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.
Shri S.D. Shukla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT473
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The Original Applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal is the petitioner herein. He is aggrieved by an order dated 30th June 1997 passed in RA 40/-96 in OA 71/94.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.3. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Inspecting Officer in the office of the respondent No. 1.4. There were 18 posts of Senior Inspecting Officers and five posts of Dy. Director (Food and Vegetable Preservation) in the higher grade. Admittedly, according to the Recruitment Rules, the posts of Dy. Director were to be filled up 50% by way of promotion and 50% by way of direct recruitment. A Senior Inspecting Officer with five years' service was eligible for consideration for promotion.5. One Shri B.S. Sood, Dy. Director went on deputation to Fruit Juice Bottling Plant. The said post was meant to be filled up by direct recruitment but for some reasons, the said post was filled by way of promotion. The petitioner was not promoted. He filed an Orig...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shri Ramey and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)566; 2002(2)ARBLR672(Delhi); 98(2002)DLT375
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Pursuant to the application under Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing of the award dated 5th October, 1993 and making the same rule of the Court the respondent was noticed. By way of filing objections (IA 1134/96) under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act the respondent has asked for setting aside the award mainly on the following grounds:- (i) That the parties to the agreement never agreed to refer the issues or the alleged claim of the petitioner to the said Arbitrator and as such there was no jurisdiction vested with the Arbitrator to deal with the claims made by the petitioner.(ii) The Arbitrator being subordinate to the Commissioner of the petitioner had been pressurized and undue influence has been exercised upon him. (iii) The Arbitrator has violated the principles of natural justice by not granting the reasonable opportunity to the respondent to make its submissions and prove documents in support of its case. (iv) The Arbitrator has ...
Raunaq International Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR761(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company. It is engaged in the business of export of engineering and industrial goods. Technical know-how to indigenous manufacturers is provided by the Sales Engineers of the petitioner as the exports comprised of sophisticated goods. Such technical assistance is also provided in development of various engineering and industrial goods for the purpose of exports.2. In Iraq Government company known as a State Company for Rubber Industries, Baghdad (SCRI) sought for technical assistance of the petitioner pursuant whereto 16 specialists were deputed for the purpose of sharing experience for running the factory as also for improving and developing technical and managerial skills of its personnel as also to participate in the practical application of the planned technology.3. On the ground that providing of such technical assistance would entitle the petitioner to claim deduction under Section 80-O of he Income Tax Act, an application was...
Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Del)24
Judgment S.B. Sinha, C.J.The petitioner is a public limited company. It is engaged in the business of export of engineering and industrial goods. Technical know-how to indigenous manufacturers is provided by the sales engineers of the petitioner as the exports comprised of sophisticated goods. Such technical assistance is also provided in development of various engineering and industrial goods for the purpose of exports.2. An Iraq Government company known as a State Company for Rubber Industries, Baghdad (SCRI) sought for technical assistance of the petitioner pursuant whereto 16 specialists were deputed for the purpose of sharing experience for running the factory as also for improving and developing technical and managerial skills of its personnel as also to participate in the practical application of the planned technology.On the ground that providing of such technical assistance would entitle the petitioner to claim deduction under section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, an application...
Shambhu Nath Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT342TriDel
1. This matter has come before the Larger Bench by way of a reference made by a Single Member on the question whether the ratio in Shrenik J.Kothari & Jayanand J. Kothari v. CC, Madras [1992 (40) ECR 461] is liable to be considered on the issue of the initial burden on the Revenue in respect of seizure of goods coming under Section 123(1) of the Customs Act.2. After the case was partly heard a letter in the nature of circular, dated 11-6-1990 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue is brought to our notice. On the basis of the above circular a contention was raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that under no circumstances the proceedings initiated against the appellant could be justified when each of them was having less than 100 kgs silver bullion with them. We find that this circular was not before the Learned Single Member when the reference order was passed.If the contention of the appellants on the basis of the circular is accepted then...
Tirupati Cigarettes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT153TriDel
1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of an amount of duty of Rs. 3,50,083/-. The applicants have, inter alia, stated that their factory is lying closed since 15-4-98 and that their accumulated loss is Rs. 10.85 crores. During the material period, they were in the manufacture of Cigarettes (CSH 2403.11) and were following Chapter X procedure. Their raw material was cut tobacco procured from manufacturers thereof. In 1995, they received 100 bags (3400 kgs.) of cut tobacco at concessional rate in terms of Notification No.356/86-C.E. from one party and 339 bags (11,525 kgs) of cut tobacco at the said rate from another party. On 7-11-95 and 14-11-95, they applied to the Commissioner for permission to return the said quantities of 100 bags and 339 bags to the respective original manufacturers under Rule 196B(i) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. There was no response to these applications. Later on, by their applications dated 2-4-96 and 23-5-96, they applied to the Commissioner...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Panchsheel Soap Factory
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT527TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether affixing of sticker on a label will amount to manufacture in terms of Note 6 to Chapter 34 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri M.M. Dubey, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that the respondents M/s. Panchsheel Soap Factory imported toilet soaps which were marketed by them after affixing label, containing MRP and their name as importer; that the Additional Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 16/2000, dated 5-1-2000, confirmed the demand of duty besides imposing the penalty holding that the sticker indicating the name of the importer and the MRP was required to be put as the same was mandatory under Section 33 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packed Commodity) Act, 1977 and that labelling the products amounts to manufacture in terms of Note 6 to Chapter 34; that, however, on appeal Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order holding that the putting of label as d...
Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC204Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. the issue involved is whether soapy matter obtained by them in the process of manufacture of Banaspati is liable to Central Excise duty. Shri P.C.Jain, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants manufacture Banaspati during the manufacture of which soap stock is generated during pre-refining and post refining of oil; that they do not clear soap stock as such because it is not marketable and has no shelf life; that they captively use the soap stock for manufacturing acid oil; that the Appellate Tribunal in respect of their own factory at Rajpura, has held vide Final Order No. 83/2001, dated 15-3-2001 [2001 (131) E.L.T.67 (T)] that soapy water obtained by the Appellants in the process of manufacture of vegetable oil is not a marketable commodity. Learned Advocate also referred to Indian Standard Specification for soap stock IS : 12031 - 1896 according to which soap stock "being an aqueous medium with heavy organic loading ...
Doom Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT73TriDel
1. The applicants filed this application for restoration of the appeal.Heard both sides.2. The appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed as withdrawn as the appellants approached the Settlement Commission in terms of Section 32PA of Central Excise Act. Now the Settlement Commission vide Order dated 7-9-2001 decided to send back the case under Section 32L of the Central Excise Act and gave permission to the appellants to ask for restoration of the appeals in terms of provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 32PA of the Central Excise Act.3. As the appeals were withdrawn to approach the Settlement Commission and now the Settlement Commission has decided to send the matter back.Therefore, the appeals are restored to their original number and adjourned to 13-5-2002 for arguments....
G.T.C. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC442
1. These appeals are directed against two orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi bearing Nos. 5/99, dated 19-5-99 and 1/98, dated 30-9-98. Appeal Nos. E/2176-78/99-NB, E/3294-95/99-NB, E/3296/99-NB and E/2197/99-NB are at the instance of noticees, while Appeal Nos. E/1840-1845/2001-NB are at the instance of Revenue.2. In the appeals filed by the noticees the challenge is against the demand of central excise duty and imposition of penalty. Contentions are raised by the appellant on the merits of the case. Revenue in its appeals mainly challenge the impugned order on the ground that the adjudicating authority has failed to take into consideration additional evidence presented by the Revenue. Revenue has also taken a ground that the adjudicating authority has erred in proceeding with the case of two Chartered Accountant firms who had obtained an order of stay of all proceedings against them from the Bombay High Court under order dated 4-7-94 and 20-6-97.3. Learned Cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »