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.
Singhla Sales Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus., Amritsar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC558
1. In these appeals, the issue involved is whether the goods imported by M/s. Singhla Sales Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Polyglass Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. are classifiable under Heading 39.06 of the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act (CTA) as claimed by them, or are classifiable under sub-heading 3915.90 as confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs under the impugned Orders Nos. 12-13/2000, dated 25-4-2000 and 14-15/2000, dated 2-5-2000.2. Shiri G.L. Rawal, learned Advocate submitted that both the Appellants are traders of acrylic sheets/off cuts of acrylic sheets, off cuts (chips); that they imported acrylic sheets/off cuts and declared classification under Heading 39.06 of C.T.A.; that the Adjudicating Authority has held that the goods on examination were found to be crushed pieces of acrylic sheets/off cuts; the goods had been mis-declared; the impugned goods are in the nature of waste type of material and are classifiable under Heading 39.15. The learned Advocate, furth...
Autolite (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC786
1. The present appeal which is referred for being considered by the Larger Bench relates to the maintainability of an appeal before the Tribunal from an interim order of stay passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The appellant herein challenged the interim order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) before the High Court of Rajasthan by way of a writ petition. The above writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 19-3-2001 directing the appellant to approach the Tribunal by filing an appeal. It is observed that the appellant has got a right of appeal before the Tribunal against the interim order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which is an efficacious alternative remedy. It is thus, the present appeal is filed before this Tribunal by the petitioner in the writ petition.3. When the application for stay in the appeal came up for hearing, the learned Single Member found that a different view has been ta...
Shree Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT542TriDel
1. These two stay applications have been moved seeking waiver of the pre-deposit of the entire service tax amount, as detailed in the impugned order. In Appeal No. ST/1 /2002-D, the waiver of pre-deposit sought is of Rs. 2,54,787/-, while in Appeal No. ST/2/2002-D, is of Rs. 5,95,915/-.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the Commissioner has no power to review the order of the Deputy Commissioner who dropped the service tax recovery proceedings against the appellants, and to direct his subordinate (Deputy Commissioner) to file the appeal against the Order-in-Original of the Deputy Commissioner and as such the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reversing the Order-in-Original of the Deputy Commissioner, under these circumstances is, prinia facie, illegal. He has also contended that the appellants being transport operators were not earlier covered under the definition of assesses in terms of Section 65 of the Service Tax Act and as such no service tax could be claimed fr...
Simrat Katyal Vs. Virender Katyal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)341
R.C. Jain, J.1. By means of this petition under Order 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of order dated 7.12.98 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, thereby disposing of the objections of the petitioner against the report of the local Commissioner dated 26.5.1998.2. The relevant facts leading to the present petition in brief are that a suit for perpetual injunction filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent restraining the defendant from interfering with and obstructing the use and enjoying her portion of house bearing No. 21, Bungalow Road, Delhi and also from preventing her to have access to and enjoying the use of garage and servant rom with rear courtyard till such time and alternate garage block and servant quarter is provided by the respondent in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.4.90 (in short MoU) is pending before the learned trial court. After the defendant-respondent had offered to construct the garage cu...
international Security and Intelligence Agency Limited Vs. Municipal C ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)957; 96(2002)DLT656; 2002(62)DRJ100
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. These are the objections filed through EA 472/2001 against the instant execution petition filed pursuant to the award dated 17.1.2001.2. At the very outset, maintainability of the instant petition has been challenged on the ground that it does not carry verification as per requirement of law which according to Dr. K.S. Sidhu, learned senior counsel for Judgment Debtor is mandatory in terms of Order 21 Rule 11(2) CPC. It reads like this:-'(2). Save as otherwise provided by Sub-rule (1), every application for the execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to the acquainted with the facts of the case and shall contain in a tabular form the following particulars, namely:- (a). the number of the suit;(b). the name of the parties;(c). the date of the decree;(d). whether any appeal has been preferred from the decree.xxxxxxxxxx'Dr. Sidhu has also relied upon provisions of Orde...
Mantri Housing and Constructions Ltd. Vs. the Additional Commissioner, ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR62(Delhi)
Dalveer Bhandari J. 1. This writ petition had been directed against the order dated 29.8.1997 passed by the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to issue 'No Objection Certificate' in terms of Section 269UC(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 in favor f the petitioner and respondents 3 to 23.2. Section 269UC of Income Tax Act, 1961 reads as under :'269UC.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), or in any other law for the time being in force, (no transfer of any immovable property in such area and of such Value exceeding five lakh rupees, as may be prescribed}, shall be effected except after an agreement for transfer is entered into between the person who intends transferring the immovable property (hereinafter referred to as the transferor) and the person to who it is proposed to be transferred (hereinafter referred to as the transferee) in accordance w...
Mantri Housing and Constructions Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Appropriate Autho ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)175
Dalveer Bhandari, J.This writ petition had been directed against the order dated 29-8-1997, passed by the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to issue 'No Objection Certificate' in terms of section 269UC(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in favor of the petitioner and respondents 3 to 23.2. Section 269UC of Income Tax Act, 1961, reads as under :'269UC. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), or in any other law for the time being in force, (no transfer of any immovable property in such area and of such value exceeding five lakh rupees, as may be prescribed), shall be effected except after an agreement for transfer is entered into between the person who intends transferring the immovable property (hereinafter referred to as the transferor) and the person to whom it is proposed to be transferred (hereinafter referred to as the transferee) in accordan...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Rigicut Tools Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT487TriDel
1. Revenue filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. 466/2001-B, dated 24-9-2001.3. The contention of the Revenue is that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act amended retrospectively by Section 110 of Finance Act, 2000 and in view of this amendment the demand can be made for the past period.4. We find no dispute in the legal proposition mentioned in the present application but the facts of the present case are different. In the final order, after considering the evidence on record it was held that as the applicants were specifically declaring the availment of the circular in classification list, therefore, no suppression can be alleged against the applicants. In respect of this finding, no averment is made in the present application. The demand can be made after extending the period of limitation provided under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, if there is any suppression, mis-statement etc. on the part of the manufacturer. In the present case, a...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Kanpur Vs. Ambika Engineers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT658TriDel
1. In this application, the Department has applied for reference of the question of law stated below to the jurisdictional High Court. "Whether the goods in respect of which due entry has not been made in the prescribed book, account or register, required to be maintained under the Central Excise Rules, can be held to be not liable to confiscation when the provisions of Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 clearly stipulate that "......and all the goods of which due entry has not been made in such book, account or register shall be liable to confiscation." It is claimed that the above question of law arises from the Final Order No. A/236/99-NB(S), dated 23-3-99 passed by this Bench in Appeal No. E/488/97-NB. In support of this application, reliance has been placed on the Tribunal's decision in the cases of S. Subramanyam & Co.v. Collector [1992 (59) E.L.T. 55] and Shim Paper Mills v. Collector [1987 (27) E.L.T. 319].2. I have carefully perused the Final Order ibid and the gr...
University of Delhi Vs. Shiv Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)143; 2002(64)ECC348; 2003(1)SLJ58(Delhi)
R.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the orderof learned Single Judge dated 26th April, 2000, thereby allowing the writ petition of the respondent herein and setting aside the orders of the appellant university in granting him notional promotion as Assistant Registrar with effect from 10-2-1994 and directing the university to grant him promotion as Assistant Registrar with effect from May 1981 and one time upward movement as Deputy Registrar in 1989 with all consequential benefits.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that the respondent was appointed a Senior Laboratory Assistant in Delhi University w.e.f. 4.8.1958 but was assigned the duty of clerk/typist. He was later on taken on the cadre of clerk/typist in 1963. However, he was not given benefit of his services rendered during the period of 4.8.1958 to 31.12.1963, The respondent approached this Court by means of a Civil Writ Petition No. 76 of 1976 and vide an order dated 2nd November, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »