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.
Cce Vs. S.R. Foils Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC581
1. Revenue has filed this R.O.M. stating that some mistakes have crept in the Final Order No. 231/2001-A dated 8.6.2001. The mistakes are stated to be that the issue involved was whether after taking into consideration the facts stated in the show cause notice the said Order of the Commissioner in allowing deduction of the duty payable from wholesale price treating the same as cum-duty price while no such duty was paid, is correct, legal and proper; that the Tribunal has wrongly decided an issue which was never the subject-matter of this appeal. The issued is whether the cutting of Jumbo Roll of Aluminium Foils into smaller length does not amount to manufacture.2. Arguing the case for Revenue Shri M.M. Dube, learned DR submits that in so far as the question of cutting of jumbo roll of aluminium foils into smaller length amounts to manufacture or not was not the subject-matter of the appeal. He, therefore, did not press this point.The only point pressed by him was that whether after ta...
Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT621TriDel
1. In this case, the appellants have availed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 48,329.54 on the strength of three invoices issued by the depot of the M/s. IOC, Kota all bearing identical No. viz., 999999 but dated 1-4-96, 16-7-96 and 17-7-96. These invoices were issued in favour of the appellants. The invoices were found to be issued fraudulently and the proceedings were initiated against the appellants.The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Alwar vide his Order dated 31-3-99, disallowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 48,329.54 to them. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur vide his Order dated 12-1-2002, observed that no clarification is given by the appellants in respect of the invoices dt. 1-4-96 & 17-7-96 bearing the same number. A clarification is submitted only in respect of invoice dt. 16-7-96. Accordingly, he held that the duty paid nature of the goods in respect of which the Modvat credit is obtained, has not been established and therefore the Mod...
Rubco Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT387TriDel
1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of duty of Rs. 22,86,665/- and penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules.3. Applicants are engaged in the manufacture of articles of vulcanised rubber. The applicants claimed the classification of the articles of vulcanised rubber under Chapter Heading 4016.19 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Revenue classified the same under Headings 8414.92 and 8419.90 of Central Excise Tariff as parts of Compressor and Refrigerators.4. The contention of the applicant is that as per Section Note l(a) of Section XVI of Central Excise Tariff, the Chapter 84 or 85 does not cover the "Other articles of a kind used in machinery or mechanical or electrical appliances or for other technical uses of unhardened vulcanised rubbers. Applicants have also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of T. Maneklal v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, reporte...
Shivam Cable Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC578
1. This is an application for exempting pre-deposit of the amount of the duty and penalty demanded.2. Officers of the Anti Evasion Branch while inspecting the premises of the applicant's manufacturing unit seized finished goods valued at Rs. 22,424 bearing the brand name of M/s. Shivam & Krishna. The goods were ordered to be confiscated. On further investigations, it was found that the appellants have been manufacturing and clearing the excisable goods in the name of M/s. Shivam Cable Industries and M/s. Krishna Cable Industries since 1996-97, while the second unit namely M/s. Krishna Cable Industries was a dummy unit, without any manufacturing facility.A show cause notice was issued to the appellants, after clubbing the clearances of both the units. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 5,34,134 and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the amount of duty to Rs. 4,18,790 an...
Reeta Sahney Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)432; 97(2002)DLT687
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian the grievance of the petitioner, namely Smt. Reeta Sahney, is that she has been unfairly and illegally passed over for the allotment of residential accommodation in the campus of Gargi College (Respondent No. 2). It is her contention that she is the senior most in the teaching faculty of Gargi College, having been in the service of the College for almost 35 years. Her grievance is that she has been denied allotment on the specious ground that she owns residential property within a radius of ten kilometres from the College and stand disentitled under the College Scheme. Attention has been forcefully drawn on her behalf to a notice dated 7.11.1991 calling upon the members of the staff to furnish an affidavit stating that - 'I or may spouse do not own a house or has acquired one and/or power of Attorney arrangements within a radius of 10 Kms. from the College.' Mr. Varma Learned Counsel for the peti...
Mr. Vishan NaraIn Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002ACJ1833; AIR2002Delhi336; 97(2002)DLT225; 2002(64)DRJ617
Usha Mehra, J.1. Admit.2. Since the point involved is very short, thereforee, with the consent of counsel for the parties the appeal is taken up for disposal.3. Appellant (plaintiff before the trial Court) was owner of a vehicle Maruti Van which he got insured with respondent No. 1 vide Policy No. 31/00956/97 effective from 16th August, 1996 to 15th August, 1997. During the currency of the policy the said vehicle was stolen on 24th December, 1996. An FIR was got registered with Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. On 26th December, 1996 the appellant lodged a claim with respondent No. 1. When in spite of repeated requests the respondent failed to make the payment of the claim the appellant sent a legal notice. On 25th June, 1997 appellant received a letter from respondent indicating that respondent was prepared to pay Rs. 70,000/- because that was the market value of the vehicle assessed by the respondent. Being dis-satisfied with this offer the appellant herein filed a suit for recovery...
Sh. Davender Prasad Verma and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ362
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 30th July, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 2444/93 which was filed by the petitioners herein. By reason of the aforesaid judgment, the OA filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed. The petitioners who were appointed as store men with effect form 5th June, 1982 were given promotion as Material Checking Clerk (MCC) with effect from 10th March, 1993 and thereafter they were reverted back as store men vide order dated 9th November, 1993. This order of reversion dated 9th November, 1993 was challenged by the petitioners in the aforesaid OA. The case put forth by the petitioners was that while the petitioners were working as store men, some persons who had joined as store men later than the petitioners and were junior to them, were promoted as Material Checker(MC) ignoring the rightful claim of the petitioners. The names of these junior pers...
Rakeshwar Verma and ors. Vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Resch. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)1009; 98(2002)DLT1; 2002(63)DRJ389
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition challenging the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench dated 3rd November, 2000. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-2. The petitioners are the employees of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. They are science graduates and are working in T-5 grade. The respondents vide circular dated 3rd February, 2000 revised the criteria for promotion from T-5 to T-6 grade. The circular requires Master's degree in the relevant field or equivalent qualification from a recognised University for direct recruitment to Category III posts comprising of posts in grades T-6, T-7, T-8 and T-9. As per the circular those possessing Master's degree, become eligible for merit assessment promotion from T-5 to T-6 grade upon completing 5 years's service in T-5 grade, while those, such as applicants who possess a Bachelor's degree become eligible for merit assessment promotion from T-5 to T-6 grade upon completion of 10 years service in T-5 g...
Ram Kumar Vs. I.T.D.C. (Ashoka Hotel Unit)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT184; 2003(1)SLJ145(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Award dated 30.11.1999, passed in I.D.No. 307/86 (New No. 38/94). Directions are sought to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.2. The petitioner at the relevant time in June, 1985 was employed at the Ashoka Hotel Unit, Chanakyapuri of M/s ITDC as a Houseman. The charge against the workman was that on 29.5.1985, while on duty on third floor of the hotel, between 19.20 hours to 22.00 hours, he entered room No. 336 occupied by one Miss J.L. Hill of British High Commission, Kabul and stole Rs. 150/- from the handbag of the guest.3. It is the case of the management that on the complaint of the guest, preliminary investigation were done. The petitioner accepted his guilt before the Assistant Manager and refunded the sum of Rs. 150/-, which he had removed. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was issued on 14.6.1985. The petitioner did not respond to the s...
Sohan Lal Kashyap Vs. Delhi State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)829; 2002CriLJ3115; 97(2002)DLT517; 2002(62)DRJ560
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is second application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of pre-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 549/2001, under Section 379 IPC and Sections 39/44 I.E. Act, P.S. Sangam Vihar. The allegations are of direct theft, by-passing the single point delivery meter having sanctioned load of 600 KW.2. By order dated 21st November, 2001, passed in Crl.M.(M). No. 4066/2001, petitioner's first application for grant of anticipatory bail, in the above-noted case, was declined observing:-'This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in the case FIR No. 549/2001 under Sections 379 IPC & 39/44 I.E. Act P.S. Sangam Vihar.It is alleged that on 14th September, 2001 on receipt of the complaint from the residents regarding theft of electricity by the petitioner Secretary of a society 'Awasiya Samajik Sudhar Samiti' a joint team comprising officials of DVB and the police raided the single point delivery con...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »