Delhi Court November 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shaw Wallace Gelantines Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC646
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against that part of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3.6.2002/9.7.2002 vide which he has allowed modvat credit in respect of air-conditioning plant spares/components and accessories under Rule 57Q, to the respondents. The other part of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing modvat credit in respect of other items detailed in that order as well as in the show cause notice, had not been challenged by the Revenue.3. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. They have only sent Written submissions. I have heard the learned JDR and gone through the record.4. The perusal of the impugned order shows that while allowing modvat credit on the components/spares and accessories used for refrigeration and air-conditioning to the respondents under Rule 57Q, the Commissioner (Appeals) has placed reliance on the ratio of law laid down in Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur v. Chukapalli Automative Comp...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vinay Bharat Ram and Sons (Huf) and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Del)31; [2003]261ITR632(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. These eight appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), are directed against the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Tribunal for short), in ITA Nos. 1209/Del/1996, dt. 19th Dec., 2001; 60897 (Del)/1995 and 6090/(Del)/1995, dt. 2nd Aug., 2000; 6088/Del/1995, dt. 30th Nov., 2000; 3152/Del/1995, 3153/Del/1995 and 3154/Del/1995, dt. 15th June, 2001; 1207/Del/1996 and 1208/Del/1996 dt. 3rd Dec., 2001.2. Although the impugned orders have been passed on different dates but in view of the fact that the assessed are members of the same family and an identical issue has been raised in all these appeals, for the sake of convenience, these are taken up together and this order will govern all these appeals. However, we shall treat the facts of ITA No. 31 of 2002 as Illustrative.3. The material facts, as emerging from the Tribunal's order are that the assessed, like the other two assessed, is an HUF, owning 1/5th shar...
Dtc Vs. Balram Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT499; 2003(66)DRJ707
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.03.2002 in C.W.P. No. 6077/2000.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:-3 On 03.02.1985, the respondent who was working as a Conductor, suffered injury during the course of employment. As a result of the injury, he lost one eye. On 24.03.200, the respondent prematurely retired the appellant from services on the ground of impairment of his eye. The respondent herein not satisfied with the Order passed by the appellant herein filed a writ petition being C.W.P. No. 6077/2000.4. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was accepted by the learned Single Judge on the ground that according to provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the appellant herein was barred from terminating the services of the respondent as he had sustained disability during the course of e...
Shadow Communications Vs. Prince Gutka Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]116CompCas536(Delhi); (2003)2CompLJ262(Del); [2003]41SCL277(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The first question to be answered in this Petition is whether the relief of winding up is available to an un-registered partnership. Counsel for the Petitioner relies on Kalra Iron Store v. Faridabad Fabricators(P) Ltd. (1991) 1 Comp LJ 177 in which Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, as his Lordship then was, held as follows:--'9. Reverting to the second objection, it has to be borne in mind that Section 69 of Indian Partnership Act only contains a prohibition or an unregistered firm filing a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by the said Act. The firm has to be registered and the person suing has to be a registered partner. The suit to attract Section 69 has to be the one to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by the Act. Mr. Khanna has not been able to cite any judgment holding that Section 69 would be applicable to winding up proceedings under the Companies Act. In the winding-up petition, primarily, the Court is required to adjud...
Saru International Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC647
1. In this appeal, at the instance of the importer the only issue to be considered is whether they are entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 17/2001, dated 1-3-2001 in respect of the leather imported from Italy. The Adjudicating Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have taken the view that the commodity imported by the appellant is a patent leather and therefore, outside the our view of the notification, referred above. The above finding is under challenge before us at the instance of the importer.2. According to the appellant, the commodity imported by it is finished leather and therefore, covered by Serial No. 136 in the notification dated 1-3-2001. The serial No. 136 reads as under : - "Wet blue chrome tanned leather, crust leather, finished leather of all kinds, including splits and sides of the aforesaid." According to the appellant, patent leather is nothing but finished leather. In support of the above contention, reliance is placed on Glossary of Terms relati...
Msl Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT492TriDel
1. The short question arising for consideration in this case is regarding the classification of what is described by the assessee as "Zinc dross & ash" and considered by the Revenue as "Zinc alloy". The assessee wants the goods to be classified as "ash and residues (other than from the manufacture of iron or steel) containing metals or metal compounds" under sub-heading 2620.00 (with a duty rate of 10% ad valorem) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, against the Revenue's claim to have it classified as "Zinc alloy" under SH 7901.20 (duty rate 15%) of the said Schedule. The adjudicating authority, by order dated 23-2-2002 passed in a remanded proceedings, classified the goods under SH 7901.20 and confirmed the demand of differential amount (Rs. 41,168.00) of duty against the assessee for the period December, 1993 to May, 1994. Hence this appeal.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that they were not manufacturing Zinc and articles thereof and therefore the question of ...
Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT499TriDel
1. When this petition for stay came up for hearing, it was agreed by both the sides that appeal itself can be disposed of. We, therefore, waive the condition of pre-deposit and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself.2. The challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 28-5-2002/6-6-2002 confirming duty demand of Rs. 1,47,012/- and imposing penalty of equal amount under Section 11 AC on clearance of waste and scrap of firebricks sold by the appellant, by invoking Rule 57S(2)(C) of the Modvat provisions.3. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement. The main machinery employed for manufacture of cement is Kiln. The shell of which is made of steel and in order to protect the Kiln from being damaged by high temperature, the inner shell is lined with refractories known as firebricks which are classifiable under heading 6901.90 as fireclay bricks. These firebricks are designed to withstand a very high temperature of ab...
K.K. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC29
1. The appellants herein are the defendants in O.A. 1113/95 before Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as DRT). An ex parte final order was passed against the appellants on 21.6.2001.The appellants filed an application to set aside the said ex parte final order, which was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his order dated 4.12.2001. Aggrieved, the defendants have come forward with this appeal. A suitable reply has been filed by the respondent-Bank opposing this appeal.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants had engaged Mr. Vivek Sharma to defend them in the OA before the DRT, but, on 31.5.2001. Mr. Praveen Sharma appearing for the defendants had stated that the Counsel for the defendants was seeking discharge from the case as the defendants had stopped instructing him, and that he had also sent a letter to the defendants on 17.5.2001. The learned Counsel for the appellants also points out that on 31.5.2001, the...
Avneet Food Products and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas798(Delhi); 101(2002)DLT468; 2003(66)DRJ121; [2003]42SCL170(Delhi)
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Though through this petition under Section 482 the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings arising out of a complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the premises that by way of summary suit under Order 37 CPC the respondent complainant is entitled to recover the cheque amount whereas under Section 138 the fine can be extended twice to the amount of the cheque and, thereforee, it is a case of not only double jeopardy but also allowing the complainant to extract thrice the amount of the cheque.2. I am afraid this concept of the learned counsel is highly erroneous and misconceived as the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are independent proceedings and are of criminal nature by virtue of which the defaulter can be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. The provisions of fine cannot ...
Volunatry Health Association of Tripura and ors. Vs. Press Council of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi76; 2003(66)DRJ497
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition impugns letter dated 11.10.2001, of the Press Council of India Annexure P. 16, informing the petitioner that in view of the publication of the clarification by the respondent newspaper Dainik Sambad, no further action is warranted in the matter.2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent newspaper has made a mockery of its clarification by reducing it and omitting essential portions. Petitioner's original complaint against the respondent was found to be justified by the Press Council. The Enquiry Committee of the Council, recommended a warning to be given to the respondent newspaper for the infarction of journalistic ethics. Petitioner was directed to send a factual clarification to the respondent newspaper for publication. Respondent was required to publish it within a week of receipt, without omitting any portion. The editor was however given liberty to append his note that they stood by the original story, if so advised...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »