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.
Ahmedabad Dyeing and Printing Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC588
1. The appellant is a processor of textile fabrics and works under compound levy scheme. It claimed abatement of duty for the periods when the unit was closed. The abatement claim was made without first making payment of duty due at the compounded rate. The impugned order rejected the claim on the ground that abatement claims for periods of closure less than a month can be considered only after duty alongwith the interest is paid.2. We have heard both sides. The claim of the appellant for rebate has been rejected for violation of the procedure specified in Rule 96ZQ.Sub-rule 7(f) specifically states that when the claim for abatement by the independent processor is for a period of less than one month, he shall be required to pay the duty, as applicable, for the entire period of the month and may subsequently seek such claim after payment of such duty. The rejection of the appellant's claim by the lower authority is on account of the violation of this procedural requirement. Both sides ...
Kartar Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT102TriDel
1. S/Shri Kartar Singh, Naresh Goel and Jai Prakash Gupta have filed these captioned appeals being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28-3-2001 passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi imposing a penalty of Rs. 5.0 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) on Shri Kartar Singh, Rs. 10.0 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs) each on Shri Naresh Goel and Shri Jai Prakash Gupta and confiscation of the mini truck of Shri Kartar Singh and its redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1.0 lakh (rupees one lakh).2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the proceedings were drawn against S/Shri Kartar Singh, Naresh Goel and Jai Prakash Gupta and others for confiscation of seized goods of foreign origin valued at Rs. 57,61,00,0007- and mini truck valued at Rs. 2,00,000/-. Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence visited the office premises of M/s.Indore Goods Carrier, Delhi. In the transport office the officers, requested Shri B.C. Mishra, Manager to disclose if any consignment of 17...
Praveen Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)547; 97(2002)DLT53; 2003(1)SLJ74b(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule.2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. In the month of May 199 respondents published an advertisement inviting applications from unmarried male Indian citizens for selection as Airmen in the Non Technical Trades (Group Y).4. The eligibility condition for the candidate in pursuance to the advertisement were as under :' a) The candidate should have passed metriculation Equivalent examination with a minimum of 45% marks in aggregate ; b) The candidate should have been born between 1.11.1980 and 1.11.1983.'5. The petitioner applied in pursuance to the advertisement on 17.11.1999. He was declared successful in the written examination. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the medical test and he was declared medically fit and was short listed. The petitioner was issued a call letter dated 20.6.2000 stating that the petitioner had been provisionally selected and asking the petitioner to report along wit...
Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr. Vs. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)451; 2002(62)DRJ432
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This is a rather unfortunate litigation where the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short Tribunal) has imposed costs on the petitioners - the Commissioner of Sales Tax and others. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari or order or direction in the nature thereof quashing the order dated 15.1.2002 and the order dated 11.6.2001 passed by the Tribunal.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this writ petition are recapitulated as under.3. The appeal of M/s Bhullar (India) Limited was filed before the Assistant Commissioner-IX against the order of assessment. The learned Assistant Commissioner directed the appellant to deposit the entire disputed demand of Rs. 1,41,984/- by 13.12.2000. This order was challenged in appeal before the Tribunal. While the appeal was pending before the Tribunal, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal in limi...
Escorts Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT702TriDel
1. In the present case, the duty demand has arisen on account of the addition of labour cost involved in the replacement of parts during warranty period of tractors, to their assessable value. The learned Counsel has brought to our notice the decision of this Tribunal in the case of TELCO Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, 2000 (121) E.L.T. 224 which has been confirmed by the Apex Court in (A60 Vol. 130 E.L.T.) and submitted that the addition made in the impugned order is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court.2. As against the contention on behalf of the appellant, the learned SDR points out that the very issue remains decided against the appellant by the decision of this Tribunal in their own case reported in Delhi 2000 (124) E.L.T. 496. He also mentions that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner following this order of the Tribunal. It is his contention that there is no merit in the appellants case in view of the previous decision of the Tribunal....
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. A.C.C. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC365
1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that conveyor system fabricated and erected at site for transporting various raw-materials are not goods chargeable to excise duty.2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, in spite of notice.4. The contention of the revenue is that conveyor system is assembly of large number of machines and other structures which can be dismantled and sold in parts.5. We find that the issue involved in this case is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in respondents' own case, i.e., A.C.C. Ltd (Pinal Order No. 47-48/2002-B dated 5.2.2002). The Tribunal, after relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. 2000 (112) ELT 273 (SC) held that marketability test requires that the goods as such should be in a position to be taken to the market and sold.6. In the ...
Alwar Processor (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC347
1. The appellants manufacture processed cotton/man made fabric falling under chapter sub-heading Nos. 5507, 5208, 5209, 5513.29 and 5514.29.Their factory premises were visited by the Central Excise Officers of Alwar Division. On physical verification, 15287.80 meters of processed fabrics valued at Rs. 3,21,044/- were found in excess than what was recorded in their RG-1 register. The Officers further found 235 meter grey fabric (raw material) in excess than what was recorded in Form IV register. Both these goods viz. processed fabric and grey fabric were seized. Shri Rajendra Gupta, Authorised Signatory in his statement deposed that the excess finished goods were manufactured on 4-2-98 and 5-2-98 and the entries of the goods were not made in RG-1 register as the same were to be removed clandestinely without payment of duty. The Officers of Central Excise further searched the private godown near their factory on 9-2-98 which resulted into recovery of 20029.30 meters of processed cloth a...
Krishan Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT150TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. HKS (638) A & R/2001, dated 7-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi upholding the order of the adjudicating authority by absolutely confiscating 5 bales of taffeta cloth of assorted size; measuring 530 mtrs., collectively valued at Rs. 21,200/-, seized vide panchnama dated 31-7-99 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on Shri Krishan Kumar, Proprietor of M/s.Ram Chand Mahajan & Soils, under Section 112 of the said Act.2. Shri M. Ganesan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the goods measuring 898.90 mtrs. were purchased by the appellant against Bill No. 712, dated 15-7-99 for an amount of Rs. 35,956/-and a cheque No. 124281, dated 28-7-99 was issued therefor; that the provisions of Section 123 of the Act could be invoked against the appellant only after the Department discharges the initial burden cast upon them under the law to pr...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi Vs. Purisons Engineers (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT672TriDel
1. The dispute raised in this appeal of the Revenue is that the assessable value of the air-conditioners manufactured by the respondent assessee should include freight charges up to the buyer's place.Support has been sought for this view from the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 650 (T) = 1999 (35) RLT 9 (T) and CCE, Meerut v. Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 191 (T-LB) = 2000 (38) RLT 637 (CEGAT-L.B).2. We have perused the records and heard both the learned SDR and the ld. Counsel for the respondent. The air-conditioners in question are sold under DGS&D contract. From a copy of the contract filed by the respondent it is seen that terms of delivery are that "consignments shall be delivered on FOR station of dispatch." It also states that free delivery shall be made within Municipal limits of Delhi/New Delhi.The goods are delivered to the Railways for transport. Sample copy of the...
B.D. Viz and Sons Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Bank of India
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC94
1. This application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was moved along with the memorandum of appeal and therein it was prayed that the appellants be exempt from depositing the amount as held due by the Tribunal below.The appeal was filed in the year 1998.2. By application No. 201/2001, additional grounds have been taken for exemption under Section 21 of the said Act. Replies have been filed and the pleadings are complete.4. This appeal was filed before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai against the final order made by DRT, Jaipur in O.A. No. 827/96 whereunder a decree of Rs. 55,22,559 has been passed with future interest @ 17.5% p.a. with quarterly rests from 25.8.94 till realization.5. My learned predecessor, Mr. Justice V.R. Datar, Chairman of DRAT, Mumbai passed an order dated 4.10.99 wherein he directed the execution to be stayed until further orders on condition that the appellants would deposit Rs. 10 lakhs. The op...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »