Delhi Court April 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.
Paramjit Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)104; 98(2002)DLT116; 2002(64)DRJ200; 2002(82)ECC547; 2002(143)ELT485(Del)
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision petition under Sections 401/397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the Order dated 21st February, 2002 framing charge against the petitioner under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have been taken through the record.3. Facts in brief are that on 30th August, 1986 officers of the Customs Preventive Branch, Customs Collectorate, New Delhi intercepted one truck No. DEL-1885 near Punjab & Sind Bank at Roshanara Road, Delhi; Harjeet Singh was the Driver and Nishan Singh was the cleaner in the said truck; as a result of search, the Customs Officers detected one cavity made of wood in the hollow of the right hand side of rear seat behind the driver's seat of the cabin; the search of the said cavity resulted in recovery of 124 pieces of foreign marked gold biscuits, six slabs of gold and ten bars (rods) of gold; and they were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and ...
ivory Mart Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR425(Delhi)
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order dated August 24, 2000, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax by which a certificate in Form No. 3 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (in short 'the KVSS'), for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 was rejected.2. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the writ petition are recapitulated as under :The petitioner, Ivory Mart, along with Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Minor Art Gallery filed a joint writ petition, i.e., C. W. No. 1991 of 1992, before this court with the prayer that Explanationn (aa) to Section 80HHC as introduced by Section 28(e)(i) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, be declared unconstitutional, invalid and non est. The petitioners also filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, along with the writ petition for interim relief. In that application, the petitioners prayed that the respondents be restrained from reopening the petitioners' assessments for...
Osram Gesellschaft Mit Beschrankter Haftung Vs. Shyam Sunder and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(25)PTC198(Del)
Usha Mehra, J. 1. From the admission made in the pleadings of the parties it appears that there are certain facts which are not in dispute, but those have a material bearing on the facts of this case and we think it would be convenient to refer them at once. First of this is that appellant/opponent is the registered proprietor of trade mark 'OSRAM' in class 11 of Schedule IV of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) in respect of electric lamps of all kinds and in class 10 in respect of surgical, medical, dental, veterinary instruments and apparatus and electric lamps. The respondent on the other hand is registered proprietor of the trade mark 'OSHAM' in class 9in respect of electric iron. He has also applied for registration of his trade mark 'QSHAM' in class 7 in respect of mixer, juicer, grinder and washing machine. Since no opposition has been filed to the same and the period of opposition having expired he is expected to get the registration of his goods ...
ivory Mart Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)634
ORDERBy the courtThe petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order dated 24-8-2000, passed by Commissioner by which a certificate in Form 3 of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'KVSS'), 1998, for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 was rejected.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the writ petition are recapitulated as under :The petitioner, Ivory Mart, along with Indian Handicrafts Emporium & Minar Art Gallery, filed a joint writ petition, i.e., CW No. 1991/92 before this court with the prayer that the Explanationn (aa) to section 80HHC as introduced by section 28(e)(i) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, be declared unconstitutional, invalid and non est. The petitioners also filed an application under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, along with the writ petition for interim relief. In that application, the petitioners prayed that the respondents be restrained from reopening the petitioners' assessments for the periods 1986-87, ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. M.P. Electricals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT635TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 18-5-2001 vide which the Commissioner. (Appeals) had rejected the appeal of the department against the Order-in-Original of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16-10-97 who dropped the demand of Rs. 26,37,949/- against the respondents.2. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not dealt with the matter on merits but rejected the appeal of the Revenue by observing as under :- "What is still more intriguing and a cause of serious concern is the order of the Commissioner, C. Excise, Bhopal who failed to take notice of such grave discrepancies committed by the Adj. Officer as he did not at all comment on such illegal and mala fide act of the Adj. Officer and completely overlooked this aspect which should have been is normal course viewed seriously and the explanations of the erring official called for. What is more, he himself passes 2 orders of which one has a date w...
Samcor Glass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC768
1. These two appeals arise out of the same impugned order, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of glass panels, glass funnels, glass shells etc. For manufacture of the above items they import certain raw material at concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No.64/95-Cus. as amended by Notification No. 13/97-Cus., dated 1-3-97 for manufacture of glass shells for TV picture tubes.3. During the course of scrutiny of records of the manufacturer it was noticed that the appellant had used some quantity of the above raw material in the manufacture of glass shells for computer monitor for which concession was claimed and availed. The assessee paid differential duty, CVD and interest on the inputs contained in glass shells for computer to the extent of 40% of the weight of the imported inputs other than cullet It was noticed that the appellant had...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC75Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents manufacture Transformers and its parts falling under Chapter Heading No. 8504.00. They are also availing the Mod-vat credit on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. During the month of June and July, 1998, they took credit of Rs. 2,079/- on the input items viz., Support Angles & Bracket Lashing purchased by them.The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gwalior vide his Order dated 29-5-1999 denied them the Modvat credit of this amount on the ground that these items are essentially packing material. He observed that support angle and bracket lashing are fixed with the truck body for safe transportation of the transformer and cannot be said to be the material used for packing of the transformer apart from denying the Modvat credit, he also imposed a penalty of Rs. 250/- on them.2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal vide his Order dated 27-5-1999 allowed the appeal of the party. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed ...
innovative Tech Pack Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC648
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner of Central Excise in the impugned order denied the benefit of Notification No.5/99-CE dated 28.2.1999, demanded duty and imposed penalty. The penalty of Rs. 17,932 was also imposed in respect of shortage of finished products. The duty in respect of shortage of finished product was deposited during the pendency of the adjudicating proceeding.3. The appellants are not contesting demand and the imposition of penalty in respect of the goods found short in the factory.4. Appellants are only challenging the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 5/99-CE dated 28.2.1999.5. The contention of the appellant is that they had two factories manufacturing plastic bottles and Jars falling under Sub-heading 3923.90 of Central Excise Tariff. The one factory is located at 33 Roz-Ka-Meo, Industrial Area, Sohna Distt. Gurgaon and the appellants were availing the benefit of Noti...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. JaIn Drinks (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC511Tri(Delhi)
1. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the Revenue is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order in appeal No.464(KDT)CE/JPR-I(245)2001, dated 3-7-2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee following a decision of this Tribunal in Goa Bottling Co. Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (128) E.L.T. 81 (T-LB) - 2001(42) R.L.T. 586] holding that if the packaging contained only one retail price it has to be assessed on the basis of that price and not the higher MRP printed on other packages.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable since in respect of the goods sold by the appellant in the areas other than Delhi the MRP shown is as Rs. 40/-. If that be so, according to the Revenue by applying Explanation II to Section 4A of the Central Excise Act the higher MRP has to be taken into consideration for arriving at the assessable value.3. We do not find any merit in the above c...
B.M. Auto India Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(103)LC956Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. B.M. Auto India, is whether they were employing more than 10 workers during the period prior to 30.44.85 (sic) and as such were covered by the definition of factory under the Factories Act, 1948 and whether benefit of Notification No. 77/83 is available to the goods manufactured by them.2. Shri Sarabjit Singh, learned partner of the Appellants, submitted that the Appellants manufacture leaf springs and left spring assembly falling under Tariff Item 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff; that their small scale unit was not a factory under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948; that accordingly all the goods falling under Item 68 were fully exempted from payment of duty under Notification No.46/81-C.E., dated 1.3.1981; that they were showing more number of workers in the offer form or tender form to different organisations simply to attract business which was customary in business circles; that once the tender was accepted, it was not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »