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.
Jaya Bharta Credit Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT117TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. In the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs held that Shri Lalit Kumar N. Rajdeo is the owner of the vehicle under consideration.2. The contention of the appellants is that they are the owner of the vehicle, which was confiscated by the Customs authorities and they gave the vehicle to Sh. Lalit Kumar N. Rajdeo on hire purchase basis. The contention of the appellants is also that there is evidence on record that Shri Lalit Kumar N. Rajdeo sold the vehicle to one Shri Aziz-dur-Rehman. Their contention is that the Commissioner wrongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab reported in 2000 (121) E.L.T. 9 (S.C). The contention of the appellants is that in the case of Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the company was also challenging the order of confiscation a...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Lucknow Vs. Tiemac Snack Food Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC120Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 24-7-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the Order-in-Original dated 27-10-99 of the A.C. regarding the classification of the products in question, as detailed in the order itself.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of edible preparations not elsewhere specified or included, with brand names as (1) Monginis namkeen snack foods, (2) Peppy namkeen snack foods, (3) Rompa chompa golmol namkeen, (4) Hello namkeen snack foods and (5) Piknik fried namkeen snack foods.3. The issue in the present appeal relates to the classification of these products. According to the Revenue, these products are classifiable under Heading 19.04, while the plea taken up by the respondents is that these are classifiable only under Heading 2108.99.The Assistant Commissioner accepted the classification as propounded by the respondents, through...
Ece Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC579
1. In these three appeals, M/s. ECE Industries, have prayed for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty totally amounting to Rs. 85,49,430.73 paise and penalty amounting to Rs. 22 lakhs.2. Shri V. Lakshmikuran, learned Advocate, submitted that the case of the Revenue is that the Applicants have effected duty payment through undervaluation of the bulbs and tubes, manufactured by them; that they have suppressed the real assessable value by way of recovery of extra amount over and above the prices declared in the price list filed by them by way of debit notes to cover services rendered by them; that the period covered is from May 1980 to October 1983 and the show cause notices were issued on 30.4.85, 9.2.87, and 21.10.87 invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. He further, submitted that the valuation was done by the Applicants' in consonance with the law of the land at that time; that the Delhi High Court in the Applicants own case ...
S. Kumars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC249Tri(Delhi)
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common impugned order dt. 30-4-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. In Appeal No. E/1085/01-D, the duty period involved is July '96 to July '97, while in the other Appeal No.E/1711/01-D, it is from Aug. '97 to June '98.2. In both the appeals the controversy relates to the classification of the processed knitted pile fabrics in running length at the hands of the appellants who are the processors.3. The facts out of which this controversy has sprung up may briefly be stated as under : The appellants are processors of various textile fabrics. Besides this, they also undertake the job work pertaining to the processing of knitted pile fabrics. They receive this fabric in running length from M/s. Dhvani Terefab Exports P. Ltd. (Dhvani) who are manufacturer of the fabric. Thereafter, they subject the same to processing i.e. washing, dyeing, bleaching, hydro-extraction tumble dyeing and drying and f...
Harichand K. Khanna Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT126TriDel
1. These appeals arc against the order dated 24-2-94 of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat. The impugned order was passed in adjudication of show cause notice dated 1-8-91. The order received by the appellants did not bear the signature of the Collector. It showed as "Sd/- 24-2-94" over the name of the Collector and was attested by the Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs, Headquarters, Surat.The show cause notice received by the appellants had also appeared likewise.2. When the matter arose for final hearing, Shri A.K. Jain, Id.Advocate for the appellants, argued, on the strength of case law, that the show cause notice issued without the signature of the Collector was not valid and the entire proceedings of adjudication thereof were ab initio illegal. lie also advanced similar argument vis-a-vis the impugned order which was also issued without the signature of the Collector. In this connection, strong reliance was placed on Final Order No. A/431/91-NRB, da...
Jindal Strips Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(102)LC802Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of CI slag pot was denied as capital goods.3. The revenue is relying upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Melton India Ltd. v. CCE . In this case, the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, held that ceramic evaporation boats used in the manufacture of metallised plastic films, is not an input but an appliance. In the present case, CI slag pots are used to remove the slage from AOD during the manufacture of final product. The respondents are relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in their own case, viz., CCEv. jindal Strips Ltd. reported in 2000 (126) ELT 631 (T) : 2000 (91) ECR 689 (T).4. The decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Melton India Ltd. (supra), is not applicable in the present case as the appellants are not claiming MODVAT Credit on ...
Mittal Pipe Manufacturing Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC137Tri(Delhi)
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common Order-in-original dated 20-5-94 vide which the Collector had confirmed duty demand of Rs. 47,78,107.71 and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- against the appellant No. 1 Company and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- each on other appellants under Rule 209A of the Rules.2. The appellants received orders from the defence authorities for the supply of complete fabricated buildings. They received supply order from 203 Engineer Regiment vide supply order dated 23-4-88, for the supply of 8 pre-fabricated steel helicopter hangars of the size of 18 mts. x 16.5 mts. suitable to accommodate two 'Chhetah' Helicopters.Similarly, as per supply order dated 1-8-87, they received order for supply of 50 pre-fabricated tubular shelters with outside rlading including roofing as per specification, detailed in that order itself.During the year 1985-86, they cleared excisable goods under Tariff item 68 of the then existing Tariff. T...
Shri Nishan Singh Vs. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)702; AIR2002Delhi332; 97(2002)DLT649; 2002(64)DRJ630
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. ADMIT. 2. On the request of the counsel for the parties arguments were heard for final disposal of the revision petition. 3. This revision petition is directed against an order of learned Additional District Judge dated 12.8.1998 by which, in a petition for divorce. on an application being moved by the respondent wife, he has fixed the interim maintenance of the respondent wife under Section 24 of the H.M.Act (in short the Act) @ Rs. 2500/- p.m. and of the minor child living with the respondent wife @Rs. 1000/- p.m. w.e.f. 08.1.1998 besides allowing the expenses of the proceedings at Rs. 2200/- to her. Along with the revision petition, an application is also filed for condensation of delay in filing of the revision petition. 4. Briefly stated, the facts leading to this revision petition are that the petitioner husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion b...
Mal Singh Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)710; 98(2002)DLT163; 2002(63)DRJ17
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 14th July, 1999, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, setting aside the order dated 1.3.1996, of the Metropolitan Magistrate and remanding back the case with a direction to reconsider the whole case and re-frame the charges in case FIR No.571/93 under Sections 420/468/471, IPC, P.S. Hauz Khas.2. In brief, prosecution allegations are that complainant was running a business of selling of sweets at Jodhpur and was looking for some alternative business. One Mr. D.L. Naida r/o village Singhora, District Jhunjhun, Rajasthan, a contractor, was known to the complainant. He mentioned the name of the accused and told him that petitioner can get a government supply contract through him. Mr. Naida also informed the complainant that he was getting such a big contract through the petitioner. The complainan...
Government of India, Department of Revenue Director General of Income- ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas624(Delhi)
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner challenges the order of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('the AAIFR1) dated 16-5-2001 whereby the appeal of the petitioner, the Government of India (Department of Revenue), against the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('the BIFR') dated 22-11-2000 was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the writ petition arc as follows : 2. In 1992, the third respondent Rajasthan Explosive & Chemicals Ltd., was declared a sick industrial company by the BIFR. The promoters of the company were not able to make a viable proposal for rehabilitation of the third respondent and nurse it back to health. In view of this situation, the BIFR by its order dated 7-7-1999, inter alia, directed the IDBI, the operating agency, to issue an advertisement for change of management. One 'S', in pursuance of the advertisement, made a proposal for rehabilitation of the company. The proposal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »