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.
Single Furnace (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT244TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of non-alloy ingots of iron and steel. They were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, at the material time. Under the said scheme, if their furnace remained closed continuously for a period of not less than 7 days, they were entitled to abatement of proportionate duty under the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO. The appellants claimed such abatement for the periods 2-12-97 to 9-12-97 and 10-3-98 to 18-3-98.The claims have been rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that the claimants had not submitted the necessary declaration under Clause (e) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO. Hence the present appeal.2. I have examined the records and heard both sides. This appeal is arising in a second round of litigation. In the earlier round, the decision taken by the Commissioner on the above abatement claims was set aside by this Tribunal on the groun...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. A.G. Foods Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT223TriDel
1. Through the present application, the Revenue has sought restoration of Appeal No. E/962/2001-D which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide final Order No. 156/2001-D, dated 12-7- 2001.2. It has not been disputed before us that the above said appeal sought to be restored, was not dismissed in default for want of prosecution by the Revenue, but was dismissed on merit. Therefore, no application for restoration of the said appeal is legally maintainable. That being so, the present application of the Revenue is not maintainable and is orderd to be dismissed. However, the revenue may, if so advised, move an ROM application....
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC668
1. This appeal is placed before the Larger Bench by a reference under Order No. C-I/2077-79/WZB/2001, dated 1.8.2001 by the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal.2. The reference was necessitated in view of conflicting decisions of two High Courts, namely Super Cassettes Industries v. Union of India 1997 (94) ELT 302 of Allahabad High Court and Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Cochin v. Premier Tyres Ltd. 2001 (130) ELT 417 of Kerala High Court. Since the decision of the Kerala High Court was rendered following a decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. 1999 (65) ECC 354 (SC) : 1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC), it was felt that the matter need not go before 7 Member Bench in spite of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Khanbhai Esoofbhai v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta 1999 (107) ELT 557 (Tri.-LB).3. The issue that arises for consideration is whether credit availed and utilised under the Modvat Scheme during t...
Singla Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT174TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.1191-CE/CHD/2K, dated 19-6-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The issue relates to imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. The appellant has requested to decide the case on merits. The learned SDR, Shri A.S. Bedi, appearing on behalf of the Revenue has fairly conceded that the items in question i.e. runners and risers which are scrap generated during the course of manufacture of steel ingots are fully exempted pursuant to Notification No. 49/97. However, as regards the duty on ingots, the same were not exempted and the appellant has paid the duty amount on ingots when the same was pointed out to them by the Anti-evasion Branch of the Department, otherwise it would have gone unnoticed. The present penalty amount was initially Rs. 1,05,000/- but keeping in view the fact that since there was no duty demand on runners and risers, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty amount to Rs....
A.K. Garg and anr. Vs. Kailash Nath and Associates and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)905; 2002(62)DRJ12; [2002]256ITR662(Delhi)
D.K. Jain. J. 1. 1. Petitioner, State Bank of India, by this writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing respondent No. 1's Thomas Cook (India) Limited (for the facility of reference hereinafter referred to as Thomas Cook) and respondent No. 3, M/s. American Express Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as AEB), in respect of money exchange counters to be allotted to them at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Petitioner also seeks a writ of manda- mus, directing Airports Authority of India not to forcibly dis-prosses the petitioner from the counters held by it or from taking any coercive measures, including dis-connection of electricity supply or blocking of access etc. Further, peti- tioner seeks a writ for quashing of the notice inviting tenders, assailing condition No. 4, as arbitrary, discriminatory and un-constitutional. 2. The facts, as relevant for disposal of the writ petition are:- Respondent No. 1, Airports Authority of India, had published a notice inv...
Hindustan Carrier Corporation and anr. Vs. Vijay Prasad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT677; 2002(61)DRJ836
R. C. Jain, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 24.5.2000 thereby dismissing an application under order xxxvII Rule 4 CPC made by the petitioner/defendant seeking for the setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 16.2.2000 passed in favor of the respondent/plaintiff in a suit filed by him under order xxxvII CPC.2. The application was made with the averments that after the service of summons for appearance, the petitioner/defendant had put in appearance and furnished two addresses one being CW 619 Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi-42 and the other being of D-10, Ganga Vihar, Delhi-94 for the purpose of service of summons for judgment, in case such summons were issued by the court. Later the respondent/plaintiff applied for summons for judgment and the same were issued to the petitioner/defendant on his first address of Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. The process server ...
M.S. Brar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)611; 96(2002)DLT483
D.K. Jain, J. 1. Rule 2. Since a short point of law is involved and there is not much controversy on material facts, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.3. The petitioner, an Air Vice Marshal in the Indian Air Force, impugns in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, legality and validity of the communication dated 2 March 2001, whereby he has ben informed by the Air Head Quarters that he he has not been granted extension of service up to the age of 58 years in terms of Government of India, Ministry of defense letter dated 4 September 1998. 4. The retiring age of Air Force officers (Flying Branch) of the rank of Air Vice Marshal used to be 56 years, extendable to 57 years. Pursuant to the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission and general policy of the Government, the retiring age of its employees including armed forces personnel was revised and the retiring age of Air Force offi...
Nathu Ram JaIn Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)728; 96(2002)DLT570
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. By this common judgment, the above six writ petitions are being disposed as the questions arising for consideration are common. The petitioners who claim to be members of the Shivaji Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., are aggrieved by the draw of lot, held on 31.12.2000, by the Society. Petitioners have filed the writ petitions to assail the same. Petitioners seek quashing of the draw of lot dated 31.12.2000 and directions for possession being taken back from those who have been allotted the flats pursuant to the impugned draw of lot. Petitioners claim to be the eligible members who have either been unsuccessful or excluded in the draw of lot held and claim to be entitled to being considered for allotment. 2. The detailed facts as disclosed by the petitioner in CW No. 3497/2001 are taken for the facility of reference. Petitioner claims to have become a member of the society in the year 1971 with seniority at Seriall No. 52. The society is stated to have been ...
D-ionic India (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)480; 2002(1)ARBLR544(Delhi); 96(2002)DLT367; 2002(62)DRJ50; [2003]44SCL67(Delhi)
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. inspire of several opportunities given to respondent No. 1 for filing the copy of the agreement, respondent No. 1 has failed to file the same.2. This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of the disputes between the parties to the Arbitrator. Clause 13 of the Agreement between the parties provided as under:'Any dispute, disagreement or question arising out of or in consequence of this Agreement or relating to its construction or performance which cannot be settled amiable shall, from the date either party informs the other in writing that such dispute or disagreement exists and requests in such notice to refer the matter to arbitration, shall be submitted to arbitration for final settlement.3. As is apparent from the aforesaid Clause the Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of India was required to nominate a serving officer to act as an sole Arbitrator within 30 days of the service of notice by either of the party in t...
Tek Chand Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)313; 96(2002)DLT406
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of notification bearing NO. F(II) (17)/91-L&B;/6518 dated 18.4.1995, under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act as well as the declaration under Section 6 dated 26.4.1996 and Award No. 1998-99 dated 24.4.1998, in respect of the petitioner's lands situated in Khasra Nos. 42/3 min (1-02), 42/8 min (3-10), Khasra No. 42/13 min (3-10) admeasuring 8 Bighas & 14 Biswas, situate at village Sahibabad, Dalautpur, Delhi. 2. The petitioner was the owner/Bhoomidar of the lands in question. Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus and prohibition, directing the respondents not to interfere with his possession and occupation of the property. 3. Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that the acquisition of other lands in Sahibabad Daulatpur by the aforesaid notifications, have been challenged in CWP No. 3938 of 1996, Prahalad Vihar Residents Association v. Union of India and Ors., CW...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »