Delhi Court January 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Nova Iron and Steel Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC542
1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the Commissioner held that Conveyor Galleries are classifiable under Chapter Heading 7308.90 of the tariff.2. The contention of the Revenue is that these Conveyor Galleries are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8431 of the Central Excise Tariff as these are parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machinery of Heading 8428 of Central Excise Tariff.3. We find that the Commissioner in the impugned Order decided the classification of Conveyor Galleries after getting the report from the Assistant Commissioner. The report of the Assistant Commissioner which contain drawing of the Conveyor Gallery indicated thatGalleries are static structure elements and are not fitted with rollers, etc. Rollers are fitted in a separate stand and not on the gantries. This factual finding is not controverted in the present appeal. In these circumstances, as these Gallaries are no...
Tag this Judgment!Prew Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT583TriDel
Officers of Central Excise visited the appellant's factory on 27-8-97 and found 24193 Mtrs. of copper signalling cables in excess of the recorded balance in the RG-I Register. The officers seized the goods, believing that the same were intended for clandestine removal and hence liable to confiscation under Rule, 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Statements of Directors of the appellant-company were also recorded by the officers under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. On the basis of the investigative results, the department framed a case for confiscating the seized goods and imposing penalty on the party. Accordingly, they issued a show cause notice to the appellants proposing confiscation of the seized goods under Rules, 173Q and 226 and imposition of penalty on the party. The proposals were contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner confiscated the goods under Rule 173Q read with Rule 226 but gave an option to the party to redeem...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. J.K. Textiles
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC331
1. This is a revenue appeal against the Order dated 15.6.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the modvat credit to the respondents as per the particulars given below: Modvat credit of Rs. 1,56,959 was taken by the appellant vide RG 23A Pt. II Entry No. 226 dated 27.6.93 on the strength of an endorsed exbond Bill of Entry. Modvat credit of Rs. 82,350 availed vide RG 23A Pt. II Entry No. 238 dated 6.7.93 on the strength of gate pass No. 659 dated 30.6.93 which was not endorsed in favour of the assessee. The CEGAT vide its Final Order No. A/215/01-NB(SM) dated 2.2.2001 in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Dugar Tetenal (I) Ltd. has settled the issue and has allowed the benefit of modvat credit in respect of endorsed Bill of Entry other than High Sea Sales. Following the ratio of the Tribunal's decision, benefit of modvat credit on the endorsed exbond bill of entry is allowed to the appellant. Regarding (ii) issue, the appellants, in their app...
Tag this Judgment!Parminder Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC337
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby a truck No. HR 47/3239 was confiscated and ordered to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh.2. Brief facts of the case are that the goods of Chinese origin were recovered from truck. As no documentary evidence were produced in support of lawful import, the goods of truck were taken into possession. Show cause notices were issued to various persons for imposition of penalties and for confiscation of goods.3. Contention of the appellant is that no show cause notice was issued to the present appellant in spite of the fact that at the time of confiscation of truck, registration book of the truck showed the ownership of the present appellant. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is that the impugned order be set aside in respect of confiscation of the truck. We find that in the show cause notice it was specifically mentioned that the R.C. book of the vehic...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. P.N. Sapra
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: (2004)82TTJ(Delhi)322
1. The appeal by the Department and the cross-objection by the assessee are against the order of the CIT(A)-III, New Delhi, dt. 6th Feb., 1996, in relation to penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1989-90.2. The solitary ground taken by the Department and the cross-objections of the assessee read as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in reducing the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, by relying on the additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A." "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not quashing the penalty levied by the AO. 2. That the learned CIT(A) should have held that no penalty could be levied in absence of recording of satisfaction of concealment by the AO, before initiating such penalty." 3. The facts concerning the matter, in brief, are thus. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Vij and ors. Vs. Indra Chugh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi243; 97(2002)DLT1
S.K. Agarwal. J.1. Plaintiffs instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from operating any business, making, selling/transferring, offering for sale, advertising and in any other manner dealing with the goods or services using domain name 'www.kabadibazaar .com' or any other combination thereof, as a website on the internet, identical with or descriptively similar to plaintiffs' trade name/domain name 'www.kabadibazaar.com' as is likely to lead to passing off the business of the defendants as those of plaintiffs. On 24th April, 2000, plaintiffs were granted ex parte injunction on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') which is sought to be confirmed and the defendants moved an application, under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for revocation of the interim injunction, pleading that the same was obtained by misrepresentation and false statements. This order will dispose of both these applic...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Rastogi Vs. Renu Kalra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)710; 2002CriLJ2269; 96(2002)DLT659; 2002(62)DRJ203
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the order dated 11th May, 1999 passed by the Court of Sh. S.N. Aggarwal, ASJ, Delhi, directing the trial court to give hearing to the accused/respondent at the sage of notice, in the complaint under Section 138of Negotiable Instruments Act. The question requiring consideration is, whether under the Code, in a summons trial case, the accused is entitled to hearing at the stage of notice2. Facts, in brief are: that S.C. Rastogi, a tax consultant, filed a complaint against Smt. Renu Kalra, proprietor of M/s. Ridhi Enterprise, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, alleging that three cheques issued by her were dishonoured and the amount was not paid despite notice. The trial court after preliminary enquiry on 30.7.1996 summoned the accused. On 18.11.1996 the accused appeared and moved an application for summoning certain Income-tax rec...
Tag this Judgment!H.C. Shali Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)327; 97(2002)DLT369; 2003(1)SLJ205(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction against the respondents to restructure the pensionary benefits of the petitioner from the date of his retirement i.e., 28.2.73 on the same terms and conditions on which the pensionary and other related benefits of the employees of the similar status in the schools run by the appropriate authority who have retired after 31.12.73 and onwards have been structured.2. The controversy in the present petition arises as a result of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short the said Act) having come into force on 31.12.1973. The petitioner retired on 28.2.1973 prior to the said Act coming into force and opted for restricted pension scheme under triple benefit scheme. The relevant sections of the saidSection 2(i): 'existing employee' means an employee of an existing school who is employed in such school immediately before the commencement of this Act, and incl...
Tag this Judgment!Harris Engineers Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)205; 97(2002)DLT237; (2002)IIILLJ510Del; 2003(1)SLJ154b(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1 Rule.2. With consent of learned counsel for parties petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award of Labour Court dated 19.11.1999 in terms whereof the respondent workman was to be reinstated with full backwages and continuity of service.4. The controversy in the present petition arises as to whether respondent No. 2 workman was turned out of his job or he abandoned the job. Admittedly no enquiry has been held against respondent No.2 workman.5. The Labour, Court which was dealing with the controversy in issue observed as under:After hearing arguments of A.R. of the parties, I find that there are two ways by which the services of a workman can be terminated. In the first instance the management has to comply with the provisions contained Under Section 25F of I.D. Act. This provision is not applicable to the present case. In the other case the services of a workman can be dispensed with no account of misconduct. If the workman...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Ganpat Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT133; [2002(95)FLR116]; (2002)IIILLJ19Del; 2002(5)SLR689
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule.2. With consent of learned counsel for parties the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner was employed as a conductor with respondent DTC and while performing his official duty on 7.3.1987 met with an accident resulting in fracture of bones of his right leg. The respondent workman requested for light duty. Disputes arose between the parties about the post which the respondent should occupy. In September 1992 respondent was considered by the Medical Board which declared him permanently medically unfit. The respondent raised the industrial dispute in 1992 and an award was passed on 23rd August, 1996 in which it was held that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment in SLP1575/1991. Ved Prakash Singh v. DTC, in which it was held that the workman is entitled to reinstatement to equivalent light post of class III employee with continuity of service.4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and during the course of heari...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »