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.
Milton Laminates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Ahmedabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC798
1. This is an appeal, filed by M/s. Milton Laminates Ltd., against the Order-in-Appeal No. 155/2001, dated 31-10-2001 under which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 68,22,693/-.2. We heard Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate for the Appellants and Shri R.C. Sankhla, learned DR for the Revenue.3. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants manufacture paper based decorative laminated sheets which were classified by them under subheading 4818.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.The Department, however, classified the same under sub-heading 3920.31 of the Tariff. The Tribunal vide Order Nos. 552-575/89, dated 20-9-89 decided the classification of the impugned product in favour of the Appellants as a consequent of which they filed a Refund Claim of the duty paid by them with the Department. In the meantime the Revenue went in Appeal against the Tribunal in the Supreme Court which did not grant any stay.4. The ...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Vs. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC828
1. This application filed by the Department is for an amendment of one of the grounds raised in their appeal. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) approving the Modvat credit of over Rs. 50 lakhs taken by the respondents on the strength of a Bill of Entry and another credit of over Rs. 2.5 lakhs taken on the strength of certain invoices. In Ground No. (i), the appellant had mentioned only the invoices and had not mentioned the Bill of Entry. Now they want the Bill of Entry also to be mentioned in the ground of appeal.2. Ld. JDR, Shri S.C. Pushkarna, reiterating the amendment application/ submits that the words and figures "Bill of Entry No. 00512, dated 8-11-95" were inadvertently omitted in the aforesaid ground of the appeal.3. Ld. Advocate, Shri J.P. Kaushik for the respondents opposes this application. He points out that the Ground No. (i) of the appeal is only a reproduction of the Ground No. (i) in the order-in-review. The reviewing authority has not auth...
Mehra Tea Co. and R.S. Mehra Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC798
1. These applications have arisen in appeals filed against the orders of the Commissioner confirming demands of Special Additional Duty under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act and imposing mandatory penalties on the applicants under Section 114A of the Act.2. It appears from the record that the impugned orders were passed against the applicants ex-parte on account of their failure to appear before the appellate authority in spite of repeated notices. In the case of M/s. Mehra Tea Company, a demand of Special Additional Duty of Rs. 35,955 has been confirmed against them and a penalty of equal amount imposed on them. In the case of M/s. R.S. Mehra Trading Company, a demand of SAD of Rs. 49,808 has been confirmed against them and a penalty of equal amount has been imposed on them. The facts are similar in both the cases. The appellants imported a certain quantity of Garlic (falling under Chapter 7 of the Schedule I to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975) from Pakistan during the period October 1...
Mohinder Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC128
1. The appellants are Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills discharging their Central Excise duty liability at compounded rates on the basis of capacity of their production in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. They filed declarations under Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh declaring relevant particulars of the machinery installed in their mills for determination of Annual Capacity of production by the Commissioner and the Commissioner passed orders determining such capacity in each case. However, duty amounts due under those orders were not paid by the appellants. The dispute arising in these appeals relates to the procedure for the recovery of duties at compounded rates. When the appeal came before a Division Bench of this Tribunal it was contended that demands were partly or fully time barred as recovery proceedings had not been initiated in time in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excise A...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aroon Purie
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)82ITD606(Delhi)
1. The following ground is raised in Revenue's appeal directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-17 is correct in law in holding that award amount of B.D. Goenka Award received by the assessee is non-taxable, whereas, the same does not fall under the category for which specific exemption has been provided under Section 10(17A)".2. The respondent is the editor-in-chief of the well-known English news magazine in the country i.e., "India Today". In the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that exemption had been claimed in respect of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh received by the assessee on account of the "B.D. Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism." 3. The AO drew the attention of the assessee to provisions of Section 10(17A) of the IT Act, which read as under: (i) in pursuance of any award instituted in the public interest by the . Central Government or any State Government or instituted by a...
Shri Davender Arora Vs. the Management of Albert and David Limited and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT429
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition was taken up for disposal and counsel for parties heard.2. The petitioner who had joined respondent No. 1 M/s Albert & David Limited, as a medical representative on 1.9.1993, is aggrieved by the termination of his services. The petitioner was appointed as Medical Representative on probation with respondent No. 1. Annexure P. 1 gives the terms and the emoluments of the petitioners. The appointment letter dated 1.9.1993 is at page 20 of the paper book. The appointment was on probation for a period of 12 months with a stipend of Rs. 1200/- per month. A salient term of the appointment letter was as under :'If your services during the probationary period are found satisfactory you will be confirmed in writing and till you are confirmed, you will remain as a probationer. If during the probationary period your performance was found unsatisfactory, your services can be terminated without assigning any reasons thereof.'In ...
Ex-corporal V.V. Palanisamy (Retd) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT435; 2002(62)DRJ725
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition was taken up for disposal and counsel for the parties were heard on 22.3.2002 and 3.4.2002.2. Petitioner, a former Corporal, who retired from the Indian Air Force, after rendering 15 years pensionable service, has preferred this writ petition.3. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to the respondents to release/allot a petrol pump to him in compliance with Memorandum No. 19011/50/95-IOC dated 1.4.1997 of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Office. A further direction is sought to respondent No. 4, Director General of Re-settlement to issue eligibility Certificate to the petitioner, as applied for vide letter dated 29.8.2000. Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus to the respondents to subscribe all the 11 vacancies for defense personnel and not to allot them in general category, as is claimed to have been done in the past.4. Petitioner, an aspirant for allotment of petrol pump, has the grievance that respon...
Smt. Indira Madani and ors. Vs. Shri Hola Ram (Since Deceased) Through ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)341; AIR2003Delhi49; 97(2002)DLT833; 2002(62)DRJ621
R.C. Jain, J.1. This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 17th May, 2001 by which an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner herein seeking recasting of the existing issues and framing of additional issues has been declined.2. The relevant facts to be noted for the disposal of the civil revision are that a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts filed by the plaintiff is pending disposal before the learned trial court. On the pleadings of the parties, on 10th August, 1994, the learned trial court framed the following issues:-'(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of dissolution of partnership? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for rendition of account? (iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable for the reasons stated in paras No. 1 to 3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement? (iv) Whether the suit...
Kishan Bharwany Vs. V.P. Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi345; 97(2002)DLT723; 2002(62)DRJ731
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a suit for recovery under summary procedure of Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure. It was with great difficulty that the summons of the suit for appearance were served. Service was effected by way of substituted service through publication in the newspaper 'Statesman'. Pursuant to the service the defendant entered into appearance within the prescribed period of 10 days as required by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of Order 37 which reads as under :-'On the day of entering appearance, notice of such appearance shall be given by the defendant to the plaintiff's pleader or, if the plaintiff sues in person, to the plaintiff himself, either by notice delivered at or sent by a prepaid letter directed to the address of the plaintiff's Pleader or of the plaintiff, as the case may be. It is only after entering into such appearance that the plaintiff is required to serve on the defendant summons for judgment in form No. 4-A appendix-B returnable not less than 10 days from the ...
Smt. Urmila Devi JaIn Vs. Sh. Shorey Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)381; AIR2003Delhi6; 99(2002)DLT725
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order of an Additional Senior Civil Judge dated 22.1.1996 by which he has partially allowed the interlocutory injunction application of the respondents (plaintiffs) and has restrained the petitioner from using the disputed latrine and bathroom on the second floor of the premises except by herself and he members of her family during the pendency of the suit.2. Briefly, the facts are that the two respondents have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against their landlady, the petitioner for restraining her, her agents and servants from using the latrine and bathroom, shown in the site plan, annexed to the petition situated (SIC) the second floor of property No. 105, Darya Ganj, Delhi. Their allegation is that plaintiff No. 1 is a tenant in a portion of the second floor since 1943 and plaintiff No. 2 became the tenant in another portion at the same floor in 1947 and that bo...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »