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.
Sher Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT826TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order-in-original dated 8-9-2000 vide which the Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on him, through the impugned order.2. The appellant was a driver on Truck No. MP-23 D/7893 on 3-4-1998 when the said truck was intercepted on Jaipur-Delhi National Highway by the DRI Officers. There were two other occupants in the truck. The appellant along with the two occupants was brought to the DRI Office of Nepal Division. The goods loaded in the truck were examined and that examination resulted in the recovery of ball bearings, cosmetics, rechargeable NI-CD (Nickel Cadmium) Pencil batteries etc. of foreign origin. The present appellant admitted his involvement in the smuggling of the goods, in his statement. The other persons also did not contest their liability. The Commissioner through the impugned order directed absolute confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 82,96,900/- and also of the truck of the appellant. The ...
K.C. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs (icd),
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT221TriDel
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 4-1-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the differential amount of additional duty of customs (in short 'CVD') of Rs. 1,51,696/- against them.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported vide B/E No. 111706, dated 17-10-1997 brass scrap by classifying under Tariff Heading 7404.10 of the CETA and claimed benefit of exemption notification for payment of CVD, The assessment of the goods was made provisionally and the appellants were allowed to clear the goods on payment of customs duty of Rs. 2/62,190/- on submitting an end use bond under the Exemption Notification No. 67/97 with bank guarantee of Rs. 37,924/- on 23-10-1997. However, subsequently, it revealed that they were not entitled to the benefit of the said exemption notification and the goods were chargeable to CVD (r) 15%. Thus, there was short levy of Rs. 1,51,696/-. The appe...
Varun Aluminium Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus., Nava Sheva
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC322
1. In these two appeals filed by M/s. Varun Aluminium Industries Ltd. the issue involved is whether Aluminium Scrap imported by them is liable for confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act.2. Shri S.V. Kanetkar, Managing Director of the Appellant-Company, submitted that the appellants have been importing the Used Beverage Cans Aluminium Scrap for the past 7 to 8 years under O.G.L.; that they had imported two consignments from M/s. Crown Metals; that under the two impugned Orders the impugned goods have been confiscated on the ground that they do not fall either in TALDON or TALDORK grade of ISRI and their import is restricted requiring import licence for importing the same which the appellants did not have. He, further, submitted that ISRI Specification have been framed for basically avoiding the dispute between the buyer and the seller and are normal guidelines; that it has been clarified in the preface to ISRI Specification that "parties to a transaction may satisfy particula...
S.R. Kapur and Sons Ltd. and ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC102
1. This is an appeal against order dated 22.11.2001 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi in O.A. No. 102/96--Syndicate Bank v. S.R.Kapur & Sons Ltd. and Ors.2. By the impugned order, the Learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below has sought the appellants to file prescribed fee on the counter-claim, which they are making in the aforesaid O.A. Feeling aggrieved with the order, this appeal has been filed.4. Under Sub-section (9) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, a counter-claim under Sub-section (8) of Section 19 shall have the same effect as the cross suit as to enable the Tribunal to pass a final order on the same Original Application both on the claim and counter-claim. The effect of this provision is that the counter-claim also becomes an application under Section 19 of the said Act. Rule 7 of the Debts Recovery Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1993 provides for quantum of fees to be paid on every application un...
Rajender Pal Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)723
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. The petitioner, who was working as a Sub Inspector in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short 'CRPF'), was dismissed from service on 19.9.1991 by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner authority. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Inspector General, North Sector, CRPF. The same was also dismissed on16.12.1991. The petitioner aggrieved by these two orders has now preferred this writ petition with the prayer that the respondent be directed to reinstate him with full back wages and allowances and continuity of service with seniority and other benefits from the date of dismissal.2. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:-3. The petitioner was appointed as a Head Constable in CRPF on 1.8.1980 and was promoted as a Sub Inspector in 1986. The petitioner was sent on deputation to the Delhi Police w.e.f. 24.1.1989 and was posted at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Del...
Classic Electricals Vs. Polo Plastics Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)68; 96(2002)DLT813; 2002(25)PTC213(Del)
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a suit for the relief of permanent injunction against act of passing off and damages. 2. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of wide range of electrical appliances & electrical accessories and fittings. The plaintiff adopted the trade mark POLO label on 1st day of April, 1991 in relation to electrical appliances, electrical accessories, & sittings and has been continuously using the same since then up to the present time. The business carried on by the plaintiff is a very extensive one and the goods bearing the said trade mark have been practically distribute din major parts of the country. in order to acquire the statutory rights for the said trade mark, the plaintiff filed as many as thre applications as referred in para 5 of the plaint. Trade mark POLO under No. 554949-B in Class-11 in relation to Fans, Refrigerators, Coolers, Airconditionsers, Geysers Toasters, Emersion Rods was registered w.e.f. 22.7.1991. 3. Through t...
Goyal Food Industries Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)134; AIR2002Delhi371; 97(2002)DLT144; 2002(62)DRJ375
Sharda Aggarwal, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants for restraining them from disconnecting electricity supply to their premises A-10, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, Delhi and to further restrain them from raising bills against the plaintiffs claiming LIP (Large Industrial Power), subletting and Shunt Capacitor charges, against connection Nos. 1257865 (Power), 125787 (Light) and 129393 (Power) and 129394 (Light).2. Briefly, the plaintiff's case is that they being the owners of the premises A-10, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi consumed electricity through two power connections and two light connections. There is no dispute regarding the light connections. Power connection No. 1257865 stands in the name of the erstwhile owner Sh. Om Prakash Gupta from whom the plaintiff had purchased the property and the second power connectionNo. 129393 is in the name of the plaintiff. Thesanctioned load with respect to the connection i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. S. Bharti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)476; [2002]254ITR261(Delhi); [2002]123TAXMAN772(Delhi)
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order and the proposed question of law. In view of the following findings, we are of the view, no substantial question arises for determination. 'The Revenue has failed to prove that the assessed had made any undisclosed investment in the properties named above. Thus, concurring with the findings given in the cases referred to by learned counsel, we hold that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making any addition on account of undisclosed investment in any of the five properties. Thus, the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed investment in the house properties are deleted.' 'When the amount of Rs. 21 lakhs was found in the locker in the Bank of Maharashtra and further sum of Rs. 1.89 lakhs was found in Locker No. 362 in the Allahabad Bank, these amounts could be easily said to have come from professional receipts only. No other activities are being done by the assessed. ...
Virender Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)461
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed against the impugned judgment dated 16.10.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) New Delhi in O.A.No.1915/1998 whereby application filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.3. Pursuant to an advertisement issued for appointment in the post of Constable, the petitioner filed an application. It is accepted that the petitioner in his application did not fill up the column 11 wherein he was required to disclose as to CWP.No.5321/2001:whether as on the date of filing of the said application any case was pending in the court of law and, if so, he was required to give details of number of cases, his date of arrest, fine of conviction etc. The respondent proceeded on the basis that no case was pending and the petitioner was selected. However, later on it was found that he had failed to disclose a material fact and as such his appointment was cancelled.4. The petitio...
Tropex Promotion and Tradings Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN192(Delhi)
ORDERThe learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das : [1976]103ITR437(SC) ; Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO : [1993]203ITR456(SC) . On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Mahavir Woollen Mills v. CIT : [2000]245ITR297(Delhi) .2. In our view, the following questions arise for consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts of the case borne on the record, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the legal validity of the action of the assessing officer in initiating reassessment proceedings against the assessed-appellant company for the assessment year 1986-87 under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for its escapement of assessment on its alleged income of Rs. 76,61,408 on the basis of the observations/ statements of the assessing officer in the note recorded by him under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 148 of the Act by way of the reasons for initiating the reassessment proceedings 2. Whether, o...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »