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.
Datt Multinationals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT566TriDel
1. The appellant manufactures non-alloy steel ingots/billets which are chargeable to duty on compounded rates under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They applied for abatement from payment of duty for the period from 13-11-97 to 20-11-97 on account of closure of their unit in terms of the provisions of Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They again applied for the abatement of duty on the same grounds for the period from 4-12-97 to 13-12-97. The Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh-I vide his order dated 22-11-2000 however, rejected their request for abatement for both the aforesaid periods.2. This appeal is against the impugned order of the Commissioner. I have heard Shri Gagan Kohli, Advocate for the appellants and Smt. K.A.Mishra, SDR for the respondents. In respect of first period, the Commissioner in his order has observed that the party had not filed 'continuous closure' declaration as provided under Rule 96ZO(2)(e). It is observed that the continuous...
East Line Aviation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT509TriDel
1. Through these stay applications, the appellants have sought waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalty amounts as imposed on them and detailed in the impugned order-in-original by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs each on appellants No. 1 and No. 2 (M/s. East Line Aviation Ltd. and M/s. Sam Aviation (P) Ltd.) and Rs. 10 lakhs on appellants No. 3 (Sh. Jaideep Mirchandani) on account of confiscation of 178 packages of leather jackets, leather goods, semi precious stones from the chartered flight No. DMO-2868 scheduled for departure to Moscow on 9-2-1997, belonging to the appellants. It was admitted by a General Representative of appellants No. 1 that 408 packages were loaded in the aircraft in excess of the declaration. The packages were got unloaded and identified from the 75 passengers who were to board the flight. Those baggages which were identified by the passengers were then loaded in the aircraft and the excess 167 baggages being...
Jitender Singh Bhatia Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)167; 96(2002)DLT384; 2002(62)DRJ179
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the decision dated 21.8.2000, passed by respondent No. 2, Directorate of Estates, in respect of allotment of Stall No. 45, Sector-III, M.B. Road, New Delhi. Respondent No. 2 had invited tenders for licensing the said stall. Petitioner and others had submitted their bid. Thehighest bidder for the said stall was one Mr. Manjit Singh Saluja, who had tendered a sum of Rs. 4500/-. Petitioner had given a bid for Rs. 2952/-. The reserve price was Rs. 1690/-.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the decision of respondent No. 2 of not granting the license to the petitioner, who was the second highest bidder, but going in for re-tendering on the ground that as per the long standing practice of the respondent the second highest bidder was to be given the chance if the highest bidder withdraws. Inthe instant ca...
Enkay Construction Company Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)652; 96(2002)DLT417; 2002(64)DRJ351
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The Delhi Development Authority, respondent No. 1, awarded a contract for construction of 136/188 CSP Houses at Paschim Vihar, Pocket, GH-6, Near Nangloi Sayed Village, to the petitioner, M/s. Enkay Construction Company. A formal contract bearing No. 21/EE/WD-6/89-90/DDA dated 30.9.1989 was executed. The construction of houses could not be completed within the stipulated time frame. The petitioner attributed the delay in completion of construction work to acts of commission/omission on the part of respondent No. 1. On completion of work, the petitioner sought release of outstanding dues. The respondent No. 1, however, failed to pay the same. Thus, disputes and differences arose between the parties. 2. By way of a letter dated 23.1.1995, the petitioner requested the Engineer Member of respondent No. 1 to refer the disputes/differences to arbitration in terms of Arbitration Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract. The Engineer Member, however, according to t...
Joglinder Singh Dhir Vs. Chairman, M.T.N.L. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)671; 96(2002)DLT461; 2002(62)DRJ225
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner No. 1 is Mr. Joginder Singh Dhir and petitioner No. 2 is Mr. Abdul Sattar, Assistant Commissioner of ncome Tax. Present petition was filed by the above petitioner seeking direction to the respondent to withdraw the impugned notice of 19.2.1998 issued in the name of petitioner No. 2. A direction was further sought to the respondents to withdraw the bills of telephone connection No. 2254634 issued by the respondents for the rent for the period after illegaldisconnection. 3. The averment made in the petition was that petitioner No. 1 is the subscriber to telephone No. 2254634, installed in his name at E-167, Pandav Nagar, Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 claimed that he had let out a portion of the house to petitioner No. 2, who was residing in the premises since 8.2.1994. The occasion for the petitioner to move the court was the receiptof the impugned notice dated 19.2.1998 in the name ...
Thyssen Stahlunion Gmbh Vs. the Steel Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)149; AIR2002Delhi255; 2002(1)ARBLR610(Delhi); 96(2002)DLT515
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an International Award. It was made and published on 24th September, 1997. By virtue of the award, the plaintiffs Thyssen Stahlunion GmbH (in short 'ISU') are entitled to the following sums:- 'a) US $ 2,184,079.91 being the damages awarded to the plaintiffs for the first and the second lot. b) US $ 424,813.85 being the interest awarded for the two lots till the date of the award.c) US # 500,000 being legal costs awarded under the award. d) USD 50,000 being costs of the arbitration awarded under the award. e) For the interest at the same rate as in the award from the date of the award till realization.' 2. Defendant - Steel Authority of India Limited (in short SAIL) has assailed the award almost in entirety. 3. Disputes between the parties arose out of two contracts, one of which was admittedly a concluded contract against which supplies were made. It is dated 4.3.1994 which was subsequently amended on 12.5.1994 (hereinafter referred as 'amendment'). Another is...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Sawai Tej Singhji Bahadur of Alwar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT310
Usha Mehra, J.1. Respondent His Highness Sir Sawai Tej Singhji Bahadur Maharaja of Alwar filed suit for recovery of Rs. 9,45,000/- with interest, inter alia, on the ground that when he was the Ruler, he had created Baijilal Marriage fund for the marriages of princeses. The said marriage fund was opened with the deposit of Rs. 45,000/-. Subsequently he ordered for the transfer of Government securities to the value of Rs. 9 lacs to the said Baijilal Marriage Fund. This order was passed in the last week of January, 1948 at that time he was still the Ruler of Alwar. He handed over the order to Dr. N.B. Khare (The then Prime Minister of Alwar) and asked him to transfer a sum of Rs. 9 lacs in the marriage fund in addition to amount of Rs. 45,000/- already lying in the fund. After the State was taken over by the Government of India he asked for the refund of this amount lying in 'Marriage Fund,' Government of India sanctioned the same but the respondent failed rather declined to refund this a...
Cit Vs. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN187(Delhi)
Allowed. The appellant is permitted to carry out amendment to the memorandum of appeal. Amended memorandum of appeal is taken on record.2. The application stands disposed of.IT Appeal No. 109 of 20013. The following question arises for determination :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenses of Rs. 1,44,04,277 claimed by the assessed under the head 'Provision for completed expenses and expenses incurred on completed project' are allowable ?'Admit....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Elofic Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT493TriDel
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order dated 27-7-2001 held as under : "5.2. I find from the report of the Chemical Examiner that the final product namely impregnated filter paper is in the form of corrugated sheet. It is coated/impregnated with synthetic resin. The fibre furnish is composed of chemical pulp. I am inclined to agree with the appellants that for compression it is necessary that there should be more than one sheet of paper or paper board. In other words, after impregnation with synthetic resin, sheets of paper or paper board should be compressed together in one or more operations. 5.3.I observe that the adjudicating authority has ignored that for classification under Chapter Heading 4811.31, the product should be known commercially as decorative laminate. Here the appellants' product is known as impregnated filter paper. I thus find that the order of the Adjudicating Authority is not legal and proper. Hence the same is set aside." 2. The fact of the case in ...
Central Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT219TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 14-3-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision of the case on merit after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.2. The appellants, a Government of India Undertaking, were engaged in the manufacture of electrical /electronics machinery and parts thereof falling under Chapter 85 of the CETA. They were also availing Modvat facility on the duty paid inputs under the relevant rules. They were served with show cause notice for recovery of amount of Rs. 29,34,360/- on the ground of having availed the Modvat credit during the period July, 1997 to November, 1997 which was not admissible to them as inputs (batteries) on which the Modvat credit was claimed, were neither brought into factory nor used in the manufacturing activity. The appellants contested the correctness of that notice on the ground that b...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »