Delhi Court October 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Ashok Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT186TriDel
1. In this appeal filed against the order of the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs, the appellant challenges the penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs imposed on him under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.3. The incident which has led to these proceedings occurred on 11-4-98.9 HDPE bags containing goods consigned by various parties were being carried from the appellant's premises to the domestic terminal of the Delhi Airport. The goods were in a vehicle hired by the appellant for his courier service. The appellant had another partner namely Sabir AH in the courier firm. The vehicle was intercepted near the Airport by the officers of Customs. The bags were opened and the contents examined. It was found on examination that foreign origin computer parts, photographic cameras, cellphones & batteries thereof and watch movements were the contents of the bags. All the goods were seized by the officers believing that the goods were liable to confiscation. The vehicle was also seized. Statements of...
Kamal Kishore Agarwal and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC198
1. In these five appeals, arising out of a Common Adjudication Order No. 26/2001, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the issue to be decided is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act is imposable on the appellants.2. Briefly stated the facts are that acting on an information, the Customs Officers, intercepted a Bus on 13.6.97 at Kudy Village, Jodhpur. The Officer got the suspected persons alighted from the bus and brought to Customs House, Jodhpur where search of them resulted in recovery of Indian currency from the possession of every one of them.The total Indian Currency recovered was Rs. 23,00,240. All the eight persons admitted to have brought foreign marked gold biscuits from Ahmedabad and sold to the Appellants and they were carrying the sale proceeds to Ahmedabad. The Commissioner, under the impugned order, had confiscated absolutely the Indian Currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act and imposed penalty, amo...
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC73
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the Order-in-Original dated 31.8.2000 of the Additional Commissioner who ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the appellants and on some other noticecs (who are not appellants in this appeal).2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may briefly be stated as under:-- On 18.2.99, on receipt of information, central excise preventive officers of Ghaziabad intercepted two trucks bearing registration Nos. DL-IG/8-0665 and DL-IG/B-1415 on the Delhi--U.P. Board. Those trucks were found loaded with 15.160 MT. and 15.170 MT. respectively of copper ingots. Both drivers of the trucks handed over bills issued by M/s. Gautam Steel Centre, Ahmedabad and also consignment notes and challans issued by M/s. Surya Roadways, Ahmedabad, all dated 14.2.99, to the officers. The serial number of the bills were hand written and descripti...
Rajesh Traders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT588TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 11-2-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original dated 16-2-2000 of the Deputy Commissioner.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products. They took Modvat credit of Rs. 1,67,209/- on 91.265 MT defective plates received by them during the month of April, 1996, by declaring the same as inputs used in the manufacture of rounds, bar, angles, channel, flats or iron and steel and utilized that credit towards the payment of duty on final products cleared by them from the factory. They were served with a show cause notice for having taken the Modvat credit illegally and wrongly. In reply, the appellants avered that the credit had been rightly taken by them as defective plates received by them were used in the manufacture of the final products.The Deputy Commissioner did not accept their version and confirmed the demand and also imposed pen...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC321
1. In this appeal filed against the order of the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs, the appellant challenges the penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs imposed on him under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act.3. The incident which has led to these proceedings occurred on 11.4.98.9 HDPE bags containing goods consigned by various parties were being carried from the appellant's premises to the domestic terminal of the Delhi Airport. The goods were in a vehicle hired by the appellant for his courier service. The appellant had another partner namely Sabir Ali in the courier-firm. The vehicle was intercepted near the Airport by the officers of Customs. The bags were opened and the contents examined. It was found on examination that foreign origin computer parts, photographic cameras, cellphones & batteries thereof and watch movements were the contents of the bags. All the goods were seized by the officers believing that the goods were liable to confiscation. The vehicle was also seized. Statements ...
Narender Anand and anr. Vs. Ndmc and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ698
K.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of is No. 2912/2002 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 and Section 151 CPC by the plaintiffs and is No. 4479/2002 field under Order XXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC by defendant No.4.2. Allegations insofar as they are relevant for deciding both the applications as made in plaint are that the plaintiffs are owner of plot No.14, admeasuring 3389 sq. mtrs. in Janpath Lane, New Delhi and on 11th February, 2000/18th September, 2000 vide letter No.C-2109-10/CA/BP, the defendant s 1 & 2 conveyed the sanction of building plans putting certain conditions which were complied with by the plaintiffs. Plans were released by defendants 1 & 2 on 5th March, 2001. Thereafter, plaintiffs demolished 12 flats of the old building standing on the plot and started digging foundation. When digging was in progress, the plaintiffs received letter No.D-29-31/CA/STC/N dated 23rd May, 2001 from defendant No.1 asking them not to raise any unauthorised const...
Roshan Lal Nimesh and anr. Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC7; 2003(66)DRJ223
J.D. Kapoor, J.Heard 1. It is stated that some of the dowry articles have been returned. As many as 11 persons of the family have been roped in for the allegations of demanding dowry and harassing the complainant. This fact itself reflects the misuse of the penal provisions and the immense power the Police has been vested with.2. The petitioner shall be released, in the event of his arrest, on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO/Arresting Officer, He shall join the investigation as and when required....
Mars Incorporated Vs. Kumar Krishna Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC60(Del)
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a Quia Timet suit i.e. action against apprehended or threatened invasion.2. The plaintiff is the proprietor of the Trademark 'MARS'. The said trademark is registered in India and in as many as 170 countries. It is used in respect of chocolates, confectionery, preserved food products and other foodstuffs in India wherein in other countries it is used in respect of snack foods, main meal foods, pet care, electronics and drinks. The plaintiff came into action when it found that defendant had incorporated a Company under the name and style of Mars Food Pvt. Ltd. According to the plaintiff, the object clause of the Company projects the intention to conduct a business in the food sector namely bakery and food items, canned and tinned foods, ready to eat foods, machinery for food processing and food manufacturing and packing. Admittedly the defendant has neither commenced the manufacturing nor commenced the sale of goods.3. The defendants were served with the summons...
Ajay Kumar Aggarwal (Dr.) Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT336TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of 65 pieces of 'Dialysis machines' from U.S.A. On scrutiny, it was found that the machines were more than ten years old and require a specific licence. It was also found that the machines were under valued. The value of the machines was enhanced to 150%. The adjudicating authority confiscated the machines and allowed to release on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed.3. The contention of the appellant is that while enhancing the value of these goods, the shipping expenses were also enhanced at 150%. The contention of the appellant is that the actual shipping expenses were mentioned in the invoices and there is no evidence to show that the appellants suppressed shipping expenses. Therefore, enhancing the shipping expenses is not sustainable. The contention of t...
Cincinnati Milacron Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT181TriDel
1. The issue involved in these three appeals filed by M/s. Cincinnati Milacron Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 80/70-Cus., dated 29-8-1970 is available to the goods imported by them for replacement of defective articles or components.2. Shri Ashok Arora, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture Injection Moulding Machines for the manufacture of which they imported certain critical sub-assemblies; that the imports are covered by suppliers warranty for faultless performances inclusive of repair replacement free of charge; that they had imported certain control systems containing various printed circuit boards and modules through Ahmedabad Airport; that some of the imported goods developed defects during the manufacture, testing and accordingly, were returned to the supplier for replacement; that when the replacement goods were imported they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 80/70-Cus, which had been denied to them on the ground that the benefit o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »