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.
Commissioner of Customs, Acu, New Vs. Nokia India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC356
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, dated 8-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (appeals) vide which he had reversed the order-in-original, dated 30-6-2000 of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and dropped the demand of Rs. 10,29,639/- against the respondents.2. The respondents were served with show cause notice for recovery of short levied duty of Rs. 10,26,639/- on account of mis-classification of the goods, imported by them. They classified the goods (automatic data processing machine), under sub-heading 8471.90 while the customs authorities asserted the classification under sub-heading 8525.10 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand, while the Commissioner (appeals) had set aside the same through the impugned order on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner did not decide the classification dispute and proceeded on the assumption that the goods were classifiable under sub-heading 8525.10 of...
G.K. Auto Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC233
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the order in appeal No. 641-42 (KDT) CE/JPR-I(348-49)2001 dt. 24.8.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Even though the Commissioner (Appeals) has made an observation that the appellant was not contesting the basic issue, namely, the amount received towards designing/development are not to be included in the assessable value, the learned Counsel submits that such observation is not correct.Referring to the memorandum of appeal, the Counsel points out that this basic issue was also under challenge before the Commissioner (Appeals).We also find that this aspect has specifically referred by the appellant in its memorandum of appeal before this Tribunal also.2. The appellant has received an amount of Rs. 10,00,000 during the period from January 1996 to January 1997 from M/s. Clutch Auto Ltd. in relation to developing and designing of finished goods supplied to M/s.Clutch Auto Ltd., namely pressure plates. A debit note ...
R.P. Monga Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: (2004)269ITR1(Delhi)
1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer for the block period ending August 9, 1995. A search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was carried out at the residential and business premises of the assessee which was concluded on August 9, 1995, and some incriminating documents and valuables were seized. After examining this material the Assessing Officer started assessment proceedings under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed return of income declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 30,50,000. The Assessing Officer, however, completed the assessment on an undisclosed income of Rs. 64,96,000. The assessee has come up before us by taking various grounds of appeal which are being discussed and decided as under : First ground of appeal taken by the assessee is against the addition of undiselbsed cash found at the time of the search amounting to Rs. 5,69,000. During the course of search carried out at the res...
Rajinder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)917; 96(2002)DLT432; 2003(1)SLJ1(Delhi); 2002(5)SLR399
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Rule.2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition was taken up for final disposal.3. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner for declaration of the order of termination of petitioner from service without issuing show cause as void abinitio, reinstatement of the petitioner with consequential benefits and direction of payment of pro-rate pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Since the order is of 24.11.1988 after a lapse of 10 years relief in respect of year 1998 after a lapse of 10 years relief in respect of reinstatement and challenge to show cause notice is not pressed. Learned counsel however, contends that insofar as the grant of pensionary benefits is concerned, the petitioner cannot be non-suited on the grounds of delay and cannot be deprived of these pensionary benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of Hazara Singh v. Chief of Air Staff (Delhi) 1982 (1) SLR 521 to contend that if the...
R.P. Sethi Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT482TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- Officers of Customs (Air Cargo Preventive Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi) intercepted a Ma-ruti Car (Regn. No. DL-4CG 1513) on 23-10-97 outside the exit gate of ACAAI Agents Cargo Terminal and recovered a carton on which there were Air India cargo sticker bearing Airway Bill [AWB] No. 098 6685 3382 showing destination DEL and another sticker of M/s. KRM Freight Express Ltd. bearing House AWB No. KRM 09960 showing origin HKG and destination DEL and there were also markings AI-313, dated 21-10-97.The occupants of the car were Sandeep Bhaskar (on driver's seat) and Vipin Kalra. They failed to produce any proof of lawful acquisition or possession of the recovered goods. They were taken, along with the car and the carton, to New Custom House near IGI Airport and the carton was opened and examined in the presence of Sandeep Bhaskar, Vipin Kalra and independent witnesses. 25 boxes bearing labels which displayed the printed words 'MADE IN JAPAN' ...
Sadhu Forging Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cus., (icd), New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC348
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order-in-original dated 30-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs vide which he had ordered confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 14,35,518/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and allowed redemption of the same on payment of fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- and further imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellants.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported 'Die blocks steel' valued at Rs. 14,35,518/-. They presented bill of entry for the release of the goods on 1-8-2001. The goods had been ordered to be confiscated through the impugned order by the Commissioner of Customs as manufacturer of the goods was not registered with the Bureau of India Standards (BIS) as required by DGFT's notification dated 24-11-2000.3. The learned counsel has contended that the notification dated 24-11-2000, referred in the impugned order; issued by the DGFT, did not apply to the case of the appellants as contract for...
Rajesh Bhaskar Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT669TriDel
1. On the basis of intelligence, a packet which arrived from Singapore by Malaysian Airlines at IGI Airport, New Delhi in the name of M/s.Umesh Book Service (consignee) on 26-10-97 under AWB Bill No.232-8075-8705 and House AWB No. ACT-9015 was examined by officers of Customs in the presence of independent witnesses and representatives of the Airport Authority of India. The goods were described as "books/printed matter" in the Airway Bill. The packet was opened in the presence of the witnesses and was found to contain three cardboard cartons which, in turn, contained electronic goods such as 'Sanyo' cordless telephone, 'Casio' printing calculator, 'Sony' video CD/LD/player with remote control, 'Panasonic' video cassette recorder with remote control etc., totally valued at Rs. 14,28,800/-. The address of M/s. Umesh Book Service was found, on verification, to be fictitious. The consignment was not accompanied by any documents establishing lawful importation of the goods. Officers, theref...
Bharti Telecom Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC588Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals are at the instance of M/s. Bharti Telecom Ltd., Mr.Rakesh Bharti Mittal and M/s. Siemens Telecom Ltd. Respectively challenging order-in-original No. 80-82/CE/2000, dated 30-11-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. Under this order the Commissioner confirmed a demand of duty to the extent of Rs. 2,64,15,935/- against M/s. Bharti Telecom Ltd. (BTL) and imposed a penalty amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- on M/s. Siemens Telecom Ltd. (STL) and Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on Shri Rakesh Bharti, Managing Director of M/s.BTL.2. M/s. BTL is manufacturing, inter alia, telephones falling under Heading 8715.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. M/s. Siemens Ltd, (SL) a subsidiary of Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Germany (SAG) is engaged in selling a wide range of telecommunication products. M/s. BTL and SL established a Joint Venture Company, M/s. Siemens Telecom Ltd, by a shareholder agreement dated 27-3-95 to manufacture, market, distribute and service consumer telec...
Budhewal Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Chandigarh-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC343
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 11-5-2001 of the Commissioner (appeals) vide which he had affirmed the order-in-original, dated 27-7-99 of the Additional Commissioner confirming the duty demand of Rs. 1,74,332/- with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act and also directing the payment of interest at the rate of 20% in terms of Section 11AB.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar. On the scrutiny of the record of the appellants, internal audit party found that during the period 4/96 to 6/98, they had not paid the excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,09,109/- on the sale of M.S. scrap generated in their workshop. They were issued show cause notice accordingly. In reply to the show cause notice, they averred that workshop was being used by them for the maintenance and for repair of plant and that no scrap was generated there. The Additional Commissioner who adjudicated the show cause notice, did no...
Dipika S. Kumar and ors. Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)669
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. On 13.2.2001 an opportunity was granted to file counter affidavit subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. No counter was filed. On 13.8.2001 right to file the counter was closed. Rule has already been issued in the matter on 6.7.2000. It is thus a case of no return.2. Petitioners were staff Nurses who were recruited in Govt. Hospitals during the time when staff Nurses resorted to an indefinite strike in May, 1998. Advertisement was issued in the times of India on 7.5.98 for qualified nurses required on short term contract immediately for Delhi Govt. Hospitals on Govt. approved wages. Requirement was for the nurses below 65 years of age and having approved Certificate/Diploma for Nursing from an approved institution and were required to attendwalk-in-interview immediately on 8.5.98.3. The office of the Joint Secretary (Health) issued a letter dated 20.8.98 for payment of salary to the Staff Nurses appointed on contract basis during the strike period on consoli...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »