Delhi Court March 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.
Treasure Tech Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT398TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.3. Appellants were manufacturing printed circuit boards (PCB) falling under sub-heading 8534.00 of Central Excise Tariff and were working as 100% EOU. They were permitted to manufacture the goods under bond and were also permitted to make advance DTA sales up to Rs. 50 lakh from August 1998. For the period from August, 1998 to November, 1999, appellants cleared the goods in DTA and availed the benefit of Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995. During scrutiny of their records, it was found that the appellants cleared the goods in DTA in excess to Rs. 50 lakh. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for demanding duty for the period from August, 1998 to November, 1999 on the ground that they were not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995 as the appellants sold the goods in DTA for which they were not allowed to be sold in India. The A...
Dhar Cement Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC366
1. In these appeals, arising out of a common Order, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 24/91-CE, dated 25.7.1991 is available to the Cement manufactured by M/s Dhar Cement Ltd. 2. Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s Dhar Cement Ltd., is having a mini Cement plant having installed capacity of less than 1,98,000 tonnes per annum; that as per the condition of Notification No. 24/91, they applied for and the Director of Industries issued a Certificate dated 27.7.1995 about the installed capacity of their unit to be 1,98,000 M.T., per annum; that, however, on persuation of the Central Excise Officers, the Director of Industries amended the said certificate under amendment dated 26.4.1997; that they represented the matter before the Director of Industries, who after making a detailed enquiry, again issued a certificate dated 9.9.1997 under which the amendment dated 26.4.1997 was cancelled and their installed capacity as certified under Cer...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gurdaspur Distillery
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT70TriDel
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that Methane Gas is a mixture of gases like Methane, Carbon Dioxide, etc., is not marketable, as such, therefore, is not excisable.3. Brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol and during the manufacture of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol a residue known as spent wash comes into existence and the same was reacted in a closed type digester and Methane gas in question was produced which was used as a fuel in distillery. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for classifying the Methane gas produced by the respondents under Heading 2711.29 of the Central Excise Tariff. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The respondents filed appeal and the same was allowed.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the Methane gas is specifically mentioned in tariff, therefore, it is excisable. We fin...
Munendra Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ795
ORDER Consequent on his superannuation w.e.f 31 Jul 98, Shri PN Sundaram, Scientist 'G', Director, SAG, Delhi, will handover the charge to Shri DK Garg, Scientist 'F' of SAG, Delhi. Shri Garg will officiate as Director, SAG, Delhi, till further orders. Necessary Handing/Taking over may please be done accordingly.Sd/- (Dr. Ram Kumar) Director of PersonnelFor Director General Research & Development'13. The Office Order dated 30th November 2000 is in the following terms:'30 November, 2000 OFFICE ...
Ushamil Private Ltd. Vs. Gimplex Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)111; 2002(64)DRJ358
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1.This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking directions to the respondent to file arbitration agreement dated 20.8.1994 and refer the disputes to the arbitrator.2. Short question that calls for determination is as to which court namely Delhi Court or Madras Court has jurisdiction. Petitioner has placed reliance upon letter dated 4.11.1993 wherein Clause 12 relating to jurisdiction is as under:-'This offer is subject to jurisdiction of Courts of Delhi/New Delhi.'3. However this offer was accepted by respondent on 9.11.1993 without reservation . Admittedly work was commenced by the petitioner in November 1993 itself.4. On the other hand, the respondent is invoking clause 16 pertaining to jurisdiction contained in the letter of acceptance forwarded on August 20, 1994. This clause reads as under:-16. JURISDICTION: This order is subject to jurisdiction of the Courts of Madras.'5. It is in this letter of acceptance that the arbitration Clause 15 ...
Lt. Col. V.N. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ379
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The petitioner at all material times was attached with 35 Inf. Brigade. Purported to be on the ground of indiscriminate local purchase of hygiene Chemicals ignoring the instructions laid down thereforee during his tenure as Officiating Commandant, he was charge-sheeted. Proceedings in terms of the Army Act had been initiated on 30th October 1996. Upon investigation, it was concluded:'3.CONCLUSION:- There has definitely been certain procedural lapses on part of 4 RPD ASC while resorting to local purchases. However, these lapses have been timely intervened into, plugged and various SOP now introduced at various levels so as to avoid future occurrence of such a nature. No financial lapses have been noticed in these local purchase and as such I recommend that this case may please be considered as closed, if deemed fit by the MG ASC.Sd/-K.S. Bharucha Brig. DDST.'2. However, Court Martial proceedings were initiated wherein certain procedural lapses were recorded. As many a...
Shri H.S. Sur Vs. National Federation of Industrial Cooperatives Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)737; 97(2002)DLT790; 2002(62)DRJ392
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd August, 1988 by which the appellant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 rad with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. 2. The respondent (plaintiff in the suit) filed a suit for recovery or s. 1,17,492.68 on the allegation that the appellant (defendant in the suit) was the Managing Director of the respondent from 1st May, 1982 to 31st December, 1985 and as such the Chief Executive of the respondent Cooperatives Ltd for general control over the administration in conformity with the Act, Rules and Bye-Laws. 3. The respondent allowed advances of various sums and purchased air tickets and other accessories from 29.6.1982 to 3.6.1985 onwards for the foreign and inland travels. The appellant was required to submit the adjustment bills for these advances within three months of the completion of the tour in accordance with the Accounts Code. The appellant had performed the f...
Commissioner of Excise and Entertainment Vs. Ved Prakash and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ781; (2002)IIILLJ940Del
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. An order dated 12th December 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 933/99 allowing the Original Application filed by the respondents herein is in question in this petition.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The respondents had been working as Safaiwala in the Office of the Commissioner of Excise and Entertainment.3. However, M/s Evershine House Keeping Services was engaged as contractor for doing the said job. According to the respondents, they had been working since 1995-96 continuously without break and thus they are entitled for temporary status having completed 240 days of service in a calendar year. The case of the petitioners, however, on the other hand was that the said respondents had never been appointed by the Commissioner of Excise and Entertainment and in fact, they were the employees of the said contractor. 4. The learned Tribunal, without deciding the question as to whether the respondents were employed by the peti...
A.R. Electronic Private Ltd. Vs. R.K. Graphics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)651; 97(2002)DLT913
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC is field by the petitioner. Which is plaintiff in the suit, assailing the order of the Commercial Civil Judge dated 28.11.1998 by which he had allowed the application of the respondent (defendant) filed under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC and had set aside a decree passed under Order 37 Rule 2 CPC.2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of the price of the goods supplied to the defendant by invoice No. 635 dated 9.6.1994 for Rs. 33.948/- plus compound interest with monthly rests @ 5% over and above 18% per annum from 11.6.1994 to 10.5.1997 amounting to Rs. 35.302/- making the total amount outstanding to Rs. 69.250/-. It was alleged that the amount due was not paid despite service of the notice of demand.3. The summons prescribed in Form 4 of Appendix B of CPC was served on the defendant which failed to enter appearance in accordance with Order 37 Rule 3 91) CPC. The court ac...
Punjab National Bank Vs. Maya Enterprises and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ729
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petitions are taken up for disposal.2. Civil Writ petition No. 4794/98 has been filed by Dr. Vivek Banyal, who was the Doctor on duty, managing Intensive Coronary Care Unit (ICCU) on the fateful night of 5th and morning of 6th February, 1997.Petitioner in the second civil writ petition No. 6369/98 is the Hospital, Sunder Lal Charitable Hospital.3. Dr. Vivek Banyal, petitioner in CW.No. 4794/98, seeks the relief of setting aside and quashing of the enquiry report i.e., annexure C to the writ petition, which a per the petitioner indicts him. Further directions are sought for restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned indictment of the petitioner.4. In CW.No. 6369/98, Sunder Lal Charitable Hospital, has again sought quashing of the report of the three member enquiry Committee and in particular the observations relating to the petitioner's hospital, as reproduced in para 7 of the writ petition, to be noticed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »