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.
Cce Vs. Kitply Ind. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC185
1. This appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) setting aside the order of the original authority confiscating the seized excisable goods (with option for redemption on payment of fine) and imposing penalty on the party.2. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of plywood and allied products. Officers of Central Excise visited their factory on 22.12.98 and conducted search of the premises, wherein documents were seized under a Panchnama in the presence of witnesses. On 23.12.98, the officers conducted physical stock verification in the factory and found an excess stock of 8175.05 sq.mtrs. of plywood of different brands valued at over Rs. 19 Lakhs and involving central excise duty to the tune of Rs. 3,57,922.53. A statement of Dy. Manager (Production) of the Company was recorded on 23.12.98. The goods found in excess were seized but released to the party on execution of bond. A show-cause notice dated 2.6.99 was issued by the ...
Cce Vs. Good Luck Steel Tubes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC184
1. These are appeals of the Revenue against the common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in two appeals preferred to him by the assessee aggrieved by two different orders of the original authority.By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed deemed Modvat credit totalling to Rs. 5,68,693 to the respondents covering the period December' 97 to June 99. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the Board's Circular No. 331/47/97-CX dated 30.8.97 to hold that the assessee was entitled to take; deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE(NT) on inputs supplied by the manufacturer thereof working under the Compounded Levy Scheme of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, to the extent of 12% of the invoice price of the said goods, which was not inclusive of the sales tax, handling charges and the like.2. In the present appeal, the department has complained to the effect that the Board's Circular ibid was not properly understood by the lower appellate authorit...
G.K. Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT136TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise rejecting a remission application filed by the appellants.In the night of 15/16, October, 1998, there was a theft in the appellants' factory. The appellants gave intimation of the theft to the police by letter dated 16-10-98, which was acted upon by the police and FIR dated 17-10-98 was recorded. The appellants also intimated the theft to their insurer (National Insurance Co. Ltd.) by letter dated 16-10-98 and the latter appointed Surveyors to assess the loss. The theft was also intimated to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, as well as to the Superintendent of Central Excise telegraphically on 17-10-98. They also provided details of the stolen goods to the Superintendent as required by him. Later on, the value of the stolen goods was also furnished to the Superintendent as required by him. Relevant entries were also made by the appellants in their statutory records (RG-1, Form-IV, RG-23 A...
G.S. Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT662TriDel
1. When the Stay Application was called, it was agreed by both the sides that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Therefore, we waive the condition of pre-deposit and proceed with the appeal.2. This appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29-5-2002. On going through the orders passed by the Original Authority and Appellate Authority, we find that the declared value of the goods imported was rejected and assessment was made on the basis of results obtained on the alleged market enquiry. Neither the original order nor the appellate order would give any data regarding the market enquiry. It is the case of the appellant that the authorities have not made available to it details regarding the alleged market enquiry. In these circumstances, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable under the law and as a result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
The Vaish Co-operative Adarsh Bank Ltd. Vs. the Delhi Co-operative Tri ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT485
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Petitioner advanced a loan of Rs. 75,000-00 to the respondent No. 3 on 18.3.1971 against mortgage of Plot No. 28, Block B, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. In the mortgage deed there was a special stipulation regarding the payment of interest and in case of default the additional interest. The relevant clauses are as under:'(i) Interest shall be payable at the rate of 12% per annum on the said sum or such part thereof as may at any time remain due.(iv) The defaulted Installments shall carry additional interest at the rate of 12 an 1/2% per annum.(v) If default is made in the payment of any three of such Installments on the dates fixed with interest then due, the whole money remaining due shall become payable at once and interest payable thereafter shall be at the rate of 12 and 1/2% per annum in addition to the interest mentioned in clause No. 1(i) above.'2. On 19.6.1972 respondent No. 3 applied for second loan of Rs. 25,000/- which too was sanctioned against execution of th...
Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ237; 2003(3)SLJ394(Delhi)
ORDER The Special Officer exercising powers of the Corporation has vide decision No. 4128/GW/Corp. dated 27.9.1994 approved for providing medical facilities to the pensioners of Municipal Corporation of Delhi by the Corporation to the following extent:- i) All the medicines etc. including diagnostics facilities as is required for the treatment of the patient (Pensioners and their families) will be provided to them free of charge at the Hospitals/Dispensaries. ii) The pensioners and their families when referred from the dispensaries to the hospitals for specialised treatment will be attended to on priority basis. Such medicines etc. which are considered essential for the treatment, if not available, will be purchased by the hospital authorities and provided to the patients within a reasonable time. iii) In order to identify the pensioners for providing medical facilities, they will be issued Identity Cards by the Department from which one has retired or will be retiring. 2. However,...
K. Bhagyanath Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT588; 2003(66)DRJ531; 2003(1)SLJ183(Delhi)
ORDERMahmood Ali Kham, J. 1. This criminal revision petition is directed against an order of an Additional Sessions Judge dated 22.10.2002 whereby he declined to suspend the order of conviction of the petitioner in an appeal preferred by him against an order of a Metropolitan Magistrate. 2. The petitioner is found guilty and has been convicted by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence under Section 120B, IPC read with Section 120B, IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Sections 511 and 420 read with Section 120B, IPC. He has further been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence under Section 380, IPC read with Section 120B, IPC and he has also been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 468, ...
Ashis Chandra Mohanty Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ316
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 quashing of notices dated 12.9.2001 (Annexure P-8), 10.11.2001 (Annexure P-10) and 27.11.2001 (Annexure P-12). Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents asking him to vacate the accommodation at the International Students House. The relevant facts may be briefly noted:-Petitioner had joined the LL.B course in the year 1996 and completed the same in the year 1999. thereafter, petitioner enrolled himself in LL.M degree course for the academic years 1999-2001. Petitioner was required to submit his dissertation by 30.8.2001. He got the time extended for this and submitted the same on 30.10.2001. Petitioner's grievance is that though he got himself admitted to Ph.D Course on 18.3.2002, he has been asked to vacate. Petitioner, thereforee, wants this to be treated as continuation of higher studies after LL.M and be permitted to...
Ms. Maria Khatoon Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ99
Manmohan Sarin, J.Rule.1. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner is aspirant for admission to the Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery (BUMS) in Tibbia College. Grievance of the petitioner is thatshe had secured 64.3% marks aggregate of 193 marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Petitioner claims she has been denied the admission, while an applicant securing lesser marks e.g. Mr. Aftab Alam with 192 marks had been admitted. Besides, there are 17 persons less marks than petitioner who have been admitted.3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the University. University had denied admission to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to furnish the requisite certificate of Urdu qualification. Petitioner has in fact failed to furnish the marksheet. It may be noted that the last date of application was 20.6.2002. Petitioner claims to have furnished the application form together with certificate of Urdu qualification on 18.6.2...
Sharad Dugar Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT321TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common order-in-appeal dated 9-4-2001 vide which the penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- had been imposed on the appellant No. 1 and of Rs. 25,00,000/- on the Appellant No. 2.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under :- The officers of the DRI received specific information that some antiques were going to be exported by some persons. Resultantly it was gathered that 18 pieces of antiques in 6 packages were being attempted to be exported vide shipping bill No. 416, dated 19-1-93, by falsely declaring as handicraft items of stone. Those six packages on the night of 28/29-1-93 were traced out from one container at 1CD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The packages were unloaded from container and then examined before panches. On the opening of those packages, 18 stone sculptures of deities which were certified to be articles of antiquity, by Shri Dharamvir Sharma, an expert from Archaeological Survey of India, we...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »