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.
Himachal Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT760TriDel
1. M/s. Himachal Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. has preferred this appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original No. 13/C.E./93, dated 30-7-93 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, confirming the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 12,88,971.18 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs on the appellants.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture Oxygen and Nitrogen gases filled in cylinders falling under sub-heading Nos. 2804-11 and 2804.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act respectively; that the appellants were initially registered as a medium scale industry with the Directorate General Technical Development (DGTD) under registration dated 16-7-85; that since the installed plant and machinery was less than Rs. 35 lakhs they got their registration as medium scale industry cancelled and obtained SSI registration certificate dated 7-12-90 from the General Manager, District Industrial Centre in Himachal Pradesh; that this registration...
S.C. Manufacturers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT408TriDel
1. These are four appeals filed by the above mentioned appellants praying for quashing the impugned order dated 28-11-97 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur confirming the duty and penalty amounts, The main issues involved are as under: (i) Whether M/s. SCM and M/s. SI1 have taken wrong benefits of Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-93 during 1994-95 as they were using brand-name of another person (WCPL) and have thus evaded Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,41/764.00 and Rs. 9,24,584.00 respectively. (ii) Whether M/s. WCPL, M/s. SCM and M/s. SII have clandestinely manufactured and cleared Basic Chromium Sulphate (BCS) and Sodium Sulphate from the quantities of Soda Ash found short at the time of physical verification on 7-9-94 and have thus evaded Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,29,477.00, Rs. 3,81,933.00 and Rs. 4,15,044.00 respectively. (iii) Whether M/s. WCPL have actually clandestinely cleared higher quantity of BCS and Sodium Sulphate as is evident from their I...
Commissioner of Customs, New Vs. Sinclair Exports Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT554TriDel
1. Revenue is in Appeal, dissatisfied with Order-in-Original No.SKS/CC/ICD/TKD/44/2000, dated 13-7-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (ICD), TKD, New Delhi.2. The issue that arose for consideration in the adjudication proceedings leading to the passing of the impugned order was whether the respondent had discharged his export obligation under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. The respondent had imported stainless steel billets/ingots and rolls duty free under the DEEC scheme (License No.2051168, dated 7-6-93). He produced proof of export of 850 MTs of alloy steel bar Sections during January 1994 to Dubai in fulfilment of the export obligation before the Directorate General of Foreign Trade and that authority cancelled the bond upon being satisfied that export obligation had been fulfilled. The particulars of the Shipping Bills were as under :- 3. Later on, the Customs Authorities proceeded against the appellant by issue of Show Cause Notice No. C. VIII(ICD)6/Import/Adj. (Commr.) /1...
Naturance Research Lab. P. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC590
1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rupees 11,56,170 and penalty of Rupees 7.50 lakh.3. The applicants claimed the classification of 29 products under tariff heading 3003.39 as Ayurvedic medicine whereas the revenue classified the same under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff. The contention of the applicants is that even assuming that 22 products out of 29 products are to be treated as cosmetics, the demand is to be quantified after granting the benefit of Notification Nos. 1/93 and 140/83. Their contention is that if the benefit of these notifications were granted, the demand will remain limited to rupees two lakh approximately.4. The contention of the revenue is that the authorities below granted the benefit of these notifications.5. The issue is in respect of classification of the goods whether these are ayurvedic medicines or cosmetics. The case of the applicants is arguable. Prima facie, it is not a fit case for total waiver of pre-...
Shree Ganpati Synthetics Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC176Tri(Delhi)
1. Shree Ganpati Synthetics, M/s. Narinder Paper Mills and M/s. Behal Spg. Mills have filed appeals along-with stay petitions praying for staying the operation and implementation of order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. None appears for the appellants. We have perused the evidence on record, the adjudication order and the relevant sections of the Finance Act and Rules framed for the purpose of Service Tax. We note that the amount of duty has not so far been quantified, therefore, the stay petitions are dismissed as being premature.3. Since the issue is that of interpretation and is covered by the law explicitly, we proceeded to decide the appeals themselves.4. The facts of the cases are that Service Tax at the rate of 5% was introduced on Goods Transport Operator Services. SCNs were issued demanding Service Tax during the period 16-11-97 to 2-6-98. In the meantime the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti v.UOI held the relevant provisions as ultra vi...
Mehra Woollen and Worsted Spng. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC361
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. SC-8/92 DIU (A) & S/10-3/92 DIU (A), dated 2-3-92 where under about 5000 Kgs. of used serviceable garments imported by the appellant was confiscated under Sub-sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with imposition of a penalty of Rs. 40,000/ - on the appellant and enhancement of the assessable value of the goods to Rs. 30 per Kg.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of woolen goods and imported a consignment declared as 25,000 Kgs. of synthetic hosiery rags completely premutilated-old. The clearance of the goods was claimed under OGL Appendix 6, List 8 Part I Item No. 590 of ITC AM 1990-93. The consignment was packed in 60 bales and the value declared in bill of entry No. 8657, dated 30-12-91 was Rs. 2,59,908/-.However, the examination of the consignment showed that 4966 Kgs. of the imported consignment was one-piece, old, and used serviceable garments. Proceedings were initiated a...
Commr. of C. Ex., Chandigarh-i Vs. Jindal Spinning and General Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT811TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the goods manufactured by M/s. Jindal Spinning and General Mills are eligible to avail of the benefit of exemption under Notification No.5/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98.2. Shri P.K. Jain, ld. SDR, submitted that the respondents manufactured multifold cotton yarn and multi fold polyester yarn from single yarn, which were cleared by them without payment of duty, availing exemption under Notification No. 5/98-C.E. (S. No. 138); that the Asstt.Commissioner disallowed them the benefit of the Exemption Notification and confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on the ground that exemption from payment was available subject to the condition that single yarn used by them was duty paid, which had not been proved by them; that however, the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order allowed the appeals filed by the respondents relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Decent Dyeing Company [1990 (4...
Harbans Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)90; 97(2002)DLT186; 2002(63)DRJ628; 2003(1)SLJ148b(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 28th February 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT' for short) in OA No. 691/2000 whereby and whereunder the Original Application filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed.2. The writ petitioners who were two in number filed the afore-mentioned Original Application before the learned Tribunal questioning the inaction of the respondents in the matter of inclusion of their names in the list for their promotion as an Assistant Engineer in Central Public Works Department (CPWD).3. The factual matrix relevant for the purpose of this petition is as follows:4. The UPSC invited applications on or about 1st August 1992 from eligible candidates for a limited departmental competitive examination for promotion of Junior Engineer Grade (Electrical) to the post of Assistant Engineer Grade (Electrical) in the CPWD. Rule 8 of Rules of examination is as follows:'8. After the examination, candidates will be ...
Joginder Singh Vs. Prithvi Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)169; 2(2002)CCR113; 96(2002)DLT809
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Lt. Col. Joginder Singh (Retd.) petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court with respect to Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He seeks proceedings for criminal contempt of court to be initiated against the respondents.2. Respondent No. 3, Gurchanran Singh Copra, is the brother of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 (now deceased) is the main person against who the assertions to be referred to herein have been made while respondent No. 2 is the wife of respondent no.1.3. The sum and substance of the assertions made by the petitioner as cajoled from the petition are that respondent No. 3 has sold the property illegally to respondent No. 1 and the decree so passed even is not valid. As against respondents 1 and 2 it had been pleaded that respondent No. 1 has given his wrong name at one place he mentions his name as Prithvi Raj and other documents he described as Prithvi Raj Choudhry He also contends that ...
Bumbrah Electric Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)753; 2003(1)ARBLR421(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT130; 2002(62)DRJ213
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. There is no gainsaying the fact that theArbitrator is an instrument of the agreement and is notover it. If the Arbitrator traverses beyond the terms ofthe agreement such an award is liable to be set aside. Hehas to remain within the four corners of the agreement.However, at the same time, it is cardinal principle thatthe sanctity of the award should always be preservedbecause the parties choose their own forum reposing theirfull faith not only in his competence but also in hisintegrity and impartiality. The parties, are, thereforeerestrained from picking holes with the findings of theArbitrator unless bias or perversity is manifest andpronounced.2. At the same time, the court should also refrainfrom re-appreciating or re-assessing the evidence ormaterial on which the Arbitrator has based his findings.If this is allowed, it would amount to functioning ofcourt as appellate court which it is not. This is neitherthe object of Arbitrator Act nor the permissible area.The ab...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »