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.
Hema Bhalla Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT906
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Petitioner is the landlady of the complainant. Garage portion was let out to the complainant who used it as godown for storing articles relevant for cent. On 24.8.1987 at 8.30 p.m. when he went to godown he found that door which was locked was removed and a wall had been put and entire goods lying inside were removed. He made inquiries from the petitioner Along with one person who stated himself to be an Advocate namely Sh. S.S. Lingwal. They both started giving threats and abuses. He alleged that both these persons after breaking the lock and shutter have constructed a wall and have taken possession of his godown. Charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 448/380 read with Section 34, IPC. However, the learned M.M. framed the charges for the offence under Section 448, IPC and discharged the petitioner so far as offence under Section 380, IPC is concerned.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the learned M.M. did not consider his arguments tha...
Mohan Lal Wadhwa Vs. Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT755
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The respondent DDA invited tenders for the work of development of main land at Dwarka Phase II for an estimated cost of project of Rs. 33,23,494/- in October, 1999. The petitioner submitted his tender on 12.11.1999 and submitted an earnest money deposit of Rs. 83,088/-. The date of the opening of the tender was 15.11.1999. 2. The petitioner vide letter dated 16.11.1999 informed the respondents that the rate for item No. 6 should be read as Rs. 68/- instead of Rs. 38/- as the same was stated to be a mistake. This was reiterated on 19.11.1999 stating that the mistake had occurred since the petitioner was under a mis-apprehension that the hand mixing(mini plant) would be allowed to be used whereas in fact the work involved the use of hot mixing plant with power finish. The request of the petitioner was rejected on 29.11.1999 by the respondents. The last date fixed for acceptance of the offer of the petitioner expired on 13.2.2000 since the notice inviting tender ...
Dr. Amitabh Varma Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT581; 2003(66)DRJ343
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. It is alleged that the petitioner under most extraordinary circumstances has filed this petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to register an FIR under Sections 323, 327, 347, 352, 356, 365, 379, 384, 392, 420 and 506, IPC It is also prayed that on the basis of the petitioner's complaints dated 28.6.2002 and 1.7.2002 investigation be carried out and action be taken in accordance with law. It is also prayed that the petitioner be awarded exemplary costs and compensation. 2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this writ petition are recapitulated as under:3. It is alleged that the petitioner is a leading and an eminent Neurologist of the country and he is the Honorary Physician to the President of India. On 20.3.1999 he purchased a Tata Safari vehicle on hire purchase basis with a loan of Rs. 6,23,000/- from the 3rd respondent finance company. It is mentioned in the petition that against the said loan a total sum of Rs. 7,38,692.10 has...
Punsumi Foils and Components Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT704TriDel
1. M/s. Punsumi Foils & Components Ltd. have filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty along with an appeal.2. Arguing the case for the applicant Shri Randhir Singh, learned Counsel submits that the applicant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit and was under obligation to export specified quantity of the product manufactured by it as it was permitted to imports capital goods and raw material without payment of duty to be used for the manufacture of the finished goods. He submits that the Development Commissioner has cancelled their LOP/LOI and that the applicant has requested for reconsideration of the decision. He submits that the Department has confiscated goods worth of Rs. 2,64,45,943/-and the goods are still with Customs. He submits that since over a large amount of goods Customs have still control pre-deposit of duty and penalty may be waived.3. Shri Rajeev Tandon, learned SDR appearing for Revenue submits that a huge amount of duty is due from the appe...
Patwari Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC372
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Patwari Udyog and M/s. Krishna Steel Industries against the Order-in-Original Nos. 28/2002 and 26/2002 both dated 8-2-2002 respec- lively. As the issues involved in both the appeals are same, both the appeals are being disposed of by one common order.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that both the Appellants manufacture forged steel grinding media balls; that according to the Appellants these goods were classifiable under Heading 72.08 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act whereas the Department wanted to classify them under sub-heading No. 7308.90 of the Tariff; that the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. E 1154-1157/1998-B, dated 28-7-98 [1999 (112) E.L.T. 142 (T)] rejected their appeals; that, however, the Tribunal vide Misc. Order Nos.122-124/99 B-1, dated 22-10-99 allowed their applications for rectification of mistake as the issue of time bar was not examined; that the Tribunal remanded the matter to the juri...
Rajasthan Explosives and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC85
1. The appellants, M/s Rajasthan Explosives & Chemicals Ltd. Dholpur (hereinafter refers to as M/s RECL) manufacture explosives falling under sub-heading No. 3602.00. Their factory premises were visited by the officers of the Central Excise Division, Alwar on 8.11.97, On scrutiny of the documents resumed from their premises, it was observed that they were maintaining more than one set of invoices of identical serial numbers. Under these duplicate invoices, they had cleared a total quantity of 10,927.25 M.Ts of different varieties of explosives (slurry) totally valued at Rs. 16,75,44,038 during the period from 1.9.95 to 31.3.98 without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 3,21,30,295.The explosives were sent to different collieries of M/s Coal India Ltd., (hereinafter refers to M/s CIL). It was observed that the party had received full payment for the value of these explosives including the Central Excise duty but the duty was never deposited with the Central Excise department. Accordi...
Paharpur Inds. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT236TriDel
1. M/s. Paharpur Industries Limited and others have filed an application praying for transfer of their appeals to East Zonal Bench, Kolkata stating that the appellant is undergoing through financial hardship and was not in a position to pay expenses for Counsel to travel from Kolkata to Delhi. It has further been stated that the Head Office of the appellant is at Kolkata.3. We have perused the request of the appellant. Since the Headquarters of the appellant is at Kolkata permission for transfer of the appeals to Kolkata is accorded. Registry is directed to transfer all the papers to Kolkata under intimation to all the concerns....
Pratik Panels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC490
1. M/s. Pratik Panels Ltd. have filed the present appeal being aggrieved with the Order No. 263/2001, dated 23-8-2001 under which the Commissioner, Central Excise has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 84,466/-, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 besides imposing penalty of Rs. 4,466 under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 57-I(4) and confiscated the finished final products and raw materials found in excess with an option to them to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. Shri Ravi Raghvan, learned Consultant, submitted that the appellants manufacture Veneers (decorative and face Veneers), Commercial and Decorative Plywood, Black Boards, Inlay Veneer Strips, Veneer Fibre Board and Wooden Edge Lipping Patti of various sizes, thickness and quality; that Central Excise Officers, on 11-2-99 ascertained the stock position in the factory and in godown opposite factory premi...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Fine Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC97
1. We have before us the following two issues referred by the 'B' Bench as per Misc. Order No. 23/2002-B, dated 4-3-2002 in the captioned appeals :- (a) Whether the benefit of small scale exemption is available to a manufacturer who is manufacturing and clearing excisable goods bearing Brand name/Trade name similar to the Brand name belonging to another person (b) Whether the benefit of small scale exemption is deniable to a manufacturer, using Brand name/Trade name of another person, only when the excisable goods manufactured by him are same goods as being manufactured or dealt with by the persons owning the Brand name/Trade name 2. The respondents in Appeal No. E/2383/2001, M/s Fine Industries, were engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Diesel Engine parts (CET sub-heading 8409.00). During 1994-95 to 1997-98 (up to 17-10-1997), they manufactured and cleared without payment of duty Diesel Engine parts namely Rocker Box, Rocker Box with Lever and Fuel Pump Bracket under the bran...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC116
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., is whether Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the various capital goods is admissible to them.2.1 I Miss Sonu Bhatnagar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants have a cement plant at Raipur; that mine is situated very close to the cement factory; that the mining is a process integrally connected with the manufacture of cement; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order has disallowed Modvat Credit of the duty amounting to Rs. 9,14,153 and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 that the Commissioner has disallowed the Modvat Credit in respect of pully 20 kV 415 plus 8507 and Tyre/Tube on the ground that these goods are used in Lime Stone Mines and not used within the factory premises for manufacture of cement; that mining is a integral part of the processing connected with the manufacture of cement and the goods used for mining are capital goods and the Modvat Credit should be allowed. Reliance...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »