Delhi Court January 2002 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.
WIn Medicare Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT690TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture pharmaceutical products and they are also availing the facility of Modvat credit on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. They filed a letter dated 14-1-97 with the Commissioner of Central Excise for permission for destruction of certain quantity of medicines which had become unfit for human consumption after their expiry date. The appellants received a letter dated 26-7-99 from the Asst. Commissioner (Tech) of Central Excise, in which, it was informed to them that the Commissioner was pleased to grant the permission for remission of duty on the goods under the second proviso to Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 subject to the condition that the Modvat credit taken in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the said goods would have to be reversed.The party filed an appeal against this communication from the Asst.Commissioner before the CEGAT. The CEGAT vide its Final Order No.A/2344/2000/NB(SM) dated 21-12...
Balbir Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT742TriDel
1. M/s. Balbir Steels Pvt. Ltd. have filed the present Appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original No. 2/Commissioner/Tech/98, dated 7-11-1989 under which the Commissioner has determined the annual production capacity of the induction furnace for the period from 1-1-97 onwards.2. Shri R. Santhanam, Id. Advocate, submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner without affording any reasonable opportunity of personal hearing; that the personal hearing was fixed on 26-8-98, the notice for which was received by the Appellants only on 25-8-98; that immediately they requested the Commissioner to fix another date due to short notice and also due to their Managing Director having met with a car accident and confined to bed; that another date was fixed on 9-9-98, which was requested by them to be adjourned since the Managing Director was still not well and confirmed to bed; that similarly they requested for adjournment of hearing fixed on 24-9-98 and 5-10-98; that i...
Oswal Agro Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT513TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Oswal Agro Mills is a manufacturer of sugar.Like other sugar manufacturers they are also under obligation to sell a part of the sugar produced by them as 'levy' sugar. During January to April, 1997 the appellants removed sugar from their factory after payment of duty at the higher rate applicable to non-levy sugar arid stored such duty paid stock in a rented godown. Subsequently, upon receipt of release orders from State Governmental authorities for release of levy sugar, the appellants supplied part of the duty paid sugar stored in the godown as levy sugar between June and July, 1997.Since levy sugar was liable to duty at a lower rate and as the appellants had already paid duty at the higher rate applicable to non-levy sugar in respect of the sugar supplied subsequently as levy sugar, they claimed refund of the excess duty paid. Part of the refund claim was allowed and the remaining rejected by the adjudicating, authority on the ground of time bar prescribed fo...
Nestle India Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT422TriDel
1. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran with Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Counsels arguing the case for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 12,23,888.84 (rupees twelve lac twenty three thousand eight hundred eighty eight and paise eighty four) and penalty of equivalent amount submits that the applicant is engaged in the manufacture of Dairy Whitener. There was the dispute about classification of this material.He submits that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court [1991 (51) E.L.T. 310 (P & H)] took the view that product is classifiable under sub-heading 0401.19; that the Apex Court [1998 (97) E.L.T. 402 (S.C.)] has upheld this judgment of the Hon'ble P & H High Court.2. Learned Counsels submit that the applicant with a view to avail the benefit of Notification No. 181/88, dated 13-9-88 has applied for a licence and was granted a licence; that in terms of this Notification the applicant received metal containers duty free; that when the matter was pending decision before the Apex C...
Equipment Conductors and Cables Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT643TriDel
1. In this case the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order dated 6-9-2001 has allowed refund of Rs. 6,80,557/- to the appellants with the condition that this amount may be given credit in their relevant CENVAT records. The operative part of the order is reproduced below : "I, thus find that the appellants, were eligible for refund of Rs. 6,80,557/-. Since on both the occasions the amount of duty was paid by debit entries in RG 23A Part-II, I direct that the refund of Rs. 6,80,557/- should be permitted by giving them the credit in the relevant CENVAT records. It is further clarified that no refund in cash be paid".2. The party is in appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri C.D. Banga, Consultant and Shri R.C. Sankhla, JDR for the respondents. The ld. Consultant for the appellants submits that their factory is closed since February, 2001 and they have surrendered their Central Excise licence. It is contended that no purpose will be served by taki...
Shiraj International Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC562
1. Shri H.S. Mew, learned Counsel produces TR-6 challan showing the deposit of Rs. 82,235 as directed in the Stay Order No. S/17/2002/NB(D) dated 13.12.2001.2. The issue in this case is whether the concessional rate was applicable to the imported goods in terms of Notification No. 34/98 dated 13.6.98 superseded by Notification No. 56/98-Cus dated 1.8.98.Since the issue stood decided by the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Tarsem Singh Multani & Sons v. CC, Amritsar 2001 (134) ELT 53 (T) it was decided to hear their appeal itself.3. The facts in brief are that the appellants imported garlic from Pakistan and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 34/98 dated 13.6.98 superseded by Notification No. 56/98-Cus dated 1.8.98. In terms of this notification the goods were exempt from payment of Special Additional Duty (SAD) only if the same were sold from a place where no tax was chargeable on sale or purchase of the goods. Appellant claimed the benefit and was extended this benefit. However o...
Bheru Ram Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)618; 2002CriLJ3393
Khan, J. 1. Petitioner complains that his daughter Bhagwati @ Lali was missing since 27.10.1999 and he suspected on Babu Afroz (R-6) to have taken her away. Though FIR No. 898/99 was registered under Section 363 but without any result. He now wants the investigation of this FIR to be handed over to CBI. 2. Counter filed on behalf of Respondents details out the steps taken by the police in the matter. It is submitted that accused Afroz was declared a proclaimed offender and a challan was presented against him which was pending. A raid was also conducted on one Zenual of Village Hasan Pur who had confirmed that Babu Afroz and Bhagwati @ Lali were living as husband and wife and working in Virat Nagar (Nepal) near Indo-Nepal Border. Efforts were on to locate the couple and to bring them to book. 3. In view of this, nothing survives in this petition which is dismissed. Respondents are, however, directed to take requisite follow-up action in the matter under law and to intimate the result to...
Naresh Kumari Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3073
Khan, J. 1. Petitioner claims that she was allotted and put in possession of land measuring 27 bighas or so comprising various khasra numbers at Village Kapashere pursuant to some consolidation Officer where after mutation was attested in her name by the Revenue Authority. She also obtained a NOC for transfer of a part of this land by order dated 12.12.1995. But strangely Consolidation Officer recalled his own order dated 1.12.1995 on 18.7.1996 about which she came to know on 24.1.1997. She thereafter challenged it before Financial Commissioner who set aside this order on 25.3.1997. But Revenue authoritiesretaliated by filing a revision petition against her allotment order dated 1.12.1995 which was stayed by the Financial Commissioner. She challenged this in CW. 3292/92 which was pending before this court and in which she obtained a stay order restraining official respondents from dispossessing her on 14.8.1997 which was later extended on 10.9.1997. 2. Petitioner alleges that on 10.9.1...
Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)921; 2002CriLJ2178; 96(2002)DLT330; 2002(62)DRJ103
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Sub-section (1) to Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure runs as under:-154. Information in Cognizable cases - (1) Every Information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to a officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. 2. It is this particular provision which is being pressed into service by the petitioner (Sanjeev Kumar) for registration of a First Information Report pertaining to offences under Section 326, 506 Part II and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 besides Section 4 of the same Act against respondent No. 4. 3....
Sujeet and ors. Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)291; 2002(2)Crimes231; 96(2002)DLT200; I(2002)DMC403
V.S. Aggarwal. J. 1. Sujeet and four others have filed the present petitions invoking the Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 243/2001 with respect to the offences punishable under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Some of the alleged facts giving rise to the present petitions are that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 were married on 6th December, 2000 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. As per the petitioners the marriage did not unfold itself with the happiness. Petitioners gave certain instances in this regard and contended that respondent no.2 had broken the lock of the almirah lying in the rented accommodation at Rohini and taken away all the important papers. Respondent no.2 is alleged to have filed a compliant with the police as a result of which FIR 243/2001 has been registered. As per the petitioners the assertions made therein are false, frivolous and scandalous because all the...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »