Delhi Court October 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.
Cc Vs. Anil Srivastava
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC96
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against Impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 11.6.2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he accepted the appeal of the revenue but failed to order the de-novo decision of the case, after holding that the Order-in-Original was not passed by the competent authority.2. None has come present on behalf of the respondent inspite of issuance of notice to him. No request for adjournment has also been received from him. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.3. The Order-in-original was passed by the Superintendent on the strength of the show cause notice dated 13.3.92 against the respondent.In the show cause notice, the respondent was called upon to show cause as to why foreign made goods should not be confiscated and appropriate duty should not be recovered. That order of the Superintendent was challenged by the Revenue on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the show cause notice. The Commi...
Poly Printers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT82TriDel
2. The appellants have got strong prima facie case. They are SSI unit and had not crossed the prescribed limit as even observed in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the stay application of the appellants is allowed.3. With the consent of both the sides, I proceed to hear the appeal on merits also.4. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-appeal dated 10-4-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had modified the Order-in-Original dated 6-12-99 of the A.C.5. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plastic printed laminated flexible sheet/films. Their factory was visited on 6-8-97 by the Central Excise officers and on checking, some stocks of finished goods as well as of raw material was found unaccounted, in their record and the same were seized. It also revealed that they had not filed declaration under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules and even had not taken Ce...
J.M. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT920TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The appellant is engaged in the activity of breaking up of ships and made import of a ships. The ships also contained in addition to fuel and oil required for running the ship's engine, fuel and lubricating and other stores for consumption by the crew.3. Before the ship is broken up, the fuel and stores are removed on payment of appropriate duty of customs including additional duty of customs. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant could take such duty as Modvat credit to be used towards payment of duty on goods and materials obtained by breaking up of ship. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants are not entitled for such credit.4. Heard both sides. The appellant relied upon the Circular dated 23-10-97 issued by the Board/Ministry of Finance and submitted that they are entitled for credit of duty paid on the fuel and stores.5. ...
Hindustan Wires Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC108
1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, dated 15-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), vide which, he had affirmed the, Order-in-Original, dated 23-3-2001 of the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 32,13,641/- of the appellants.2. The appellants filed a refund claim dated 26-12-2000 for Rs. 32, 13,641/- on account of excess payment of duty on the LPG cylinders paid by them at the time of the sale of the LPG cylinders, to the oil companies. They alleged that the refund claim had arisen on account of reduction of the prices of the cylinders by the oil companies, to whom they sold the same. While processing their claim, the Department observed that the claim was time-barred and no proof that the amount of refund was borne by them, had been furnished. They were, therefore, issued a show cause notice for the rejection of the claim as time-barred and as to why the amount should not be credited to the Consumer Welfare...
Jindal Packaging Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT202TriDel
2. The appellants have got strong prima facie case. They are SSI unit and had not crossed the prescribed limit as even observed in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the stay application of the appellants is allowed.3. With the consent of both the sides. I proceed to hear the appeal on merits also.4. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 10-4-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had modified the Order-in-original dated 6-12-99 of the A.C.5. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plastic printed laminated flexible sheet/films. Their factory was visited on 6-8-97 by the central excise officers and on checking, the stocks, some finished goods as well as raw material were found unaccounted, in their record and the same were seized. It also revealed that they had not filed declaration under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules and even had not taken ce...
Maurya Udyog Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC863
1. The above-captioned appeals have been directed against a common order-in-appeal dated 20.12.2001. Appeal No. E/1138/02-A has been filed by the Revenue against that part of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has partly allowed the refund claim of the respondents to the extent of Rs. 39,44,755, while appeal No. E/987/02-A has been filed by the assessee against that portion of the impugned order vide which their refund claim of Rs. 12,87,318 for the period 1.7.99 to 24.11.99 had been held to be time barred.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The assessees are manufacturers of LPG cylinders. They filed a refund claim on 24.11.2000 on account of price reduction by the oil companies to whom the cylinders were supplied by them under the supply orders. The adjudicating authority disallowed the refund claim of Rs. 39,44,755 by following the ratio of the law laid down in MRF Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that once the g...
Cce Vs. Harbans Ram Bhagwan Das Ayurvedic
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC545
1. In this appeal, filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether Tel Rahat Rooh manufactured by the Respondents M/s. Harbans Ram Bhagwan Das Ayurvedic Sansthan (P) Ltd. is classifiable under sub-heading 3003.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Respondents or under sub-heading 3305.10 as claimed by the Revenue.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents. We observe that in the past also whenever the matter was posted for hearing since October, 2001/ no one had appeared on behalf of the Respondents. We also observe that the Respondents have filed Cross Objection under their letter dated 29-9-2001. We, therefore, take the appeal for disposal after perusing the records and hearing Shri R.C. Sankhla, learned D.R.3. Learned D.R. submitted that the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, under Adjudication Order No. 65/99, dated 18-8-99 classified the impugned product under sub-heading 3305.10 of the Central Excise Tariff rely...
Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Cement Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT470
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Petition No. 2730/93under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and I.A.No. 7420/94, the objections filed by the respondent underSections 15, 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940(hereinafter referred to as the Act only) against theAward dated 15.11.1993.2. The facts, leading to the filing of the petition under Section 14 of the Act and the objections against the Award dated 15.11.1993, briefly stated, are that in terms of their Arbitration Agreement the petitioner had appointed Shri Swami Dial, retired Chief Engineer (CPWD) as its Arbitrator and the respondent had appointed one Shri G.V. Rao as its Arbitrator. Shri G.V. Rao refused to act as an Arbitrator and as such vide a letter dated 7.3.1990 the respondent appointed Shri S.S. Dhanota as its Arbitrator in place of Sh. G.V. Rao. Shri K.C.D. Gangwani was appointed an Umpire by the Arbitrators. The Arbitrators issued a notice dated 20.7.1990 to the parties calling upon them to file...
Enforcement Directorate Vs. Ajay Bakliwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1813; 101(2002)DLT92; 2003(66)DRJ87; 2003(85)ECC308
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. A very interesting situation has arisen in this petition which at the threshold can be allowed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Enforcement Directorate and Anr. v. M. Samba Siva Rao and Ors. : 2000CriLJ3170 wherein the contentions question whether summons issued under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short FERA) if not obeyed can be held to be a contravention of the provisions of the Act and whether any contravention of a direction issued under the Act, would squarely come within the ambit of Section 56 of the Act.2. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court arose out of judgment and order dated 9.7.1999 passed by this court in Crl.M(M) Nos. 500, 1299 of 1997, 477 of 1998, 3094 of 1997, 1509 of 1997, 502 of 1997 and 541 of 1998 wherein this court took the view that for contravention of provisions of Section 40 of the Act the Union Government can prosecute the accused for offences under the provisions of Section 174 or any o...
The JaIn Shiksha Samiti (South) Regd. Vs. Director of Education (South ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)SLJ191(Delhi)
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28th September, 2001 in C.W. 5983/2001.2. The second respondent was working as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in the appellant's school. On 9th August, 1984 she was placed under suspension. On 16th November, 1984, the second respondent was charge-sheeted. An opportunity was given to the second respondent to furnish her reply to the charges. On 17th December, 1984, the appellant issued a notice to the second respondent as no reply had been received from her. The notice also called upon the second respondent to show cause why her services be not terminated. Even she did not respond to the aforesaid show cause notice. In the circumstances, the Managing Committee of the school in its meeting held on 26th December, 1984 decided to terminate the services of the second respondent. Consequent upon the decision of the Managing Committee, the services of the second respondent were terminated by the...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »