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.
U.K. Paints Industries and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(82)ECC38; 2002(144)ELT255(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22nd February, 1985 passed by the respondent No. 2 refusing the stay of implementation of order dated 3rd July, 1984 of the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and not depositing of duty levied upon the petitioners under Section 35F of the Central Excise and Sat Act, 1944. While issuing rule D.B. on 2nd August, 1985 this court noted the question of law relating to jurisdiction, which arose in this case, in the following manner:'The clearances of the goods on which duty and penalty has been levied pertain to the period prior to the coming into force of Section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty levied during the pendency of the appeal has been provided by Section 35F which came into force on October 11, 1982. The question raised in this petition is whether the right to appeal is to be governed by the law as it existed when the p...
Steel City Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)238; 98(2002)DLT39; 2002(82)ECC34; 2003(159)ELT14(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for refund of the excise duty paid allegedly excess than the duty payable under the law. The respondents have, or course, disputed this allegation of the petitioner that the excise duty paid by the petitioner is in excess. It is not necessary to go into the dispute involved in these petitions inasmuch as the writ petition claiming such a refund is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in : 1997(89)ELT247(SC) . It has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment that all claims for refund except where levy is held to be unconstitutional, to be preferred and adjudicated upon under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and subject to claimant establishing that burden of duty has not been passed on to third party. It is also held that since exclusivity of the ...
Aero Club and anr. Vs. Mr. S.C. Shopra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT759
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 16th January 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in MCA No. 28 of 2000, whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against an order dated 20th December 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') in Suit No. 24/99 directing the petitioner herein to pay the arrears of minimum guaranteed payment @ Rs. 20,000/- per month w.e.f. 1st December 1998 till the date of passing of the said order and continue to pay the same at the same rate till deposal of the main suit was dismissed.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.3. First petitioner herein is a partnership concern having its place of business at 820, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It carries on the business of manufacturing and marketing shoes in India under the brand name 'Woodland'. It entered into ...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›