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.
Lee and Muirhead Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT539TriDel
1. M/s. Lee & Muirhead Ltd., are the appellants in this case (hereinafter referred to as 'CHA'. The CHA is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs imposing on them a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Examined the records and heard both sides. M/s. Uptron Colour Picture Tubes Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'importers') had imported a consignment of components of colour picture tubes from Japan under five invoices and had filed Bill of Entry No. 101056, dated 21-1-98 through the CHA for clearance of the goods. The Bill of Entry was assessed to duty of Rs. 21,58,662/- on the basis of the importers' declaration and the same was paid by the importers on 5-2-98 and the goods were cleared. Subsequently, the importers found certain discrepancy in the Bill of Entry, which was found to have crept into the document from one of the five invoices. That was a discrepancy relating to the value of the goods covered by the said invoice. The impor...
SarpIn Pharmacal and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC577
1. Appellants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 5,59,348 and penalities imposed on them.2. In this case the benefit of Small Scale Notification No. 175/86-CE was denied to the applicants on the ground that they were clearing the goods under brand name of M/s. Mercury Laboratories.4. The contention of the applicants is that the brand name was registered in their name and under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and they were duly registered with the competant authority for the manufacture of goods in question. The contention of the Revenue is that M/s.Mercury Laboratories is the owner of the brand name and the appellants were allowed to use their name on payment of royality. In these circumstances, the applicants are not the owner of the brand name under which the goods were cleared. The case of the applicants is argubale which requires details examination of evidence to show that they are the owners of the brand name under which the goods were cleared.Applicants in the...
Nandkishore Babulal Desai and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC345
1. Appellants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 5,59,348 and penalties imposed on them.2. In this case the benefit of Small Scale Notification No. 175/86-CE was denied to the applicants on the ground that they were clearing the goods under brand name of M/s. Mercury Laboratories.4. The contention of the applicants is that the brand name was registered in their name and under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and they were duly registered with the competent authority for the manufacture of goods in question. The contention of the Revenue is that M/s.Mercury Laboratories is the owner of the brand name and the appellants were allowed to use their name on payment of royalty. In these circumstances, the applicants are not the owner of the brand name under which the goods were cleared. The case of the applicants is arguable which requires detailed examination of evidence to show that they are the owners of the brand name under which the goods were cleared.Applicants in the ...
Rajat Wires (P) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT171TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72. They availed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 8,000/-on the item steel structure as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad, vide order dated 31-10-97 denied the Modvat credit to the party and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,500/-. The party filed an appeal but the same is rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, vide her order dated 17-11-99. This is the second stage appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. I have heard Shri N.L. Jangir, Id. Advocate for the appellants and Shri B.C. Mahey, Id. JDR for the respondent. I have considered the submissions before me. It is observed from the record that neither the original authority nor the lower appellate authority in their respective orders have discussed the function or the role of steel structur...
Channy Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT549TriDel
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original of the Commissioner dated 8-2-2001 vide which he had determined their annual capacity of production (in short ACP) for the period 1-9-99 to 31-3-2000 under Rule 3(3) of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel which were chargeable to duty in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, upto 31-3-2000. They opted for payment of duty on the basis of the annual production capacity in terms of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96 ZP of the Rules. After introduction of the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Act, they filed declaration for determination of ACP of their unit, as required under Rule 3(1) of the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. They also filed certificate of Chartered Engineer's certificate regarding correctness of their dec...
Blue Max Sports Wear Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT510TriDel
1. Through this stay application, the appellants have sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 8,82,108/- and penalty of equal amount as confirmed on them through the Order-in-appeal dated 19-7-2001, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of branded cap of "DCM Benettonlll, Adidas brands" etc. They have been clearing the goods without payment of duty during the period in dispute 1993 to 1998 by alleging* the classification under Chapter Heading 6201.00 of CETA which prescribed Nil rate of duty. Whereas their product was classifiable under Chapter Heading 6501.10. They evaded duty of the disputed amount. The Additional Commissioner who adjudicated the show cause notice confirmed duty demand of Rs. 12,67,391/- with equal amount of penalty. But the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the duty amount to Rs. 8,82,108/- and also set aside penalty against the partners of the appellant firm.3. The learned Counsel has contended that the produ...
R. Kumar Spun Tex (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Ahmedabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT538TriDel
1. These are applications by the appellants praying for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts of penalties imposed on them, and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeals. I have examined the records and heard both sides.2. It appears from the record that the Department framed a case of clandestine removal of excisable goods against M/s. R. Kumar Spun Tex (P) Ltd. [Appellant in Appeal No. E/2306/01-NB(S)] and, by show cause notice, proposed to impose penalty on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also penalty on the Company's Director Sh.Rajendra R. Ahuja under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.The Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,43,606/- on the goods in question having been paid by the Company prior to issuance of the show cause notice, the Department, in the show cause notice, proposed to confirm the duty against them. The proposals in the notice were contested. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty against the Company and impose...
H.P. Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)893; 2002(1)ARBLR542(Delhi); 96(2002)DLT339; 2002(62)DRJ133
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an application under Section 11(6) ofthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of the Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes and differences referred in the petition. Respondents have failed to appoint the Arbitrator inspire of request of the petitioner. There is a delay of 9 days in filing the instant application. The petitioner has sought condensation of delay by moving the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act bearing IA.No.10142/2000. When the petitioner contacted their senior counsel in August, 2000, they were informed that he had gone abroad and would be returning in 3rd week of August. Thereafter, the attorney of the petitioners feel ill and was confinedto bed rest for a period of two weeks. The moment the attorney resumed duties the instant petition was filed. 2. In view of the aforesaid Explanationn, theapplication is allowed.3. is stands disposed of.4. The petitioner was awarded the work of construction of 330 LIG Incre...
R.K. Mishra and ors., Vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)663; 96(2002)DLT435; 2002(62)DRJ355
D.K. Jain, 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 peti...
Shanker Sharma Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)910; 96(2002)DLT498; 2002(81)ECC253
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner by this petition under Section439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short'Cr.P.C.') is seeking bail in the case under Sections8(1), 19(1)(b) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973(fort short 'FERA') read with Sub-sections (3) & (4) ofSection 49 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (forshort' FEMA').2. Prosecution allegations in brief are that after noticing abnormal outflow of foreign exchange from the stock market. Enforcement Directorate, Mumai Zonal Office made enquiries from the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short 'SEBI') vide their letter dated 7th March, 2001. On receipt of information, the department took up investigation and sought information from First Global Stock Broking Private Limited (for short 'FGSBPL') of which petitioner is the director. On 3rd October, 2001, reference was received from the Income-tax. Department regarding sale of shares of Himachal Futuristic Communication Ltd. (for short 'HFC...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »