Delhi Court April 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Hyderabad Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT463TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HKS(659)CE-2001, dated 6/13-8-2001 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Customs House, New Delhi. The subject of that appeal was letter C. No.GL-3/LAR/Hyd/22/2001/531, dated 21-3-2001 of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Dharuhera. That letter reads as under :- "During the course of the audit of your unit for the period from 1998-99 to 1999-2000 short payment of duty to the tune of Rs. 2,13,615/- has come to the notice on the grounds as per the Annexure attached. The grounds of the objection are substantiated as per the ruling of the CEGAT in case of Escorts J.C.B. Limited v. CCE, Delhi and accordingly you are requested to pay the short levy and deposit particulars be intimated to this office so that higher authorities are informed accordingly.2. The Commissioner has disposed of the appeal of the assessee stating that no appeal lies against the letter of the Superintendent. The reasoning of the Commissioner is as unde...
ilpea Paramount Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC557Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in these three appeals, filed by M/s. ILPEA Paramount Pvt. Ltd. is whether the various Items of plastics and rubber manufactured by them are classifiable in their respective Chapters 39 and 40 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as claimed by them or are classifiable under Heading 84.18 as parts of refrigerators, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.2. Shri G.M.S. Murthy, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture plastic and rubber products known as wire shelf trim S.Foil, butter shelf trim, front shelf square, long door, egg/butter retainer strip, shelf strip, etc. which are classified by them under Chapters 39 and 40 of the Tariff; that the Revenue has classified these products under sub-heading 8418.90 of the Tariff on the ground that these products are manufactured and supplied to the Refrigerator manufacturing units as per their drawing and specification and that these items are for exclusive use...
Euro CotspIn Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC760
1. This is an appeal filed by a 100% Export Oriented Unit. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Being aggrieved by this order the appellants have filed this appeal before us.2. Shri Sidartha Sen, learned Counsel arguing the case for the appellant(s) submits that there was gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the application for modification of the Stay Order was rejected without giving the applicants an opportunity of presenting their case. He submits that the Development Commissioner had granted ex-post facto approval in relation to procurement of duty free HSD oil. Learned Counsel submits that the appellants being a 100% EOU is entitled to procure duty free input/capital goods to utilize in the manufacture of final product. He submits that permission to use CT-3 certificates was issued by the Development Commissioner for procuring duty free goods. He submits that the ap...
Universal Rubber Indus. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT572TriDel
1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 28th August, 2001 of the Commissioner vide which he has confirmed the duty and imposed penalty on the appellants as detailed therein.2. The learned Counsel, at the outset, has contended that there has been breach of rules of natural justice by the Commissioner as he failed to afford proper opportunity to the appellants by supplying the requisite relied upon documents and non relied upon documents in spite of repeated requests by them. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this short ground only.3. The learned JDR, on the other hand, has simply reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. We have heard both sides and gone through the facts on record. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of rubber roll and tread rubber. Proceedings were drawn against them on the strength of show cause notice dated 27-9-2000 after taking search of their busines...
Lumax Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT395TriDel
1. These three appeals have been filed against a common Order No.21/2000, dated 19-5-2000 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise confirming the demand of Central Excise duty and imposing penalties on all the three Appellants namely M/s. Lumax Industries Ltd., Shri D.K.Jain, Managing Director and Shri J.S.S. Rao, General Manager (Commercial), besides confiscating the seized goods and giving an option to redeem the same on payment of fine, on the ground that the excisable goods were removed without payment of duty in the guise of rejected/repaired goods and there was shortage as well as excess of finished goods in the factory.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants Company manufacture signalling equipment such as lamp assembly for motor vehicles, head lamp, rear comb, front comb, side indicator, etc., and components thereof; that almost the entire production is supplied to Original Equipment (OE) manufacturers like Maruti Udyog, Telco, etc.; that w...
Shri Brij Mohan Behl Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)125; 98(2002)DLT48; 2002(63)DRJ417
Khan, J. 1. Though petitioner's detention period was to expire shortly in the next few days, his counsel still insisted on testing the waters and wanted us to examine the validity of the detention order any way.2. Petitioner was detained by order dated 4.8.2000 under Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act which was executed on 30.3.2001. He was supplied the grounds of detention within prescribed time. He also made a representation against his detention which was rejected. His detention order was later approved and confirmed.3. Petitioner challenges the detention order on oft-repeated grounds viz. long and undue delay in passing of detention order and in its execution, non-supply of legible copies of some documents and failure of sponsoring authority to place some material/information before the detaining authority and all this, according to his, vitiated the detention.4. Petitioner claims that there was a delay of 26 months in passing the detention order. While the alleged incident against him had ...
Shri Ram Krishna Mahato and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT32; 2002(64)DRJ829
Vijender Jain, J.1. This order shall disposed of CW 7608/99, CW No. 4449/99, CW No. 7721/99, CW No. 1023/2000, CW No. 1310/2000, CW No. 6697/99, CW No. 7691/99 and CW No. 7121/99.2. Rule.3. Counsel for the petitioner have contended that the scheme of the Government with regard to casual labourer would be applicable to the respondent/National Open School. This wit petition has been filed seeking direction that the respondent may continue to engage the petitioners as casual labourers as long as there is work requiring engagement of casual labourers and not to engage any fresh casual labourer in the place of the petitioners.4. In CW 7608/99 another prayer is that the respondent be directed to grant temporary status to petitioners in terms of the Government of India's instructions and also consider them for regularisation in course to time.5. On other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, Counsel for the respondent/National Open School has contended that the scheme of the Government of India is not applic...
Mr. Rajesh Gupta Vs. Naman Fincap Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)760; 98(2002)DLT726; 2002(63)DRJ425
R.C. Jain, J. 1. This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 14-8-2001 sitting as an executing court, by which the court has declined to execute an order dated 15-12-1999 passed by the learned trial court simply for the reasons that the said order did not specifically contain a direction for the payment of Rs. 50,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 although this was one of the conditions of the compromise contained in the joint compromise application Ex. AW. 1 2. The relevant facts to be noted for the disposal of this revision petition are that the respondent herein filed a suit against the petitioner and defendant No. 2, defendant No. 2 was not represented at the trial and was proceeded ex-parte. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1, during the course of the trial, settled the subject matter of the suit and on 15-12-1999 filed a joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, the terms of settlement having b...
Shri Keshav Bangur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)93; 2002RLR437
Khan, J. 1. Petitioner's premises was searched on 5.3.1997 under Section 37 of FERA and some documents seized. He has filedthis petition for return of these documents. His caseis that respondents could not retain these documentsbeyond one year under Section 41 of FERA and once this period hadexpired, they were obliged to return these without fail. 2. Respondents' stand is that highly incriminatingdocuments were seized from petitioner and that he hadalso deposed that he had transferred funds of Rs. 4crores to one Ashok Kumar Jain as was reflected inthese. Since proceedings were commenced against him,seized documents could not be returned to petitionertill disposal of those proceedings. It is also claimedthat proceedings had even been taken against petitioneralso and, thereforee, the question of returning thedocuments did not arise. 3. Section 41 of FERA empowers retention of custody of documents pursuant to the action taken under some of the provisions mentioned therein and if the offic...
Sayed Abu Ala Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3519; 98(2002)DLT122; 2002(63)DRJ552
Khan, J. 1. Petitioner is challenging detention order dated 15.2.2000 passed by R-2 under Section 3(1) of PITNDPS Act, 1988 on the ground that R1-2 had unjustifiably rejected his second representation for reconvening of the Advisory Board and had caused undue delay in disposal of his representation and that both these factors had vitiated his detention.2. Petitioner was first arrested on 29.11.1999 by Officers of NCB, Bangalore. He was later ordered to be detained by order dated 15.2.2000 which was served on him on 24.4.2000. He made a representation against his detention and his case was referred to the Advisory Board which was convened for 22.4.2000. The Board reported for his detention which was later confirmed on 25.4.2000.3. Petitioner made a second representation on 26.5.2000 to the detaining authority for reconstitution of Advisory Board as according to him he was deprived of his right of appear before it on 22.4.2000. His representation was but rejected by order dated 25.7.2000...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »