Delhi Court May 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.
Dharamvir and anr. Vs. State Government of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT468
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by Dharamvir and Sunil, hereinafter described as the appellants, directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 29th January, 2000 and 31st January, 2000 respectively. The learned Trial Court had held both the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Dharamvir was further held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Accordingly both the appellants, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 /- each. In default of payment of fine they were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Dharamvir was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under the Arms Act referred to above an...
Tripta Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(145)ELT519(Del)
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the prayer that this Court may issue writ of certiorari quashing the action of the respondents of seizing or taking into possession Rs. 16,25,000/- belonging to the petitioner. It is also prayed that this amount be directed to be paid to the petitioner with interest. 2. On 14-8-2001, a show cause notice was sent to Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, son of the petitioner. The notices were also sent to Shekhar Yadav and M/s. S.Y. International. It is mentioned in the notice that specific information was received by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit that M/s. S.Y. International, WZ-276-G, Inderpuri, New Delhi have indulged in fraudulent availment of drawback. It is also mentioned in the show cause notice that enquiries were made with ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi and it was found that in 4 shipping bills son of the petitioner claimed drawback of Rs. 13.25 lakhs. 3. It is mentioned in the...
Smt. Saraswati Devi Vs. Wealth Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)196
S. Mukerjee, J. 1. In this writ petition while issuing rule, a detailed order was passed by the Division Bench observing that the writ petition is being admitted only so far as the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75 are concerned since in respect of those years the assessments had been completed even before the WTO made a reference to the valuer calling upon the latter to submit his report regarding value of the properties as on the successive valuation dates. The writ petition was dismissed in relation to the subsequent years on the ground that the submissions in relation to those years related to the merits of the valuation and as such could not be agitated by way of writ petition as the same will be subject-matter of those assessment proceedings after the report is received.2. I have gone through the provisions of Section 16A of the WT Act, 1957. In my view, it is clear from the language of the said provisions itself that the reference to the Valuation Officer has to be only for the purp...
Jbm Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC833Tri(Delhi)
1. In these appeals, filed by M/s. JBM Industries Ltd., the issue involved is regarding inclusion of freight and insurance charges in the assessable value of cylinder manufactured and supplied by them to their customers.2. Shri R. Swaminathan, learned Consultant, submitted that the Appellants manufacture LPG Cylinders which are supplied to Oil Companies like Bharat Petroleum Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. etc. in terms of the contract entered into between them; that the price fixed in the contract is for supply of the cylinder at the factory of the Appellants; that however, at the request of the buyers they arrange for transport of the cylinder's to the buyers' premises and, accordingly, they recover the freight paid to the transporters separately from the buyers; that since the sales take place at the factory, they paid Sales Tax under the Haryana Sales Tax Act as their factory is situated in the State of Haryana; that during the period in question, that is from April, 1998 to...
Electro Mechanical Engg. Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC744Tri(Delhi)
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common order-in-original dated 2-2-2001 vide which the Commissioner has affirmed the duty and penalty as detailed therein against the appellants.2. The firm, appellants No. 1, M/s Electro Mechanical Engg. Corpn.(hereinafter referred to as M/s. 'EMEC) is engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel Structure etc. On receipt of information that this firm had floated two front units, namely, M/s. Cold Steel Corpn.(hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. CSC') [appellants No. 2] and M/s.Super Steel Corpn. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. SSC) [appellants No. 3] in order to fraudulently avail the benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE., dated 28-2-1993, surprise raid was carried out on the premises of all these firms. During investigation, it revealed that all these firms were situated in the inter-connected premises, had common office, office equipments closely related partners and common employees. It a...
Sundstrand Forms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC470Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Sundstrand Forms Pvt. Ltd. have filed this Appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original No. 21-27/2000, dated 26-12-2000 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-II.2. Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, registered by the DGTD as a printing industry, manufacture computer stationery manufactured on two machines, viz. Taiyo Web Printing machine, Japan and Mueller Grapha - Progress 20" 3 colour; that these two machines are colour printing machines; that they also have the facility at the last 4th tower to do spot coating work additionally on the paper already printed at the first three printing towers; that Mueller Martin with coatee was only installed in their factory in November, 1996; that the products manufactured by them are invoices, statements, guest folios, restaurant bills, MICR Bank Cheques, etc.which are purchased only by the actual users such as Five Star Hotels, airlines, multi-national banks and multi-national companies. H...
Rsf Technology Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT192TriDel
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. RSF Technology Corporation is whether Passive Infrared Intrusion Alarm System - 891213, imported by them is classifiable under subheading 8531.10 as alarm system or under sub-heading 8531.90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, as parts of Alarm System as claimed by the Appellants.2. Shri S.P. Sharma, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants before coming to India, had placed an order from Canada with M/s. AEI Advance Technology Industry, Hong Kong for supply of various component parts of the Burglar Alarm system which are freely importable under OGL; that the Appellants were also informed by the Indian High Commission in Canada and the Licensing Authority in Delhi that parts of the Burglar Alarm system are importable under OGL and no import licence is required for the same; that accordingly, they imported the consignment of the component parts of Burglar Alarm, system in August, 1998; that they had imported blankey ...
Guljag Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT336TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture Sulphuric Acid, Oleum, Liquid Sulphur and Di-Ethyl Sulphate falling under Chapter 28. They fabricated, 'Sulphur Melter with Coils' and paid a duty of Rs. 7,71,311/- on this item. They used it captively within their factory and availed the Modvat credit of the aforesaid amount under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the fabricated item as capital goods. The Departmental Authorities, however, initiated the proceedings against them and the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, vide his order dated 4-9-2001 observed that for the purpose of levy of duty of excise, two conditions must be fulfilled viz. (i) there must be movable goods and (ii) they should meet the marketability test as goods. He observed that these tests are not fulfilled by the said machinery and hence they are not excisable goods. He further observed that the assessee paid duty deliberately on the said machinery at the time of clearance for captive consumption and the credit o...
Praja Mechanicals Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC643
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Praja Mechanicals Ltd., the issue involved is whether they were clearing parts of the conveyor classifiable under Heading 84.31 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as confirmed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, under the impugned Order or they were removing conveyor as such in different consignments for ease of transport, classifiable under Heading 84.28 of the Traffic and whether the extended period of limitation is invokable for demanding the duty of excise under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.2.1 Shri M. Chandrasekharan, learned senior Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture conveyors and parts thereof; that the size of the conveyor manufactured by them varies from 8 metres to 640 metres in length and it is not possible to transport the same as a single unit under a single gate pass/invoice; that the coveyor is being supplied in piece meal in different lots/batches depending upon the length of the conveyor and ...
Sehgal Knitwears Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT653TriDel
1. The appellants held an Advance Licence dated 16-2-95 and the corresponding DEEC issued to them in terms of Notification No. 204/92, dated 19-5-92. In the Advance Licence, they were described as manufacturer-exporter. On 27-8-97, they filed a shipping bill at the Air Cargo Unit, New Delhi for the export of 19667 PCS. of woollen blended knitwears for FOB value of Rs. 38,10,044.98 under the DEEC Scheme. On exmination of the export goods, it was found that the 4440 PCS. of Ladies Coaty valued at Rs. 12,63,446.40 packed in 74 bags were not manufactured by the appellants. Instead they were found to be manufactured by Uday Manufacturers, Woolways India Ltd. and Gee Sons Knitwear as per the tags/labels found attached to these goods.Consequently, the proceedings were initiated against the party. The party, however, vide their letter dated 28-8-97 requested the customs authorities to allow the shipment otherwise their export orders were liable to be cancelled and their export obligation peri...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »