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.
Hbd Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT140TriDel
1. The appellants imported a second hand machine and filed a Bill of Entry bearing No. 248217, dated 31-7-2001 at the ICD, Tughlakabad. The description of the machine as declared in the Bill of Entry was a second hand high speed Bobst Universal Folder Gluer Media 68 carton making machine. The assessable value was declared as Rs. 22,92,195/- on which a customs duty of Rs. 11,64,435.10 was payable. On examination, it was found that the Chartered Engineer certificate indicated the year of manufacture of machine as 1993. But after examination, it was found that no year of manufacture was mentioned on the machine. Further, on the "Reset Electronic Control Unit" - an integral part of machine -the date of its manufacture was mentioned as 21-9-1989 and its transformer bore the date as 15-3-1988. Since Para 5.4 of EXIM Policy 1997-2002 permitted the free import of the second hand capital goods not more than ten years old, the machine was seized on 13-8-2001 and the proceedings were initiated a...
Midland Plastics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT235TriDel
1. The appellants imported recycled plastic granules falling under Tariff Heading 3901.10 of the Customs Tariff. The goods were cleared by paying the customs duty at the appropriate rates under seven Nos. Bills of Entry dated 19-1-98 to 12-3-98 at ICD Tughalakabad, New Delhi. The importers however, filed refund claim of Rs. 10,56,518/- under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the refund claim the party contended that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 4/97, dated 1-4-97 as the plastic material imported by them is falling under Chapter 39 and it is produced out of scrap/waste falling under Chapters 9, 54, 55, 59, 64 or 85. The Assistant Commissioner (Customs) vide his order dated 30-7-98 rejected the refund claim by observing that the Bills of Entry had been finally assessed by the department and the claimant had paid duty accordingly. He observed that where a duty has been collected under a particular order which has become final, the refund of duty cannot be c...
Nath Soot Gola Factory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT491TriDel
1. This is an application, filed by M/s. Nath Soot Gola Factory for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 11,65,974/- and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Shri Vivek Kohli, learned Advocate, submitted that the applicants are engaged in the activity of rewinding polys-ter and cotton yarn from hanks and cones to tubes; that the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise under the Adjudication Order No. 12/99, dated 15-3-99 demanded the duty of Excise and imposed penalty on the ground that Yarn manufactured by them is Sewing Thread; the Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the Adjudication Order, that as per Note 3 to Section XI Sewing Thread means multiple (folded) or cabled yarn - (a) Put up on supports of a weight (including support) not exceeding 1000 gms., (b) Dressed for use as Sewing Thread, and (c) with Final Z twist. He, further, submitted that the Chemical Examiner in his report has only stated that the yarns were having Z t...
A.B. Tools Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT472TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture steel ingots falling under sub-heading 7206.90. They are also availing Modvat credit on Iron and Steel scrap purchased from the market. On 17-12-90 their premises were visited by the Anti Evasion Officers of Central Excise. On conducting the search of their factory premises, they recovered 34 nos. Central Excise Gate Passes for iron and steel scrap endorsed in their favour by the three firms namely M/s. Balwinder Steel Corporation, M/s. Sonu Iron Store and M/s. Dee Kay Steel Corporation, all of Mandi Gobindgarh. On verification, the said G.Ps were found to be fictitious and the firms issuing them were also found to be non-existent. During the visit, the authorised representative of the appellant, Shri Vijay Sachdev in his statement dated 18-12-90 deposed that all the aforesaid three firms were being managed by one Shri Ashish Gupta alias Bittu. The Statements were recorded from Shri Ashish Gupta on 24-1-91, 25-1-91 and 29-1-91.In his statements, Shri Ashi...
Greysham and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT178TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Greysham and Co. the issue involved is whether the charges of inspection of the goods carried out by M/s.RITES on behalf of Indian Railways are to be included in the assessable value of the Railway Equipment manufactured by them.2. Shri J.S. Agrawal, Id. Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured railway parts according to the specifications of the Railway Department, that the goods were being inspected by M/s. RITES and the charges paid by Railway to M/s. RITES were not included in the assessable value as the same was not paid by the appellants; that the Tribunal in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [1999 (107) E.L.T. 48 (T) = 1999 (82) ECR 741 (Tribunal)] has held that inspection charges paid by the Customers, the Indian Railways, for inspection of railway equipment are not includable in their assessable value. He, further mentioned that the Tribunal in the past, also in the case of Shree Pipes Ltd. v. CCE [1992 (59) E.L.T. 462] has...
Nachiketa Strips and Tubes Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT170TriDel
1. On the alleged ground of clandestine removal of the finished excisable goods viz., ERW Pipes & Tubes falling under Chapter subheading 7308.00, the Joint Commissioner (Preventive) of Central Excise Commissionorate Chandigarh-I vide his order dated 12-2-2001 confirmed duty amounting to Rs. 3,09,128.08 on the appellants and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,09,150/- on them under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The party filed an appeal but the same is rejected vide order dated 7-8-2001 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. The present appeal and the stay petition are against the impugned order. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for the appellants submits that the duty amount Rs. 3,09,128.08 is already paid by the appellants which is also mentioned in the Order-in-Original. The present stay petition is against the pre-deposit and the recovery of the penalty amount imposed on them. As regards the financial position o...
Ganpati Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ31CAT
1. Reliefs sought for by Sh. Ganpati Sharma, the applicant are as below: (a) call for the relevant records/file regarding pay fixation of the applicant on his joining the deputation post under the respondent; (c) direct the respondent to fix the pay of the applicant properly as per the option exercised by him and in pursuance of the orders of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, grant him annual increments thereof and pay arrears accrued pursuant to proper fixation of pay, with 18% interest thereon till the final date of payment; (d) direct the respondent to refix the pay of the applicant on his re-employment from 1.9.93 on the basis of last drawn pay, grant him arrears alongwith interest thereon; & (e) pass any other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Heard S/Sh. Jog Singh and R.P. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondents. Also considered the documents brought on record including written submissions filed by Sh....
Bharatiya Janata Party Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)80ITD89(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)XVII. New Delhi and pertains to asst. yr. 1995-96.2. Briefly the facts: The assessee is a political party. It is registered as a National Party with the Election Commission of India. A notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") and a letter bearing No. 363 dt. 30th Nov., 1995 were issued on the assessee. Details required in the said letter were furnished alonxg with the return on 28th Dec., 1995. In the said return assessee reflected a loss of Rs. 59,55,660, as under: 3. Return was processed under Section 143(1)(a). Capital gain was said to be received on the repurchase of Canstar which was matured in August, 1990, During the proceedings under Section 143(1)(a), the claim as to the expenditure, was disallowed on the ground, that the expenditure laid out was not within the meaning of Section 48 of the Act. Resultantly, tax was found to be payable on the long-term capital gains.4. B...
Satya Prakash Bagla Vs. Sprint Services Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(142)ELT524(Del)
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Satya Prakash Bagla (for short the plaintiff) has filed the present suit for declaration that the charge of the plaintiff on the vehicles ranks higher than the claim, if any, of defendants 2 and 3 and that the action of defendants 2 and 3 in sezure/detaining the vehicles on 26th June, 2001 is illegal. He seeks a permanent injunction against the defendantsrestraining them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, his representatives with respect to the vehicles mentioned in the plaint and lastly a mandator injunction directing the defendants to redeem the pledge of the cars by paying the amount. 2. The facts pleaded by the plaintiff are that the plaintiff was approached by defendant No. 1 (M/s Sprint Services Pvt. Ltd.) for a temporary loan in the month of March 2001. It was represented that the money was needed to import new cars in connection with its business for providing car rental services in India. It was further told to the plaintiff that the cars...
Union of India Vs. Peeco Hydraulic Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)53; AIR2002Delhi367; 2002(3)ARBLR678(Delhi); 2002(65)DRJ12
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. The arguments had been addressed and in fact confined to the sole question as to whether there is an arbitration agreement between the parties or not. 2. This question arises as a result of the following facts. 3. In pursuance of the arbitrator having filed the award notices had been issued regarding filing of the award and for making it a rule of the court. On behalf of the Union of India it has been pointed that it does not intend to file any objections and it prayed for the award to be made a rule of the court. Objections had been filed by M/s Peeco Hydraulic Pvt.Ltd. pertaining to the question in controversy. It was pleaded that the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, South Central Railway had submitted an indent to the Director General of Supplies and Disposal for supply of an Oil Hydraulic Spring Testing machine. On the basis of the said indent the Director General of Supplies and Disposal invited tenders for supply forOil Hydraulic Spring Testing machine to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »