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.
Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC564
1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,65,942 and penalties imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act and under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules.2. The contention of the applicant is that they were clearing the goods in question after classifying them under sub-heading 3903.30 of Central Excise Tariff. The applicants filed the classification list, which was duly approved by the competent authority without any objection. They were also filing RT 12 returns regularly which were also assessed by the Revenue. Now the Revenue has issued a show cause notice on 2.5.2001 seeking reclassification of the goods in question under sub-heading 3903.90 of Central Excise Tariff for the period April 1996 to February 1997 and June 1998 to February 2000. The contention of the applicant is that the demand is time barred as no suppression can be alleged against the applicant in view of the fact that classification list filed by the applicant was duly app...
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC185
1. The issue in respect of classification of 'Dant Manjan Lal' is referred to the Larger Bench. While referring the matter to the Larger Bench, the Division Bench of the Tribunal doubted the correctness of the earlier decision in appellants' own case i.e. in E/A No.2237/99-Mum. (Final Order No. C-I/4292/WZB/2000 dated 13.12.2000, which was followed by the East Regional Bench in E/A No. E/R-95-96/2000 (Final Order No. A/2035-2036/CAL/2000 dated 14.12.2000 whereby it was held to be classifiable under sub-heading 30.03 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The issue involved in the present case is in respect of classification of 'Dant Manjan Lal' for the period from June, 91 to May, 97 and the lower authorities held that the product, in question, is classifiable under Chapter headings 33.06 of the Central Excise Tariff after relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appellants' own case i.e. M/s. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan .3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, ...
Brooks International Vs. Cc, Icd, Tughlakabad, New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC203Tri(Delhi)
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common Order-in-Original dated 23-11-2000 vide which the Commissioner of Customs had ordered confiscation of their goods, imposed redemption fine and also disallowed drawback, as detailed in the order itself.2. The appellants sought export of certain consignments of ready-made garments under claim for duty drawback. But on receipt of information, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (in short DRI) detained those consignments for detailed examination while lying in the export shed and awaiting customs clearance. The consignments of appellant No. 1 were examined on 7-1-99 and 12-1-99. While of appellant No. 2 were examined on 18-1-99 and 25-1-99. Similarly, consignments of appellant No. 3 were examined on 14-1-99 and 8-2-99. All the examinations were conducted in the presence of the independent witnesses. The consignments contained garments of various types. The samples were also drawn fr...
V.K. Dewan and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)821; 96(2002)DLT662; 2002(62)DRJ38
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The objections filed by the petitioner-claimant mainly confine to the point that award is non-speaking in respect of certain claims whereas terms of the agreement specifically provides that award shall be speaking award. 2. I have perused the award. Almost in respect of each and every claim i.e. claims 6(c), 6(d), 6(e), 6(f), 7, 8, 10, the Arbitrator has avoided to provide reasons. As regards claim Nos. 4 & 5, the Arbitrator has made his observations that claim is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and claimants have failed to establish the claim in terms of the agreement. The Arbitrator is silent about what are the terms against which the claim has been preferred.3. It is the bounden duty of the Arbitrator to give reasons so that both the parties know as to on what grounds award has been made. Award is highly laconic, sketchy and cryptic and is liable to be set aside as it does not fulfill the requirement of the agreement that casts obli...
Sewa Sons Builders Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)793; 2002(62)DRJ135
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. There is no gainsaying the fact that the Arbitrator is an instrument of the agreement and is not over it. If the Arbitrator traverses beyond the terms of the agreement such an award is liable to be set aside. He has to remain within the four corners of the agreement. However, at the same time, it is cardinal principal that the sanctity of the award should always be preserved because the parties choose their own forum reposing their full faith not only in his competence but also in his integrity and impartiality. The parties, are, thereforee restrained from picking holes with the findings of the Arbitrator unless bias or perversity is manifest and pronounced. 2. At the same time, the court should also refrain from re-appreciating or re-assessing the evidence or material on which the Arbitrator has based his findings. If this is allowed, it would amount to functioning of court as appellate court which it is not. This is neither the object of Arbitration Act nor the per...
Indian Overseas Bank Vs. S.N.G. Castorete Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)174; AIR2002Delhi309; 2002(62)DRJ32
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of rs. 2,29,548.31 towards the outstanding amount against bridge loan facility. 2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:- 3. The plaintiff is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Complies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Officer at 762, Anna Salai, Madras and branch office at F-47, Malhotra Building, Janpath, New Delhi. Defendant No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, carrying on business at 14A/1, Sahibabad industrial City-IV, Ghaziabad, U.P. Defendant No. 1 was at all material times, carrying on the business of manufacture of pre-cast, pre stressed hollow core concrete slabs. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are the directions of defendant No.1 4. The plaintiff sanctioned various credit limits from time to time to defendant No. 1 including the cash credit, bridge loan and bills purchase and letter of guarantee. Some time in April, 1977, a bridge loan of Rs. 3.5. lakhs was...
Dalmia Dairy Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR476(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. In this writ petition revisional order dated 12.12.1978 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi purported to be under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is in question.2. By reason of the said order the petitioner's application for exemption from payment of interest in terms of Section 215(1) read with Rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1960 was allowed in part. The said order was passed for the year ending 30.9.1974 for the assessment year 1975-76. The petitioner furnished a return showing his income during the relevant assessment year on 30.6.75. He furnished a revised Income-tax return. The petitioner, before the assessing authority claimed depreciation. An order of assessment was made on 2.6.1978 assessing the total income at Rs. 81,38,810/- and holding the petitioner liable to pay a sum of Rs. 37,13,047/- on account of income tax and interest. A demand notice for the said sum was accordingly served on the petitioner. The petitioner applied for waiver ...
Suresh Kumar JaIn Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)473; 2003(1)ARBLR159(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT596
D.K. Jain, J.1. These are objections by respondent No. 1-the Delhi Development Authority (for short, the DDA) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act against the award made and published by Shri A.L. Garg, the sole arbitrator, on 18 September 1992.2. A contract for construction of 276 Janta Flats at Pocket F, Pitampura was awarded to the petitioner by the DDA. However, during the course of execution of the contract, certain disputes arose between the parties. On the petitioner invoking the arbitration clause, contained in the agreement, the Engineer Member, DDA the persona designata, appointed the above named arbitrator as the sole arbitrator to determine the disputes/claims raised by the petitioner/contractor. After hearing the parties, the learned arbitrator made and published the award on 18 September 1992.3. On contractor's filing petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the arbitrator filed the award and notice of filing of award was issued to the parties, p...
Lt. Col. Y.N.i. Anand (Retd.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)947
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner feels aggrieved by Order dated 28.3.1995 as per which the respondents have raised a demand of s.1,57,665/- against him. Since the petitioner had taken voluntary retirement, the aforesaid amount is sought to be deducted from his pension. The petitioner, thereforee, seeks quashing of the aforesaid order dated 28.3.1995 and also prays for writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order and make any deductions from his pension which is payable to the petitioner.2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate to state the factual matrix.3. CWP.No.1825/95:The petitioner is a Doctor who joined Armed Forces in August,1971 and awarded regular commission as a short service office in May,1972. At the time when he joined Armed Forces he was a final year student of M.B.B.S. He completed his internship in February,1973. During his service he was detailed on various postings by the Army and it may not be necessary ...
Dalmia Dairy Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)296
Judgment S. B. Sinha, C. J.In this writ petition revisional order, dated 12-12-1978, passed by the Commissioner Delhi, purported to be under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is in question.By reason of the said order the petitioner's application for exemption from payment of interest in terms of section 215(1) read with rule 40 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, was allowed in particle. The said order was passed for the year ending 30-9-1974, for the assessment year 1975-76. The petitioner furnished a return showing his income during the relevant assessment year on 30-6-1975. He furnished a revised income-tax return. The petitioner, before the assessing authority claimed depreciation. An order of assessment was made on 2-6-1978, assessing the total income at Rs. 81,38,810 and holding the petitioner liable to pay a sum of Rs. 37,13,047 on account of income-tax and interest. A demand notice for the said sum was accordingly served on the petitioner. The petitioner applied for waiver o...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »