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.
National Building Construction Corporation Vs. Punjab National Bank an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ARBLR557(Delhi); 98(2002)DLT53; 2002(65)DRJ744
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.Admit. Arguments heard for final disposal on the request of the counsel for the parties.1. This civil writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondent No. 1 Punjab National Bank to remit Rs. 52.50 lacs under the bank guarantee to the petitioner and quash letter of the respondent No. 1 dated 13.12.2000.2. Briefly the facts as disclosed by the pleadings are that the Indian Railway Construction (IRCON) awarded a contract of construction of a railway station and commercial complex at Belapur to the petitioner. The petitioner in turn divided the contract into smaller parts and gave the same to sub contracts. A sub contract was given to the respondent No. 2 Puri International (P) Ltd. also. In pursuance thereof the petitioner issued the work order to the respondent No. 2 on 22.11.1990. The respondent No. 2 was entitled to receive mobilisation advance to the extent of 5% of the contract value and the said advance was payabl...
Jagdish Katana and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ828
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.11.1998 of the learned Special Judge in ECA No. 33/97 whereby the learned Judge held the appellants guilty under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and further vide a separate order sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 25000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for three months each. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset states that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction. I, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. 2. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by the learned counsel that the appellants have suffered three months actual incarceration and has been on bail since 16.2.1999. He submits that the occurrence is of 2.1.1997 and the appellants have already suffered the ordeal of trial for five years. He submits that there has been no complaint about their having belied the tr...
Davender Arora Vs. Management of Albert and David Limited and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR250]; 2003(1)SLJ98a(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.Rule.1. 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 PI gives the terms and the emoluments of the petitioner. 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. 1,200/- 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 ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Escorts Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC1098Tri(Delhi)
1. Both Revenue and assessee are in appeal. The grievance of the assessee is that the impugned orders are in error in holding that duty was payable in respect of the labour cost involved in the replacement of parts during warranty period. The Revenue is in appeal against the finding of the Commissioner that advertisement expenditure incurred by the dealers of the assessee are not required to form part of the assessable value.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of Tractors. They sell the Tractors to their dealers and the dealers sell to consumers. Tractors are covered by warranty.- The parts required for replacement during warranty period are supplied by the assessee manufacturer. The labour services for the replace- ment are incurred by the dealers. The issue in dispute is whether the labour cost involved in such replacement activity is required to form a part of the assessable value of the Tractors. Such labour cost has been quantified at Rs. 250/-per Tractor.3. The impugned order has ...
Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC333Tri(Delhi)
1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., the issue involved is whether Malaria Larvicide Oil (MLO) manufactured by them, is classifiable under Heading 2710.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or under sub-heading 3808.10 of the Tariff as confirmed under the impugned Order.2. Mrs. Reena Khair, Learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants manufacture various petroleum products; that after payment of duty they mix LDO with duty paid additives namely rosin and turpentine oil to obtain the impugned product MLO; that the mixing of 0.5% additives with 99.5% LDO is to increase the spreading capacity of LDO when spread on water body for forming a layer of oil with a view to cut off supply of Oxygen to Water surface on which mosquito larvae float resulting into death of larvae; that classification of MLO under 3808.10 is not proper as it does not contain any properties of insecticides; that after mixing LDO with additives, it remains petroleum products only as a...
Commr. of C. Ex., Jaipur-i Vs. Keshorai Patan Sahkari Sugar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC576Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether Tress-mud' is liable to Excise duty.2. Shri Hitesh Shah, learned DR, submitted that the Respondents Keshorai Patan Sahkari Sugar Mills Ltd. manufacture sugar; that the Press-mud is one of the by-product which is obtained during the manufacture of sugar; that the Additional Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 39/2001, directed the Respondents to pay Central Excise duty and imposed penalty on the ground that they had cleared Press-mud without payment of duty; that on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent holding that the demand was confirmed under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the payment of amount @ 8% under the said Rule does not arise when some waste come into being and is cleared as non-excisable product. He, further, submitted that Press-mud is a by-product which is chargeable to Excise duty being classifiable under Headin...
Kothari Products and Deepak Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC554
1. The appellants M/s. Kothari Products Limited hereinafter referred to as M/s. KPL manufacture Pan Masala falling under Chapter sub-heading 2106.00. The Central Excise duty on these goods was chargeable on the basis of the value to be determined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. They were issued a show cause notice dated 4.2.2000 and the proceedings initiated under this notice culminated in the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur passing an order dated 13.6.2001 in which he confirmed a Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,93,83,911 on M/s. KPL under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further imposed a penalty of an equal amount on them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He also imposed a penalty of 1 lakh on Shri Deepak Kothari, Managing Director of M/s. KPL under Rule 209A. The Commissioner in his impugned order has broadly summed up the allegations levelled against the noticee-parties in the show cause notice as follows- (i) That in respect of the...
Commissioner of C. Ex., New Delhi Vs. Bloom Products (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC448
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Revenue, is whether the process of cutting jumbo paper rolls to smaller shape and size by M/s.Bloom Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. amounts to manufacture.2. Shri Atul Dikshit, learned SDR, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held the process not amounting to manufacture following the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of S.R. Tissues Pvt.Ltd v. CCE, New Delhi, 2001 (136) E.L.T. 367 (Tribunal); that an appeal against the said decision has been filed and has been admitted by the Supreme Court. He also submitted that when the jumbo rolls of Tissue Paper is subjected to the process of cutting, rewinding and packing, the resultant product namely, Facial Tissue, Napkin, Toilet Paper, etc.is of different variety and for specific purposes; that since a new distinct commercial product comes into existence which is known with a new identity in the market, the process amounts to manufacture.3. We have considered the submissions of ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Vidyut Product Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT102TriDel
1. The issue involved in the present Appeal is whether the process of obtaining the transformer oil from the burnt transformer oil amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise Act. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, submitted that the respondent M/s. Hindustan Vidyut Products Ltd. sends the burnt transformer oil for reprocessing to M/s. Savita Chemicals Ltd.; that the burnt transformer oil is converted into fresh transformer oil which is used in various transformers received by the respondents for repairing; that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Mineral Oil Corporation v. CCE, Kanpur - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 166 has held that reclamation of transformer oil from used transformer oil does not amount to manufacture so as to attract levy of Central Excise duty afresh; that this decision of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. A248. Finally, he submitted that as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order the duty, if...
Bhandari Foils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT131TriDel
1. Today the Appeal filed by M/s. Bhandari Foils and Tubes Pvt. Ltd. is posted for hearing the stay petition. As the issue involved in the Appeal stands settled by the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, we take up the Appeal itself for disposal.2. The Appellants have requested to decide the Appeal on merits under their letter dated 15-3-2002. We, therefore, heard Shri Atul Dikshit learned SDR and perused the records. In this matter, a show cause notice was issued to the Appellants for demanding Service Tax and imposing penalty. The Deputy Commissioner under Adjudication Order No.176-218/99, dated 13-11-99 dropped the proceedings against the Appellants. This Order was reviewed by the Commissioner who directed the Deputy Commissioner to file the Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order set aside the Adjudication Order and allowed the Appeal filed by the Department. It has been brought to our notice that the Tribunal vide Order No. 48...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »