Delhi Court February 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.
Swadeshi Koreatex Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC377
1. The appellants manufacture Blankets falling under Chapter 63. The present appeal relates to the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 90,037 availed by the party on the strength of original copy of the invoice No. 974164 dated 28.2.98 since the duplicate copy of the invoice was lost in transit. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Amritsar, vide his order dated 28.2.2000 has observed that the party pleaded before him that the duplicate copy of this invoice was lost in transit and could not be located; that the modvat credit on the original copy of the invoice is allowable in case the receipt and duty paid character of the inputs is not disputed as per the provisions of Rule 57G(6) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Deputy Commissioner in his order, however, rejected their plea with the observation that there is a provision for taking the modvat credit on the basis of original copy of the invoice in case the duplicate is lost in transit as provided under sub-rule (6) of Rule 57G whic...
Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT543TriDel
1. M/s. Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. have filed this appeal assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs. The learned Commissioner of Customs had held, "For the reasons stated above, I order confiscation of the impugned 5 (five) machines totally valued at Rs. 28,11,386/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and allow redemption thereof on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- only.I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- only on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants imported five old and used machines and declared the year of manufacture against each machine. This declaration was necessary in terms of Exim Policy in regard to import of old and used capital goods.Capital goods more than 10 years old are not permitted for import without a specific licence. On examination of the machines it was noticed that out of the five machines one machine happened to be manufactured in the year 1979...
Mahavira Gases (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC345
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, vide his order, dated 31.10.2000, confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 92,720 on the appellants and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000 on them. The party filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad in his order dated 15.10.2001, observed that the Order-in-Original dated 31.10.2000, is received by the appellants on 22.12.2000, as reflected in his order. He has observed that the appeal is filed in his office on 1.10.2001 after a delay of more than seven months as provided under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The lower appellate authority has, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the party as being time barred.2. This appeal is filed by the party against the impugned order dated 15.10.2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad. Shri Rajesh Chhibber, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants does not dispute that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad is filed with ...
Jagatsons Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT803TriDel
1. These are three appeals, arising out of three different Adjudication Orders and are being taken up for disposal simultaneously as the issue involved is same in all the appeals.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of M/s.Jagatsons Industries and M/s. Pragati Metals (P) Ltd., submitted that the Appellants manufacture stainless steel utensils which are exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 4/97-CE., dated 1-3-1997; that the duty paid S.S. Flats purchased from market are cut into small pieces which are hot rolled which are chargeable to nil rate of duty; that after annealing/ pickling, these hot rolled pieces are subjected to cold-rolling; that then these are cut into circles in untrimmed condition which are trimmed subsequently, trimmed circles are sold on payment of duty and are also used for captive consumption in the manufacture of utensils; that there is nil duty in respect of trimmed circles used for captive consumption as per sub-heading 722...
Cce Vs. Vijay Sachdeva
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC381
1. In this case, the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh vide his orders dated 26.2.99 and 22.3.99 inter alia has imposed penalties of Rs. 1.5. lacs and Rs. 1 lac on Shri Vijay Sachdeva under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The respondents filed the appeals and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh, vide his orders both dated 27.9.2000 in respect of the two appeals filed by the respondent, allowed his appeals with the observations that as per Rule 209A, penalty is imposable on any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing or purchasing or in any other manners deals with any excisable goods which he knows or has a reason to believe is liable to consfiscation. He has observed that no evidence whatsoever has been adduced to establish as to how the appellant was involved in taking wrong modvat credit by the manufacturer and hence it is held that the penalty under Rule ...
Cce Vs. Dhiman Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC379
1. The respondents manufacture iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Patiala, vide his order dated 8.3.99 has observed that the respondents availed the modvat credit of Rs. 1,13,511.05 on the alloy steel ingots falling under chapter heading 7204.00. He has observed that the party did not make any declaration with regard to this item under Rule 57G of Cental Excise Rules, 1944. It is observed that the party filed an application for condonation of delay in making the declaration but the Assistant Commissioner in his order has held that the party availed the modvat credit on the ingots in the months of August and September 1994 whereas the COD application is filed on taking and availing the credit nearly after two months; that under Rule 57G(9), a request for condonation of delay has to be filed before taking the credit. Thus request of the party for condonation of delay in availing the modvat credit is rejected.2. The Assistant C...
Pal Singh Vs. National thermal Power Corporation Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)1059; 96(2002)DLT877; 2002(65)DRJ88; 2003(1)SLJ62(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Award of Labour Court No. IX, Delhi has been assailed by the Workman. The Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the Workman had worked for a period of 242 days. If further found that he had not been served with any retrenchment notice or pay in lieu thereof. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of M.C.D. v. Prem Chand Gupta and Anr., 1999 10 A.D. (SC) 371 in which it has been opined that artificial breaks are not to be recognized and the worker should be treated to be in continuous service, it was held in the impugned Award that the termination was contrary to law. Despite concluding that the Workman was entitled to reinstatement with back wages, the Labour Court followed the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Presiding Officer and Anr., 2000 LLR 136, and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per year, aggregating Rs...
Pramod Kumar Dang Vs. Vishnu Dutt Mehta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT806; 2002(62)DRJ36
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Through this application, review of the order dated 18.5.2000 is being sought on the ground that Dr. Surender Mohan with whom defendant No. 1 had entered into agreement to sell after having agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff was imp leaded as defendant No. 2 as according to the applicant-Dr. Surinder Mohan he is neither a necessary nor a proper property so as to render effective and complete adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit.2. The main premise of the review of the said order is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra alias Gadasaguru : (1995)3SCC147 . In this case Daulat Singh, father of the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 51 of 1989 for specific performance of a contract of sale said to have been executed on 22.9.1986 agreeing to sell 7.17 acres of the land bearing Plot No. 655. Pending decision in the suit, Daulat Singh died. The petitioner came on record as legal representative of Daulat Singh. He filed a...
R.K. Sareen Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)513
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by his non promotion from a Major to a Lieutenant Colonel and has sought a direction to consider his case for promotion without taking into consideration the impugned ACRs for the years 1991-1992 and 1992-93 as also direction not to take into consideration the impugned severe dis-pleasure.2. The petitioner has stated in the petition that he was appointed as a Presiding Officer in May 1992 to take over the buildings constructed for Army Aviation Base at Jhansi from civil contractor. It has been alleged that in view of the nature of work involving crores of rupees, the petitioner was pressurised by respondent No. 6 not to reflect his observations in the Board proceedings and since the petitioner refused to delete his observations, the petitioner was harassed by respondent No. 6 who was his commanding officer and also the Reviewing Officer for writing his ACRs.3. The petitioner vide his letter dated 2nd August, 1992 requested for a pers...
Sayeed Absar Biri Works Vs. Commr. of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC626
1. The above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common order-in-original, dated 31-8-2001/10-9-2001 vide which the duty and the penalties have been confirmed against them of various amounts as detailed thereon.2. The appellant Number 1 is a partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as 'FIRM') engaged in the manufacture of hand made biris having brand names as Syed Absar, Tulsi Kishan and Pathan. The firm has got two factories; one at Ghoorpur and the other at Phoolpur both in Allahabad. For both these factories; separate central excise registrations had been obtained. The other appellants, namely, Shri Mohd. Akhtar, Shri Aflaq Ahmed, Shri Akhlaq Ahmed, Sh. Hasnain Ahmed and Shri Sahabuddin Khan, were partners in the firm. The factories remained under the physical control of the Excise Department till 13-10-1993. On receipt of secret reliable information that the appellants were indulging in evasion of excise duty by suppression of production of their brand...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »