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.
Rishab Handicrafts (India), Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC79
1 The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of copper scrap and declared as copper scrap of "Dream Grade as per ISRI." Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the ground that the copper scrap, in question, was in fact of Birch Grade and not of Dream Grade. The adjudicating authority held that the scrap is of Birch Grade and on the ground of misdeclaration, the goods were confiscated and also enhanced the value of the scrap treating as Birch Grade. A personal penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs was imposed on the firm and Rs. 2.5 lakhs on the partners of the firm. The appellant filed an appeal and the Tribunal vide order dated 13.6.2001 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for dc novo adjudication and the Commissioner confiscated the scrap and also imposed penalties on the ground of misdeclaration of goods.3. The impugned order is passed in pursuance to ...
D.C.M. Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC458
1. The appellant M/s. DCM, Shriram Consolidated Ltd. purchased a second-hand 150 Ton per day Caustic Soda Plant from M/s. Interface, Dubai. This purchase was made under contract No. DSCL/1MP/CAP/PUR/81 dated 27.4.1994. The plant was earlier owned by M/s. Georgia Pacifies, USA. The plant was in operation in USA prior to its decommissioning in February 1993. This plant had original been purchased by M/s. Georgia Pacific, USA from M/s. Asahi Chemicals Industries Ltd., (ACIL), Japan.After the purchase of the plant from M/s. Interface, Dubai, M/s. DCM, Shriram Consolidated entered into a technical collaboration agreement with M/s. Asahi Chemicals Industries Ltd. for setting up the aforesaid Caustic Soda Plant in India. When the Plant was imported, question arose as to whether the amount (Japanese Yen 32,000,000.00) paid to M/s. Asahi Chemicals Industries Ltd. towards collaboration agreement fees was to form a part of the assessable value of the plant under import. The question was raised s...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bihar Tubes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT143TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against a part of the impugned order dated 8-5-2002 of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had allowed the deemed Modvat credit of various amounts to the respondents, as detailed therein. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is common, these can be disposed of by one order.2. In all these appeals, the respondents availed the deemed Modvat credit of various amounts as detailed in the show cause notice in terms of explanation to the Notification No. 58/97, dated 30-84997 and the Board's Circular No. 331/47/97-CX, dated 30-8-1997. The plea of the Revenue is that, the deemed Modvat credit could be claimed only on the actual price of the goods excluding freight, insurance, sales tax and other charges, although indicated in the invoices of the respondents as those charges could not form the invoice price of the goods.3. On the other hand, the respondents had taken the stand that the invoice price for the purpose...
Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC476
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 appellant's 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 doe...
Rishab Handicrafts (India) Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT179TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of copper scrap and declared as copper scrap of "Dream Grade as per ISRI".Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the ground that the copper scrap, in question, was in fact of Birch Grade and not of Dream Grade. The adjudicating authority held that the scrap is of Birch Grade and on the ground of misdeclaration, the goods were confiscated and also enhanced the value of the scrap treating as Birch Grade. A personal penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs was imposed on the firm and Rs. 2.5 lakhs on the partners of the firm. The appellant filed an appeal and the Tribunal vide order dated 13-6-2001 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication and the Commissioner confiscated the scrap and also imposed penalties on the ground of misdeclaration of goods.3. The impugned order is passed in pursuance to ...
Aditya Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT103TriDel
1. M/s. Aditya Trading Co. have filed this appeal against the penalty-imposed on them for having wrongly passed on the Cenvat Credit to the buyers.2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the trading of Caustic Soda, Soda flakes, Soda Ash Light and Sodium Sulphate; that they are registered as a dealer with the Central Excise department; that they buy these materials from various dealers who in turn buy the said materials from the manufacturers; that in order to save transportation cost etc. the goods, for which the orders are placed by the Appellants on the dealers, are consigned directly by the manufacturers from their premises to the Appellants premises; that the goods are accompanied by the invoices issued by the manufacturer under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that these invoices duly indicate their name and address as the consignee of the goods; that further, in these invoices the buyer's name is intimated as the dealers...
Batra Traders and anr. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC27
1. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that he has produced copy of the O.A. and points out from paragraph 7(a)(i) that the property mentioned therein is the same property referred to in the Power of Attorney Deeds. In these circumstances, Mr. Joginder Singh Logani is permitted to act as Power of Attorney agent of the 3rd respondent Manjari Gupta.2. Office Note indicates that the 1st respondent Bank has been served, but none has put in appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent.3. Learned Counsel for the applicant points out that even in Miscellaneous Application 540/2001, the respondents 2 and 3 have indicated that they have no objection if the transfer application is allowed.4. Learned Counsel for the applicant points out there are five matters in the whole concerning the applicants and the Bank in question, and four of the matters are before the Recovery Officer of DRT-I, Delhi whereas RC 187/2002 arising from O.A. 330/96 is only pending before the Recovery Officer of DRT-III,...
B.N. and Company Vs. Peshawar Soap and Chemical Works and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC168(Del)
Usha Mehra, J. 1. Appellant M/s B.N. & Co., (defendant No.1 before the trial Court has assailed the impugned order dated 31.3.1980 by which perpetual injunction has been granted against appellant beside challenging the order for rendition of accounts of profit made by the appellant together with an order for delivery-up of the infringing labels and marks etc. for destruction. Appointment of Local Commissioner to go into the accounts of the appellant has also been assailed.2. The grievance of the appellant/defendant to the impugned order is primarily based on two grounds namely : (1) that the trade mark 'Kesh Nikhar' of the respondent (plaintiff before the trial Court) is not distinctive, thereforee, the respondent/plaintiff could not claim exclusive right. Moreover, appellant has filed objections to registration of the trade mark 'Kesh Nikhar' before the Registrar of Trade Mark, hence it could not said that this trade mark become conclusive under Section 32 of the Trade and Merchandise...
Subhash Chand Vinayaka and anr. Vs. All India Shwetambar Sthanakwasi J ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT733
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Applicants/plaintiffs were voters in the election for the post of President of All India Shwetambar Sthanakwasi Jain Conference (in short 'Conference') to be held on 29.9.2002. There are as many as 8000 voters who were eligible to participate in the said election. The applicants through this application want to restrain defendant Nos. 2 & 3 from assuming the office of President and Chairman respectively so as not to give effect to the sham elections and results announced by defendant No. 4.2. The main premise for obtaining aforesaid relief is that election to the office of President was held in contravention of schedule of election programme and the rules of the Conference. According to the plaintiff the nomination papers were to be filed by 23rd August, 2002 and the date of withdrawal was 23.9.2002 and the voting was to be done on 29.9.2002. It is averred that as many as four persons filed their nomination papers for the post of President namely S/Shri Nemichand Cho...
Cc(Acu) Vs. Uri Civil Contractors
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC636
1. In this appeal at the instance of the Revenue challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi dated 21.11.2002. The relevant facts are as follows: 2. The respondent was awarded a contract by NHPC in 1989 to construct Uri Hydroelectric Project in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. For the construction of above project the respondent had imported certain goods including those cleared under Bill of Entry No. 234127 dated 24.6.93 against ad hoc exemption on executing a bond No. 368 dated 6.7.93 for an amount of Rs. 19,76,713. The respondent had undertaken to either re-export those goods or produce consumption certificate on completion of the project. It was the case of the respondent that after completing the project in 1997 vide letter No. DG 201 dated 22.7.97 they submitted the requisite proof of re-export/consumption of the impugned goods to the department. Consequent thereto the Assistant Commissioner of Customs cancelled the bond dated 6.7.93...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »