Delhi Court April 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC830
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of zinc from zinc concentrate. The zinc concentrate is obtained from zinc ore by a process carried out in their concentration plant. The zinc ore is mined from their own mine. The appellants took Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 9,28,116 during July to September 1998 on certain items claimed to be capital goods under Rule 57Q. Those items were spares or parts/components of material handling and mining equipments used in the mines. The adjudicating authority considered two issues in the case, one of which was whether the Modvat credit taken on the goods not used in the registered premises (concentration plant) but used in the mine was admissible or not. That authority answered the question in the negative by holding that the mining area did not form part of the appellants' factory. That authority held that only that premises which was approved by the proper officer in terms of Rule 44 could be accepted as factory, which, in the appellants'...
Mahan Plastics (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC757
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether in a case where there is an exemption notification the assessee has the option not to avail the exemption and pay duty.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of footwear. The assessee the appellant availed themselves of modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of footwear and cleared footwear on payment of Central Excise duty. Part of Central Excise duty payment was made out of credit of duty taken on inputs. The duty paid was also recovered from the buyers of footwear.In the impugned order learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed demand of Rs. 18,74,908.3. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Counsel submits that in the instant case the assessee the appellant opted for payment of duty on the final product taking modvat credit on inputs. He submits that there has been consistent view of the Tribunal that the assessee has the option. In support of this contention learned Counse...
Mohan Plastics (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)(103)LC551Tri(Delhi)
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether in a case where there is an exemption notification the assessee has the option not to avail the exemption and pay duty.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of footwear. The assessee the appellant availed themselves of modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of footwear and cleared footwear on payment of central excise duty. Part of central excise duty payment was made out of credit of duty taken on inputs. The duty paid was also recovered from the buyers of footwear.In the impugned order learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed demand of Rs. 18,74,908/- 3. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Counsel submits that in the instant case the assessee the appellant opted for payment of duty on the final product taking modvat credit on inputs. He submits that there has been consistent view of the Tribunal that the assessee has the option. In support of this contention learned Coun...
Samurai Software Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC790
1. Arguing the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty Shri O.P. Agarwal, learned Chartered Accountant submits that the allegation against them was about the using of brand name of somebody else who was not eligible to exemption as a small scale industrial unit. He submits that the duty demand confirmed against them can be divided into two parts; that the demand of Rs. 1,82,580 pertains to the period from 13.4.95 to 2.8.95. He submits that during this period they were using the brand name 'Samurai cordless' on their products. Learned C.A. submits that Samurai cordless is not the brand name; that Samurai is a house mark. In support of this contention he cited and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceutical Ltd. . learned C.A. alsoT.M. Pharmaceuticals Laboratories v. CCE paracetamol along with a house mark or otherwise by itself will not matter, or in other words, the combination of a common type of medicine and a house mark cannot co...
Royal Springs Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC781
1. The matters are posted for stay today, which we grant in view of the fact that Rs. 1.20 lakhs have already been paid and we take up the appeals for disposal with the consent of both the sides. In these 3 appeals arising out of two Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi the issue involved is whether the excisable goods manufactured by M/s. Royal Springs are bearing brand name belonging to M/s. Jay Vijay Spares and consequently the goods are ineligible for Small Scale exemption under notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93.2. Shri Rampal Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Royal Springs under the proprietorship of Shri Ramesh Aggarwal, manufacture Spring Leaves; that on 27-5-97 the Central Excise Officers intercepted a tempo loaded with Spring Leaves bearing brand name of Jay Vijay Spares and seized the same; that they also seized Springs from the factory premises of Appellant No. 1 and business premises of Jay Vijay Spares, Appellant No. 3; that ...
Bee Kay Engg. and Casting Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC801
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Bee Kay Engineering and Casting Ltd. is whether charging and discharging machines complete for hot strip mill manufactured by them, is classifiable under sub-heading 8455.10 as claimed by them or under sub-heading 8455.90 as parts of Metal Rolling Mill as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants received a Purchase Order for the supply of charging and discharging machine for hot strip mill from the Steel Authority of India Ltd. for their Rourkella Steel Plant; that the impugned goods are auxiliary equipment and are not parts; that as per technical write up given by Chief Metal Manager of Rourekella Steel Plant, charging and discharging of machine comprises of various types of roller tables, weighing roller tables, pusher slab, extractors and weigher; that roller table is a machine which transfers the steel slabs continuously; that it performs...
Consortium Finance Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)82ITD808(Delhi)
1. These appeals are directed against separate orders of the CIT (A) and having been heard together are decided by a common order.2. In the appeal for asst. yr. 1996-97 the assessee has raised 7 grounds, but at the time of hearing a solitary issue covering grounds 2 to 5 (reproduced hereinafter) was argued and the other grounds were not pressed. Such grounds would; therefore, stand rejected. "2. That while confirming the assessment, the learned joint CIT has erred in sustaining the disallowance of the claim of depreciation aggregating to Rs. 92,00,625. The learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee was the owner of the plant leased out by it and had been utilised by it for the purpose of its business. The finding of the learned CIT(A) that the transaction was a finance transaction, is based on complete misconception of facts 3. That further, the finding of the learned CIT (A) that M/s KPCL was in red and was badly in need of resources to run its business, by itself was...
Shri Jai Karen and ors. Vs. Shri Gajender Yadav
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)191; 97(2002)DLT995
R.C. Jain, J.1. This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 30-1-2002 by which the learned trial court has dismissed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant seeking reframing/modification of existing issue No.4 and for framing 3 additional issues. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order mainly on the ground that defendant-petitioners have raised certain specific objections and pleas in their written statement about the maintainability of the suit; plaintiff having got no cause of action for filing the suit and also about the agreement to sell land in question which is the basis of the suit being void and the subject matter of the suit agreement was covered by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 and the consideration provided for in the agreement is grossly inadequate and illusory and agreement. The court existing issues framed do not take into ...
Joint Commissioner of Police and ors. Vs. Sube Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)539; 99(2002)DLT37
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Whether Joint Commissioner of Police can be a disciplinary authority of the respondents of the writ petitions, is the question involved in this batch of writ petitions which arise out of judgment and orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in several writ petitions. As identical questions are involved in these writ petitions, the factual matrix of the matter would be noticed from CW 6689/2001. 2. Delhi Police Force is constituted in terms of Delhi Police Act, 1978. Cadre strength of its senior officer is fixed at 49 by the Central Government through Ministry of Home Affairs since 1995. The cadre strength of the senior officers includes Commissioner of Police, Senior Additional Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police and Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police. Their scales of pay are prescribed by the State. The Commissioner of Police is in the highest scale of pay whereas the Senior Additional Commissioner of Police, Additional Commissio...
Ajaib Kaur and Sukhbir Kaur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ132
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Both these appeals involving similar questions of law were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. However, the facts of the matter are being noticed from LPA 303/2002.3. The appellant is a widow of one Harbans Singh. He was recruited in the Army on 3rdMarch 1970. As he was invalidation out of service on 19th October 1970 on the recommendation of the medical board, he had been granted disability pension at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month for a period of two years. The said disability pension allegedly was extended from time to time. He was examined by the Resurvey Medical Board for the purpose of extension of the disability pension in the years 1972 and 1977 and the pensionary benefits were extended to him.4. On and from 23.3.1977, the disability pension, however, was discontinued, inter alia, on the ground that the extent of his disability was less than 20%. He filed several representations. He also preferred an appeal which was dismissed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »