Delhi Court December 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.
Mahender Jit Singh Mattoo Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ301CAT
1. These O.As. pertain to one applicant and are inter related, involving common question of law and fact. Hence they are disposed of by this common order.2. In O.A. 1543/2001 the grievance of applicant in this O.A. is that respondents are proposing to place him under suspension with a view to negate the effect of the order of the Tribunal passed on 6.6.2001 in MA-982/2001 in O.A. 1260/2000 to open the sealed cover and to take further action in accordance with law. He has sought a direction to respondents not to suspend applicant at this belated stage.3. In O.A. 2412/2001 applicant impugns charge-sheet issued to him under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and has sought quashment of the same with all consequential benefits.4. In O.A. 3102/2001 a challenge has been put against order passed by respondents on 13.8.2001 denying regular promotion to applicant to the post of ACP in Grade II of DANIPS and to continue his case under sealed cover. He has sought quashment of this order with direc...
Madhya Pradesh Iron and Steel Company Vs. G.B. Springs (P) Ltd. and Mo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]117CompCas327(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Order shall operate in CP 366/1999 entitled Madhya Pradesh Iron & Steel Company v. G.B. Springs (P) Ltd. as well as in CP 433/1999 entitled Madhya Pradesh Iron & Steel Company v. Mohta Bright Steels (P) Ltd. In CP 366/1999 the Claim is for a principal sum of Rs.73,46,674.37 together with Rs.13,44,990.99 towards interest at the rate of 21% per annum calculated up to 31.12.1998 A Statutory Notice dated January 6, 1999 was served on the Respondent Company which sent its response thereto in terms of its letter dated 1.2.1999. The defense of the Respondent is that problems commenced due to the supply of defective material by the petitioner leading to its rejection. In the Reply there is a reference to a Debit Note dated 28.9.1997 raised by the Respondent Company for a sum of Rs.9,89,888.86. Mention has also been made to the Respondent's letter dated 23.12.1997 whereby the petitioner was notified of discrepancies including insufficient and deficient supply of materi...
Ansar Ahmed and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ577
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioners numbering 47 have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition to restrain respondents 1 to 4 i.e. Union of India, N.C.T. of Delhi, DDA and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited from interfering with their peaceful and actual physical possession of the lands in khasra No. 41(min) of Village Charaga Chomali, Shahdara, Delhi.3. The case of the petitioners is that there are non-occupancy tenants and are protected from eviction by virtue of the provisions of the Agra Tenancy Act as applicable to Delhi. The writ petition had come up before the Court on 6th August, 2002, when learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had occupied their respective pieces of land/shops at the instance of respondents 5 to 9 who were stated to be the tenants of the land. The petitioners contended that they had occupied the respective lands and shops at the instan...
V.K. Mittal Vs. Assistant Collector, Grade I, Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ86
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has impugned the demands made by the respondent vide letter dated 28.5.2002 under Section 40-A of Delhi Development Act, 1957. The limited facts necessary to adjudicate the present controversy are that there was a contract entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 3.6.1981 when the tender was accepted. As certain disputes arose, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause. The arbitrator after entering upon reference made and published his award on 17.9.1992. It may be noticed that respondent No.2 levied compensation of Rs. 95,266.00 which also formed part of the award. In terms of the judgment in Suit No. 4122/92 decided on 20.8.2001 the award dated 17.9.92 was made rule of the court except to the extent that the consideration of the claim towards compensation by the arbitrator was beyond the purview of the arbitration a...
Desai Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT706TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is whether the appellant is eligible for-the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 9/99-C.E.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel cut wire shorts, high carbon steel cut wire shorts, zinc wire shots and aluminium cut wire shots falling under sub-heading Nos. 7205.20, 7205.90 and 7616.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was alleged that the assessee cleared the goods on concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 9/99-C.E., dated 28-2-99 without filing the option under para 2(1) of the above notification.2. It is seen that the appellant had filed a declaration on 4-3-99 under Rule 173B. In the above declaration instead of referring to Notification No. 9/99-C.E. they have referred to Notification No.9/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98 as amended by Notification No. 7/99, dated 28-2-99. It is the contention of the appellant that a wrong notification was mentione...
Kripa Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC701
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore dated 30.10.2001. The issue raised for consideration is whether quantity discount availed by the appellant from the suppliers of raw materials is liable to be added to arrive at the assessable value of its product.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of LINEAR ALKYL BENZENE SULPHONIC ACID (LABSA) falling under Chapter Heading 3402.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise & Tarif Act, 1985 and Spent Sulphuric Acid falling under Heading 2807. In these appeals we are concerned only with the dispute relating to assessable value of LABSA.The main inputs for manufacture of LABSA are (1) LINER ALKYL BENZENE (LAB) and (2) Sulphuric Acid. The appellants are procuring LAB from three manufacturer suppliers, namely, M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (IPCL), M/s. Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd. (TPPL) and M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL). They ...
Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT207TriDel
1. In this application, the applicants submit that there is an apparent error on the face of Final order No. A 964/2002-NB(SM), dated 9-8-2002.The final order ibid does not reflect consideration of the submissions made by the appellants' Counsel before the Bench at the hearing stage on 25-7-2002. It is stated that the Counsel had advanced certain arguments and cited certain decisions in support of the case on merits and that a synopsis of such arguments/citations had also been placed on record on 25-7-2002. It is further submitted that there is no indication of any such arguments/citations having been examined by the Bench. The operative part of the final order has also been extracted in this application, which is as under: "After hearing the rival submissions, perusal of the records and the case laws cited by the appellants, I do not find any merits in the appeal and as such the same is dismissed." 2. The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the above order of the Bench do...
Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC203
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Saraswati Sugar Mills, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE is available to the appellants in respect of iron and steel structures manufactured by them and used captively within the factory.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture sugar and molasses; that they decided in 1999 to modernize the process of manufacture; that for modernizing the process they have to replace sugar manufacturing machinery and its accessories; that some items were manufactured by the appellant themselves and some were procured alongwith the machinery from outside sources; that in respect of goods manufactured by them, they claimed the benefit of the Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.95 which has been denied to them by the Revenue on the ground that the steel structures from the part of the building. He, further, submitted that during the process of modernization they have installed various sugar manufa...
Abhishek Auto Industries Vs. Cc (import)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC521
1. In this appeal the issue arising for consideration is whether Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to condone the delay in filing appeals beyond the period prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. We heard both the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned DR.2. Section 128 of the Customs Act, as it stands amended by the Finance Act, 2001 is quoted below: "Section 128--Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals)--(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of Customs lower in rank than a Commissioner of Customs may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within sixty days from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order: Provided that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days." 3. The above would show that an appe...
Harichand K. Khanna and Yogesh Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC450
1. The reference before the Larger Bench is in view of a preliminary objection raised by the appellant when the appeal came up for hearing before a bench of this Tribunal. The appeals are directed against an order dated 24.2.94 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Surat on adjudicating a show cause notice dated 1.8.91.2. The preliminary objection raised by the appellant was that the copy of the order received by the appellant did not bear the signature of the Collector. It showed as "Sd 24.2.94" over the name of the Collector and attested by the Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs, Headquarters, Surat. According to the appellant the show cause notice received by them also appeared likewise. The Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Final Order No. A/431/91-NRB dated 8.8.9t passed by a two Member Bench of this Tribunal In Appeal No.E/3444/90-NRB Chander Lakshmi Tempered Glass Co. (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh in support of the preliminary objec...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »