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.
Commissioner of C. Ex., Vs. Dabur India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC512Tri(Delhi)
1. Revenue filed these appeals against the common order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excise goods namely; "Hajmola Tablets" and clearing the same after classifying under sub-heading 3003.39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act/1985 as the Ayurvedic Medicine. Show cause notices were issued to the respondents for classifying the Hajmola Tablets under Chapter sub-heading 2108.99 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as edible preparations not elsewhere specified. The adjudicating authority after taking into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Panama Chemical Works v. Union of India, reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 241 (M.P.) and the decision of the Tribunal in respondents' own case Dabur India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 1069 (Tribunal) dropped the proceedings. Revenue filed appeals and the same we...
Kiockner Supreme Pentaplast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC301
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 1.11.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Bhopal. The issue relates to shortage of goods and the items involved is rigid PVC films covered under Chapter Heading 3920.11, period of dispute is 20.6.95 and the amount of duty involved is Rs. 31,650 and the amount of penalty involved is Rs. 2000. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant and he has drawn my attention to the discussions and finding as recorded by the Assistant Commissioner and has submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has noted that the assessees' submission as regards to shortage of 1332.62 Kgs of rigid PVC films/sheet appears to be correct because the charge of clandestine removal without any corroborated evidence is not at all sustainable.Merely on the basis of shortage found in the factory, it cannot be concluded that the goods have been removed in a clandestine manner. He also submitted that the total shortage invol...
Kalinga Cable Co. and anr. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC119Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals filed by Shri Lokesh Jain & Kalinga Cable Co.the appellants against imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of copper wires and cables classifiable under Chapter heading 85.44. The appellants procured copper wire for manufacture of coils and cables. They purchased consignment of copper wire finer than 6 mm from M/s. Amit Metal under their invoice No. 57 dt. 21.10.1999.3. Search was conducted in the factory premises of M/s. Amit Metal. It resulted into recovery of some private record. Shri Devi Ram was asked to explain the entries in the private records. In his statement Shri Devi Ram on the basis of those entries stated that some goods had been sold to M/s. Kalinga Cables.4. Statement of Shri Rajeev Seth of M/s. Kalinga Cables Co. was also recorded. He denied having receipt of any copper wire from M/s. Amit Metal. A SCN was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed...
Jindal Alloys Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC101Tri(Delhi)
"Similarly, some statutory obligations have also been conferred upon the Commissioner, Central Excise. According to the said Rule 4 of the Rules ibid, the Commissioner, shall first approve the proposed change in writing and thereafter shall determine the date from which the said change shall be effective. The manufacturer, as said earlier, effected the proposed change without waiting for Commissioner's approval for the requisite change rather requested the Commissioner vide their letter dated 8-12-97 to determine their production capacity w.e.f. 1-12-97. The request of the party could not be considered by the then Commissioner inasmuch as the then Commissioner first shall have to accord approval of change and then determine the effective date of such change. He cannot determine the effective date without according the necessary approval. Therefore, the Commissioner first approve the proposed change vide orders as stated in the foregoing paras and then determine the effective date. So ...
Dr. Chowda Vasudev and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)30; 97(2002)DLT892; 2002(65)DRJ340
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The petitioners who belong to Scheduled Tribe category were admitted to M.S./M.D. Course of respondent No. 2 AIIMS in the Session commencing January, 2002. Their grievance is that one seat in one seat in Orthopedics Department which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe quota and in which petitioner No. 1 was interested was withdrawn as a result of which all the three petitioners were offered different disciplines which were not of their choice. As a result the petitioner No. 1 was admitted to medicine instead of Orthopedics and petitioner No. 2 ENT instead of medicine. Petitioner No. 3 had to opt out of the course as he was offered a non-clinical course.2. The petitioner's case is that they had completed their MBBS Course from different institutions. They belong to Scheduled Tribe category and as such fall in quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe community. The respondent No. 2 which is a statutory body notified 77 seats for admission into M.S./M.D. course in different disci...
Vichitra Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Jal Board and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ406
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to issue tender forms with regard to laying down of 600 MM dia MS Pipes NIT No. 48 by trench less technology. The petition had come before the court on 9.4.2002. Notice had been issued to the respondents for 24.5.2002. The petitioner's submission was that it was fully eligible as per tender conditions set out at page 16 of the paper book and entitled to be issued the tender especially when he was produced the requisite documents as per the letter page 54 of paper book. The respondents, however, unreasonably with-held issuing of the tender forms. An interim direction was given when none appeared on behalf of the Delhi Jal Board on 9.4.2002, despite advance copy having been served and after the matter had been called out the second time, for issuance of tender forms to the petitioner. It was further directed that respondent was at liberty to process the tender in accordance with...
Sukhbir Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3529; 97(2002)DLT925; 2002(63)DRJ534
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision petition under Sections 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th September, 2001 passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi dismissing appeal of the petitioner, upholding his conviction in the two cases (Nos. 33/92 & 40/92), under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'PFA Act') and the sentence to undergo SI for one year with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default one month SI, in each case and directing both sentences to run concurrently.2. Admit. The point involved in the petition is very short. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, leaned APP for the State and have been taken through the record.3. Facts in brief are that on 19th February, 1992 at 4.00 p.m., Food Inspector purchased a sample of 'Lalmirchi' and 'Haldi' powder from the petitioner at Sukhbir Masala Stall at Patri opposite New Public Da...
Horlicks Limited and ors. Vs. Kartick Sadhukan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(25)PTC126(Del)
B.N.Chattirvedi, J. 1. HORLICKS Limited, Plaintiff No. 1, a foreign company, is engaged in manufacture of a wide range of energy boosting food products, including foods for infants, children and invalids, malted milk, biscuits, toffees, etc. under the trademark HORLICKS, of which it claims to be the proprietor. The trademark 'HORLICKS' was registered in India in relation to foods for infants, children and invalids as well as mailed milk way back in 1943, for biscuits in 1961 and in respect of toffees in 1966.2. The plaintiff No. 3, manufactures and markets products under the trade mark 'HORLICKS' in India with the express authorization of plaintiff No. 2. Plaintiff No. 2, is the licensee of the said trade mark by virtue of a Trademark License Agreement dated 3rd February, 1997, executed in its favor by plaintiff No. 1, permitting plaintiff No. 2 to authorise use of the trade mark upon the 'contract products'.3. Plaintiff No. 3 is alleged to be the owner of copyright to the artistic wor...
Jaipur Syntex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC883Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 24-5-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide; which he had affirmed the Order-in-original dated 4-12-95 of the A.C.; who sanctioned the refund of the disputed amount for the period January, 86 to November, 90 in favour of the appellants but ordered the credit of the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the duty incidence have been passed on to the buyers, by them.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of blended yarn out of non-cellulosic synthetic waste (in short NCSW). The dispute arose about the classification of the yarn as the Revenue wanted the classification under chapter heading 5506 which prescribed the higher rate of duty, while the appellants contended that the yarn was classifiable under chapter heading 5505 of the CETA. This dispute was finally settled in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal. The appellants had sought refund of the disputed amoun...
Progressive Extraction and Exports Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT693TriDel
The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Progressive Extraction & Exports Ltd. is whether the Hexane Storage Tanks, crude oil storage tanks and water storage tanks are liable to excise duty.2. Shri Ravi Holani, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that Hexane being inflammable, is required to be stored in underground tanks with connected pipe lines, motors etc.; that for underground storage, RCC base with steel plates of 10 mm thickness is required which have been welded and placed by nuts on the RCC base and thereafter tank has been fabricated piece by piece assembled to iron/steel sheet; that water storage system is created by motors, pipe lines etc.; that crude oil tanks has been constructed on RCC base; that steel sheets have been welded and grouted to the base by nuts and bolts; that all the three systems are not having their own separate identity but a part of the whole system of the solvent extraction and refining plant; that therefore, these tanks cannot be treat...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »