government resulting in a resource crunch etc. Predicated on these complaints the Government found that there had been a failure of the administrative machinery in the ICSSR. The Petitioner, having allegedly failed to abi...
Tag this Judgment!Aviat Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Magna Laboratories (Gujarat) Pr ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT841; 2002(24)PTC231(Del)
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Plaintiffs are two companies, Aviat Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and NBZ Pharma Ltd. By virtue of the present suit they seek a permanent injunction to restrain infringement of the registered trade mark i.e. MULTIVITAMIN INFUSION (for shirt MVI), passing off, and rendition of accounts against the defendant No. 1 Magna Laboratories (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. 2. Some of the relevant facts are that plaintiff No.1 contends that it is carrying on business as manufacturers and dealers of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. Plaintiff No. 2 is also a company incorporated under the Companies Act carrying on business of manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical medicinal preparations. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that defendants are infringing the registered trade mark MVI and passing off with respect to the trade mark referred to above in relation to their medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation. Plaintiff No. 1 is pleaded as proprietor of the trade mark MVI in respect of medic...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Prasad Jaipuria and anr. Vs. the Wealth Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ516
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has questioned the valuation made by the second respondent herein purported to be in terms of Section 16A(5) of the Wealth Tax Act dated 8.7.1977 and 20.7.1978 raising whereof fair market value of the property of the petitioner.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Hindu Undivided Family owning several properties including one at 52, Janpath, New Delhi. The said property is a leasehold one. They filed wealth tax returns for the assessment years 1971-72, 1977-78 stating that the property is an old one which is fully tenanted. According to the petitioners the monthly rent received by them was Rs. 1201.30. Having regard to the re-entry by the Land & Development Office in relation to the said property in the year 1975, the same is being realized directly from the tenants by them. The Valuation officer in his preliminary valuation estimate, capitalized the net income from rent at 6% and allowed a redemption on capital at 5% and determined the capit...
Tag this Judgment!