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.
Nestle (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT694TriDel
1. This reference was necessitated in the light of the difference of views expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Arti Paints and Chemicals Industries v. C.C.E., Bombay - 1984 (15) E.L.T. 206 and Dalmia Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants points out that the decision of Dalmia Industries Ltd. reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 120 was later recalled on an ROM filed by the appellants and the appeal of the assessee was allowed in Dalmia Industries Ltd. which decision is reported as Dalmia Industries v. C.C.E., Jaipur 3. In view of the above there was no conflict between two decisions of the Tribunal, which would require consideration of the issue by a Larger Bench. Apparently, the decision of Dalmia Industries Ltd. after the ROM was allowed was not brought to the notice of the Bench which referred the matter for consideration of a Larger Bench.4. In the light of the above, we send back the Appeals to the original Bench for being heard on merits, as the re...
Jindal Strips Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT390TriDel
1. This appeal of M/s. Jindal Strips Limited is directed against duty demand of about Rs. 3.5 lakhs and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on them.2. The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are that upon scrutiny of the sale records maintained by the appellant, the Central Excise Officers noticed that they had disposed of "different items of parts and machinery and other fabricated items" during the period May, 1991 to March, 1993. The goods disposed of were 'MS Shell, Kiln Shell, Dummy Plate, M.S. Pipe, M.S. Pressure Ring, Column Gantry, Plate for columns, M.S. Tank, G.I. Sheet, Triple Joint, M.S. Angle, M.S.L. Block, Brass Gear, Brass Bush Roll, Gun Metal Bush, Gunmetal Bush Gear, Cast Iron Rod, Brass Bush, Gear Box, Gear coupling, Girth Gear, Discharge hood top bend plate, M.S. Rod, Girth, Gear flange, etc." The appellants explained in reply that the subject goods were not manufactured by them but had arisen from dismantling certain old and used machinery which the...
The Management of National Council for Cement and Building Materials V ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT505; 2003(66)DRJ470
Vijender Jain, J.1. After pleading of the parties issues were framed by the Labour Court on 4.4.89. Following were the issues:1. Whether the management is not an industry within the meaning of Section2(j) of the I.D. Act?2. Whether the Delhi Administration is not the 'appropriate Govt.' as alleged in preliminary objection No. 2?3. Whether the petitioner is a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(j) ofthe I.D. Act?4. Whether the domestic enquiry held by the management is improper and invalid and whether the finding is perverse?5. As in terms of reference.2. The labour court treated issue No. 4 as preliminary issue on the joint request of the parties. However, labour court held that the management has foregone issue No. 1, 2 and 3 which were material for adjudication for issue No. 4. I have perused through the order dated 19.5.92 of the labour court. It is in the following terms:Petitioner W/M in person and the A.R. of the W/M. The W/M went to call his A.R. but he has not turned back...
Bellish India Ltd. (Formerly Known as Ape Bellish India Ltd.) Through ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT493; 2003(66)DRJ215; [2003(96)FLR1008]
Vijender Jain, J.1. Petitioner, aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that pursuant to the Industrial Disputes Act the appropriate government referred the following terms of reference for adjudication:-'Whether the services of Shri Jagmohan Gupta have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'2. The Labour Court framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties:(1) Whether the claimant is not a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act?(2) Relief, in terms of reference.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding of the Labour Court on the ground that labour Court has wrongly relied upon on ex. WW 1/2 as the nature of the work of the assistant accountant has been taken into account wile returning the finding that the respondent was not a wo...
Lt. Crd. Rajeev Kishore Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)SLJ76(Delhi)
Khan, J.1. Petitioner, a Lt. Commander in the Navy, is clamouring for promotion to the rank of Commander. He was considered by Selection Board-III on 6.5.1999 but was not selected. He filed an ROG against this and during its pendency, he was asked to forward duly filled-up ACR forms for May 1996 to October 1996 which he was told were not available. He was then asked to forward duly filled up ACR forms for the entire period from November 1995 to May 1996 in March 2000 to one Captain Virender Singh. He claims that even though he had completed all these formalities but his ROG was rejected by order dated 31.5.2000. He then approached the next higher authority in second ROG on the ground that Promotion Board had rejected him in absence of relevant ACRs but even this was turned down.2. Petitioner says he later made representations dated 13.9.2000, 11.6.2001 and 16.7.2001 to Government of India and the defense Ministry which were disposed of by orders dated 18.6.2001 and 29.8.2001 directing ...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. the Archaeological Survey of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ298
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. This writ petition challenges the Order dated 14th November, 2002, passed by the Office of the Director, Monuments, Archaeological Survey of India. The Order avers that an unauthorised structure has been constructed within the prohibited area of Siri Fort Wall, New Delhi which construction consequently violated Sections 19(1), 30(1)(iv) of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rules 10(1) & 33(1) of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959. The order further directs removal of the offending structure within 15 days. 3. It is submitted by the petitioner's counsel's Shri Rajiv Sharma and Shri Vinod Shukla that the order dated 14th November, 2002 impugned in the writ petition proceeds in violation of the mandate of the judgment of the Division Bench in CWP. 3319 of 2002 dated 25th September, 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›