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.
Continental Chemicals India Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC463
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Continental Chemicals India Ltd., the issue involved is whether, they are eligible to avail the refund of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of goods exported out of India.2. Shri P.K. Mittal, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture detergent powders and they exported 865.008 MTs of detergent powders to U.S.S.R. through M/s. U.K. Paints Industries during July-September 1989; that they had intimated to the Department, under their letter dated 15.12.1989 that they would not avail Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacturing process and would apply for refund after the goods were exported under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as they were, being an exporting unit, not in a position to utilise the Modvat Credit for clearance of goods for home consumption; that when they filed their refund claim, a show cause notice dated 28.7.90 was issued to them for disallowing the refund claim unde...
Alpine Industry Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: (2006)(203)ELT563TriDel
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the Central Excise duty of Rs. 43,71,452/- was confirmed and penalty of Rs 4,50,000/- was imposed on the ground that appellants had carried out fabrication and assembling work of eight identifiable items namely seed cleaner, cracker, flaker toaster, extruder, elevators water treatment Plant and tanks.3. The contention of the appellant is that they are engaged in the manufacture of Soyabean oil through process of Solvent Extraction. The appellants in order to enhance production capacity of their plants entered into a contract with M/s. Oilex Engineers (India) Ltd. for supply, erection and commissioning of the Solvant Plant in their factory. The appellants produced the copy of the contract entered with M/s. Oilex Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. to show that the goods in question has assembled and commissioned by M/s. Oilex Engineers (India) Ltd. The contention of the appellants...
Hirakud Industrial Works Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC611
1. This appeal of the assessee is against order dated 28.2.94 of the Collector of Central Excise in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 12.4.91 and its corrigendum dated 21.4.93. The appellants are aggrieved by the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,80,621.52 confirmed against them and the penalty of Rs. 20,000 imposed on them.2. The appellants are a unit of the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd., with their factory at Hirakud. During the periods of dispute (1.4.86 to 30.9.87 and 1.3.88 to 31.12.89), they had removed certain structural materials from their factory without payment of duty to the sites of their customer viz. the Orissa State Electricity Board for the purpose of construction of transmission towers etc. They had also removed bearing boxes likewise during those periods. The department, by show-cause notice dated 12.4.91 answerable to the Additional Collector of Central Excise, proposed to levy duty of excise on the structural items and bearing boxe...
Gontermann Peipers (India) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT669TriDel
2. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal.3. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is being taken up for hearing.4. In this case a show cause notice is issued to the appellant for denying the benefit of Modvat credit on Humidification Plant as capital goods. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 84, the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. The Revenue filed appeal against the order passed by the adjudication authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal. The appellant filed before the Tribunal and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 (Tri.). The Appellate ...
Siddarth Agarwal, Shri Atul Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT195TriDel
1. All these appeals were directed against the common Order i.e. No.42/2001 dated 31.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise-I, New Delhi. Accordingly, they were taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.2. The issue raised in these appeals is the eligibility of the appellant manufacturers to the benefit of small scale exemption in view of affixing the brand name 'REIZ' on the goods manufactured by them.The appellant M/s Reiz Electrocontrols Pvt. Ltd. (REPL for short) and M/s Reiz Enterprises (RE for short) both use the same brand name 'REIZ' on their goods and both availed themselves of the small scale exemption since the total value of the goods produced by each of them in a financial year remained within the prescribed limit under Central Excise Notification No. 1/93.3. The facts leading to the present dispute are that M/s RE ia a proprietary concern of Shri Atul Agarwal and is engaged in the manufacture of Electronic Fan Regulators, Dimmers ...
S.S. Kaushik Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC53
1. The 5th defendant S.S. Kaushik in O.A. 210/ 97 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to 'the DRT") is the appellant herein. The 5th defendant was set exparte on 22.11.2001 and final order was passed on 7.1.2002. The 5th defendant S.S. Kaushik filed an application under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act') but, the same was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by order dated 7.2.2002 holding the 5th defendant was not vigilant and the reasons for his non-appearance were not convincing. Aggrieved by the same, the 5th defendant S.S. Kaushik has filed this appeal. The 1st respondent Syndicate Bank who was the plaintiff in the said O.A. 210/97 has filed a reply opposing the appeal.2. I have heard Counsel for the appellant and the 1st respondent, and perused the record.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/5th defendant contends that the appella...
Ashok Malhotra Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC75
1. The 4th defendant Mr. Ashok Malhotra in O.A. No. 210/97 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the DRT) is the appellant herein. He was proceeded ex parte and final order was passed on 7.1.2002. Therefore, the appellant/4defendant filed an application for setting aside the ex parte final order. But, the same was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his order dated 25.2.2002 on the ground that there is no reason for setting aside the ex parte final order. Aggrieved, the 4th defendant has come forward with this appeal. Notice was dispensed with for respondents 2 to 11.Though a Counsel wanted to appeal for the 9th respondent, later on even Vakalatnama was not filed for the 9th respondent, and he was proceeded against ex parte. The 1st respondent/plaintiff Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal.2. I have heard the Counsel for the appellanl/4th defendant and the 1st respondent/ plaintiff Bank, and have perused the records...
Ghazala Kausar Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ556
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.2. Petitioner, Ghazala Kausar, is an applicant for admission to the Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery Course (in short BUMS), conducted by the Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College, affiliated to the University of Delhi. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant her admission to the BUMS Course for the academic session 2002-03, for 3. Petitioner's case is that she had secured 59.6 per cent marks in the qualifying examination. Candidates securing less marks than her even up to 58% have been admitted, while the petitioner has been denied admission on the allegation that she did not submit the Urdu qualification certificate on or before the 20.6.2002, which was the last date for receipt of completed application forms.One of the eligibility conditions for the BUMS Course is passing the qualifying examination with elective Urdu subject either as a MIL or High School/Matric Secondary examination or equivalent with Urdu. Keeping in view, the above el...
Dr. R.N. Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ539
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner association is a registered society which applied to respondent DDA in October 1998 for allotment of land for Aditya College of Pharmacy and Science. The North Western Regional Committee of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) addressed a letter dated 18.11.1998 to the DDA with a copy marked to the petitioner granting permission to the society to start a new institute. A confirmation was sought that the land for the construction of the institute had been allotted to the society which should be of minimum area of 1 acre. This letter is stated to have been issued in response to a letter of society dated 9.9.1998 stating that the land for construction of the institute shall be made available in case the institute gets a sponsorship certificate from AICTE. The college was proposed to be started from 1999 session and since no allotment of land had taken place, a representation was made on 5.3.1999 to the Minister of Urban Development in t...
Dr. Vishal Sehgal and ors. Vs. Secretary (Health) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT493
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioners are doctors having obtained an MBBS degree. They are undertaking a course for the grant of a Diplomate of National Board. Their prayer, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is essentially for payment of a salary/honorarium for the practical work that they are doing while undertaking the course.2. The National Board of Examinations (for short the NBE) was established by the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare as an examining body to evolve a pattern for the conduct of a high and uniform standard of post-graduate and post-doctoral examinations in medical sciences. The NBE confers a Diplomate of National Board (for short DNB) qualification, which is said to be equivalent to an MD/MS/DM/M.Ch. of other Indian universities recognized by the Government of India and the Medical Council of India.3. The NBE has set up a mechanism for imparting a non-formal mode of teaching in the sphere of higher medical educati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »