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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ravi Cable Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT694TriDel
1. The appeal is at the instance of the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal Nos.685-686-CE/DLH/2001, dated 8-8-2001.2. In the appeal the Revenue has taken a contention that the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error in not following the decisions of this Tribunal in Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 650 (Tribunal) = 1999 (35) RLT 9 (CEGAT) and CCE, Meerut-II v.Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 191 (Tribunal) = 2000 (38) RLT 637 (CEGAT). On the other hand, in the cross-appeal the assessee would contend that for the demand covering the year 1997-98 the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly taken the view that the sale takes place at the destination only for the reason that the assessee has taken insurance to cover the goods in transit.3. The assessees are manufacturers of wires and cables falling under Heading 8544 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The wires and cables are assessable at ad valorem rate of d...
Oswal Woollen Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC585
1. This appeal is directed against demands for Central Excise duty and interest and imposition of penalties under impugned adjudication order No. 76/CE/2001, dated 30-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner disallowed part of the deduction towards sales tax which had been availed of by the appellant while fixing the assessable value and paying central excise duty on the yarn manufactured by them. The deduction disallowed is equal to the 'set-off' availed by the appellant while paying sales tax. The 'set-off' related to the sales tax paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the yarn under assessment.2. We have heard the learned Counsel representing the appellant and learned SDR for the Revenue and also perused the records of the case.3. Though, the matter is posted today for consideration of the stay application only, we take up the appeal itself for disposal, after waiving requirement for pre-deposit of duty and penal...
Vir Metal Industry Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT707TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of valves and cocks. On 19-8-94, the business premises of M/s. Dee Ell Metal Industries were searched and Shri Inder Raj Singh of M/s. Dee Ell Metal Industries made a statement that they are getting the goods manufactured with their brand name from various manufacturers and the present appellants are one of them. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the grounds that the goods manufactured by them were cleared with the brand name of M/s. Dee Ell Metal Industries.During the search of the appellants' premises, valves & cocks worth Rs. 520/- with the trademark of Dee Ell Metal Industries were also recovered. Show cause notice was issued and the demand was confirmed and penalty was imposed.4. The contention of the appellants is that as per the statement of Sh.Inder Raj Singh, M/s. Dee Ell Meta...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Vs. Bhawani Steel Rolling Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC794
3. In this case, the impugned order was received on 5-11-99 by the Revenue whereas the appeal had been filed on 28-1-2002. In the application, the applicants tried to explain the delay, which was due to inter departmental correspondence and processing of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Limited reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T- 739 (S.C) held that delay due to inter departmental correspondence and processing is not sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined the request for condonation of delay of only 51 days. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed....
Amar Kaur and anr. Vs. Naresh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)115; 97(2002)DLT772; 2002(62)DRJ401
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This revision under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only) assails an order dated 9.7.2001 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to defend and ordering their eviction from the premises in question under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the respondent-landlord had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioners on the allegations that he was the owner-landlord and petitioners were his tenants in respect of the ground floor portion of the property in question. The respondent claimed that his family compromised of himself, his wife and three school going children but the accommodation available to him was only one room with toilet/bath on the second floor of property No. 2502, Nalva Street, Pahar Ganj which was owned by his father. The respondent was be...
V. Abdul Majid Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi370; 97(2002)DLT911; 2002(62)DRJ573
Manmohan Sarin, J.Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari Along with the writ of mandamus calling for the records from the respondents pertaining to the petitioner's application seeking authentication of the Baccalaureate Programme in Optometry completed by the petitioner in the Elite school of Optometry, a unit of the Medical Research Foundation of Chennai. Petitioner's case succinctly put is that Medical Research Foundation which is duly recognised by the Medical Council of India, has established a unit called the Elite school of Optometry in September 1985, to train a cadre of Para Professional personnel in the subject.2. The petitioner it is stated duly completed the course in optometry at the Elite school. Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the Shankara Nethralaya Medical Research Foundation is duly affiliated to Dr. M.G.R. University and recognised by the Med...
Usha International and anr. Vs. Usha Television Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)593; 2002(25)PTC184(Del)
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.11.1995 passed in an application for amendment( is No. 442 of 1994) in Suit No. 607 of 1985. The amendment has been declined by the learned Single Judge and this appeal is directed against the said order. 2. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated. The appellants (plaintiffs in suit) have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its servants and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in television sets and VCRs under the trade mark 'USHA' or from doing any other thing as is likely to pass off the defendant's good or business as the goods or business of the plaintiffs. 3. The appellants had filed an application of amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to include the relief of infringement of trademark in a suit for passing off on the registration being granted by the...
Sukumar Chand JaIn Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR174(Delhi); 99(2002)DLT3
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The question that falls for determination in these cases being similar, I took up all these matters together and heard the counsel appearing for the parties. I now proceed to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order.2. The point that arises for determination in these cases is whether these proceedings are governed under the Arbitration Act of 1940 or the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. The respondent authority in all these suits have filed their objections against the Award passed by the Arbitrator under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act of 1940 whereas according to the petitioners the objections/petitions, if any, should have been filed only under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. The awards in all these three cases were passed after coming into force of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996.3. Under the provisions of the said Section 34 of the Act, the period of limitation for fi...
S. Kumar Nationwide Home Road Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1019TriDel
2. The applicants filed this application against the order dated 15-3-2001 conveyed by the Dy. Commissioner (CE). The request of the applicants for allowing sharing of cost of recovery charges from the date of filing of application is rejected on the ground that this can be allowed only from the date of approval of the request. The Commissioner allowed the request for sharing of cost of recovery charges from 10-10-2000. The impugned order is not an order passed in adjudication proceedings and, therefore, is not appealable. Hence the appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable....
Kailash Chand JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC440
1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 13-2-2001 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise vide which he had ordered absolute confiscation of 72 pieces of silver recovered from the appellant and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on him.2. The facts giving rising to this appeal may briefly be stated as under :- On the strength of a specific information, the officers of the Central Excise, Agra Division, conducted raid at the residential premises of the appellant at Agra on 19-3-96 at 12.00 hours. They conducted search of his house in the presence of two independent witnesses which yielded recovery of 72 pieces of silver which were lying concealed in a room near the staircase. The appellant, in his statement, recorded at the spot at that time, admitted recovery and further stated that out of 72 pieces, 17 carried mark of foreign origin and that he had purchased the same on 18-3-96 from Rakesh Dalal but whose residential address h...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »