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.
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Shri Ganesh Upadhyaya and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)749
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Union of India has filed this Writ Petition against the judgment and Order dated 5th June, 1998 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2405/97 thereby allowing the said OA filed by the respondent herein. By the impugned judgment the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioners herein to regularise Type IV quarter No.1018, Sector VIII, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Quarter, for short) in the name of the applicant w.e.f. 1st June, 1997 subject to payment of license fee as per Rules. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent herein was not eligible for the said CWP.7705-99 allotment from the aforesaid date and thereforee he is liable to pay penal rent for the period in question.The fact of the matter is not in dispute. 2. Succinctly stated, the respondent herein was appointed as SSO Grade II (Rs.2200/- - Rs.4000/-) and was transferred to Delhi in November 1992 where he resided with his father who was Assistant D...
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)197; 98(2002)DLT585
Devinder Gupta, J.1. Three delinquents Lalit, Manoj and Rajesh havebeen produced by Inspector Rajeshwar Kumar, SHO, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar. Files have also been produced.,2. After the delinquents were caught by Head Constable Joy Sebastian and he recovered from their possession tool bag containing keys and 'pana' and stolen care stereos, which led to registration of FIR No. 438/20101 of P.S. Mukerjee Nagar for offences under Sections379/411/34 IPC. The delinquents are alleged to have made disclosure statements of having committed thefts of car stereos. Seven FIR Nos. 275/2001, 325/2001, 346/2001, 351/2001, 375/2001, 427/2001 and 437/2001 were found to have been registered at P.S. Mukherjee Nagar for theft of car stereos. On their disclosure statement seven more stereos were recovered, at their instance, from one Shakeel Kabari. Thereafter the delinquents were also arrested Along with Shakeel Kabari in these seven cases. Test identification parade of the case property was got conducted be...
Tax Payers Welfare Association Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)15
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Both the writ petitions are aimed at removing the difficulties and obstacles being faced in the Bikri Kar Bhawan and thereforee taken up together.CWP NO: 2642/2001 2. The petitioner, which is a Tax Payers Welfare Association, has filed this petition as a Public Interest Litigation invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are Government of NCT of Delhi, The Commissioner of Sales Tax as well as the Commissioner of Police, in that order. The grievance raised in the present petition relates to the non-providing of the basic facilities needed/required by the tax payers/assesseds in the Bikri Kar Bhawan situated at IP Estate which houses Sales Tax department. The petitioner states that Sales Tax department was shifted to this building in the year 1994. This building consists of 13 floors. There are 106 wards and about two lacs dealers are registered with the Sales Tax department. These registered dealers as well ...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sh. O.P. Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)37
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The respondent No.1 joined as Accounts Clerk in the Jammu Division of CPWD on 8th November, 1947. He was declared quasi permanent on 1st February, 1951 and remained with CPWD till 30th September, 1961 where after he joined the services with ONGC as a Junior Accountant. He was ultimately absorbed in ONGC from where he retired on 30th June, 1984.2. Since, according to the respondent No.1, he worked for more than ten years with the petitioner/CWPD, he was entitled to prorata pension andother retirement benefits from the petitioners. As the petitioners refused to give him any such benefit, he filed OA No.1275/2000 before the Central Administrative CWP NO: 5871/2001:Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. This OA has been allowed vide impugned judgment dated 20th December, 2000.3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.4. It may be mentioned that the learned Tribunal while allowing the OA filed by the ...
Hindustan Appliances Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC555
1. The appellants are manufacturers of domestic appliances like Juicers, Mixers, Grinders and Hand Blenders. These appliances are liable to Central Excise duty under Chapter Sub-heading 85.09 of Central Excise Tariff. Further, the assessable value of these goods were required to be fixed after reducing the permissible abatement from their MRP with effect from 2.6.98 in view of Notification No.18/98-CE(NT) dated 2.6.98 issued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The impugned order has demanded a duty of over Rs. 41 lakhs in respect of these appliances removed by the appellant during the period 2.6.98 to 27.11.98. Apart from the duty, penalty of an amount equal to the duty has also been imposed on the appellant, in addition to demand of interest in respect of the amount demanded as duty. The ground for making the duty demand is that on the domestic appliances sold by them, the appellant did not pay duty on the basis of the correct MRP, but on the lower amounts of MRP mentio...
Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC321
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 19-1-2001 vide which the Commissioner has confirmed the duty of Rs. 55,44,370/- and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC and also of Rs. 15,00,000/- under Rule 173Q and 210 of the Central Excise Rules, besides ordering the payment of interest under Section 11AC of the Act.2. The appellants are a registered dealer. They are receiving the duty paid petroleum products from the manufacturer (Refineries) and clearing the same to the Customers on cum-duty prices. The selling prices of petroleum products are administered by their Head Office and it is on their instructions that the increase or decrease in cum-duty prices is done by the depot office. Due to upward revision of the prices for the stock in hand at the appellants' depot, the differential duty was charged by them from the customer by including in cum-duty price, but the same was not paid by them to the Central Excise Departme...
Subal Export Vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT687TriDel
1. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate submitted that M/s. Subal Export are merchant exporter; that they submitted a shipping bill on 28-9-2000 for the export of 100% Acrylic blanket under DEEC Scheme; that the impugned goods were manufactured by M/s Esskay International and the value declared was Rs. 10,02,497/-; that further on examination by the Customers, it was found that only four bales out of 221 bales were containing 100 % acrylic fiber blankets whereas in the remaining bales, the percentage of acrylic fiber was only 27% approx. The Commissioner Customs confiscated the entire consignment valued at Rs. 2,38,840/- with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1.25 lakhs and he also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Learned Advocate further submitted that the goods were not manufactured by the Appellants and they were only acting as merchant exporter; that as held by the Tribunal in the case of Sunahri International v. CC (G), Mumbai [2001 (129) E.L.T. 480 (T) = 2001...
Ram Shree Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT444TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Ram Shree Steels (P) Ltd. is regarding the abatement of duty under Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules.2.1. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture M.S. Ingots which are notified under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that they had claimed abatement of duty for the period 28-5-1998 to 29-8-1998 inasmuch as the entire factory had remained closed; that the officers of Electricity Board had filed First Information Report against ten units, including the Appellant's unit; that the Electricity Board had disconnected their electricity supply and sealed the electric meter; that the intimation for closure of factory had been given by them on 28-5-98; that the meter reading was not available as the meter room was sealed by the Officers of Electricity Board; that they had not claimed the abatement of duty with effect from 27-5-1998 as they had filed...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT773TriDel
1. Applicant filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. A/1158/2001-NB (SM), dated 14-8-2001. The contention of the applicant is that the benefit of Modvat credit was denied on the ground that inputs were not mentioned in the declaration filed by the respondents for availing the benefit of Modvat credit. The contention of the applicant is that Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.), dated 9-2-99 is applicable on the facts of the present case as Rule 57G and Rule 57T of Central Excise Rules are amended to the effect that no credit shall be denied on the ground that declaration filed does not contained all the details. Their contention is also that in similar circumstances, the Tribunal has remanded the issue to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. The applicants also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) to say that no one should suffer for the mi...
NavIn Chemical Enterprises Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Bhopal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC350
1. M/s. Navin Chemical Enterprises have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No. 526-542/BPL/2001, dated 19-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The facts of the case are that the appellants were issued a show cause notice asking them to explain as to why service tax should not be levied and collected from them for the service under Goods Transport Operators. The appellants filed reply to show cause notice stating that the show cause notice was not legally sustainable. The Deputy Commissioner adjudicated the case dropping the proceedings against the appellants. This order was reviewed by the Commissioner and directed the Deputy Commissioner to file an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dropping the demand and allowed the appeal filed by the Department.4. Shri Atul Dikshit, learned SDR in his fairness submits that the Commissioner has powers to revise...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »