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.
Arvind Singh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC208
1. In all these eight applications, prayer has been made to waive the requirement of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty and penalty confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order Nos.659-666-CE/BPL/2001.2. Shri Ramesh Nair, learned Advocate, submitted that the issue involved is the excisability of Refrigeration Plant, erected by them out of the machineries and other necessary items purchased from the market; that after completion of assembly, erection and installation of refrigeration plant, the final product emerged in the form of a "refrigerated building" called cold storage which is an immovable property and as such not chargeable to Central Excise duty; that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Virdi Brothers v. CCE, Indore, 2001 (132) E.L.T. 86 (T) has held that "construction of refrigeration plant utilizing those bought out items is not a manufacturing process wherein any marketable commodity as contemplated by the Act comes into existence. Finally, he mentio...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Scientific Mes Technik Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC571
1. In these three appeals, preferred by Revenue, the issue involved is whether the impugned electronic instruments manufactured by M/s.Scientific MES Technik Ltd., are classifiable under Heading 90.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order or are classifiable under Heading No. 85.43 as claimed by the Revenue. The appeals also involve the issue of classification of 'oscilloscope trolly' whether under Heading 94.03 or 90.33 of the Tariff.2. At the outset the learned Advocate, Shri L.P. Asthana, mentioned that the Respondents are not disputing the classification of the "trolly" under Heading No. 94.03 of the Tariff and as such Revenue's appeal is allowed as far as classification of Trolly is concerned.3. Shri Ashok Kumar, learned D.R., submitted that the Respondents have classified impugned electronic instruments, namely, Pulse Generator, Function Generator, Sine Wave Generator and Low Distortion Generator unde...
M.C.E. Products Sales and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Meerut
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC49Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M.C.E. Products Sales and Services Ltd., is whether cable antenna television (CATV), Master Antenna Television (MATV), TV Signal booster and parts thereof are classifiable under Heading 85.29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as claimed by them or under Heading 85.43 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.2. Shri C. Hari Shankar, learned Advocate, submitted that the impugned products are classifiable under Heading 86.29 as "Parts suitable for use solely or principally with" apparatus of Headings 85.25 to 85.28; that the Revenue has classified them under Heading 85.43 on the ground that the impugned goods are not "integral parts of T.V. sets or Television receivers and as such cannot be classified under. Heading 85.29; that Heading 85.29 does not use the words "integral part of" or even "part of"; that the words used are "parts suitable for use solely or principally with"; that the...
Vinod Kumar and ors. Vs. A.P. Srivastava
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ309CAT
1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by six out of eleven applicants, who had filed O.A. No. 495/1999 alleging that a wrong and incorrect counter affidavit dated 20.8.1999 was filed by the alleged contemnor which misled the Tribunal to pass the order dated 26.5.2000, dismissing the O.A.2. Heard Mr. D.K. Garg, appearing for the applicant/petitioners and Mr.S. Mohd Arif, Addl. Govt. Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. Eleven applicants, all of whom were working as Computer Operator Grade 'A' in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 in the respondents' organisation, were aggrieved that after their promotion to the grade of Rs. 1400-2300 w.e.f. 31.10.1993, by the order dated 8.7.1997, they were granted the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000, which was subsequently brought down to Rs. 4500-7000. After examining the points raised in the O.A. and the facts brought out in the counter affidavit which showed that the Computer Operators were eligible for promotion as Data Processing Assistants ...
Puran Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC29
1. This is an application moved by the respondent Bank for recall of order dated 14.5.2001 passed by this Appellate Tribunal whereby the hearing of this appeal was directed to be ex parte against the respondent. Reply has been filed by the appellant to this application.3. During the pendency of this application the respondent Bank filed on additional affidavit in response to order dated 21.11.2001 by this Appellate Tribunal.4. The facts of the case are that this appeal was filed before the DRAT, Mumbai on 26.3.1999. Upon establishment of this Appellate Tribunal the record of this appeal was received by this Appellate Tribunal from Mumbai and, consequently, on 28.9.2000, fresh notices to the parties were sent for 24th January, 2001. On that date none appeared for the parties and the matter was directed to be listed before the Registrar on 1.2.2001. Mr. S.K. Gandhi appeared for the appellants before the Registrar on that date but none appeared for the respondent Bank. This appeal came u...
Shoban Lal JaIn Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)79TTJ(Delhi)446
1. This is an appeal by assessee against the order of CIT(A) relating to asst yr. 1991-92.2. Various grounds of appeal have been taken by the assessee. The grounds in regard to disallowance of bad debt of Rs. 5,51,108 and in regard to sustenance of addition of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of cash credits were only pressed.3. The other grounds i.e., in regard to depreciation, telephone expenses, legal expenses and entertainment expenses were not pressed.Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed.4. Regarding ground relating to interest under Section 234B and 234C, it was stated that this a consequential ground and it was requested that consequential relief, if any, may be given.5. Now we will take the ground in regard to bad debt of Rs, 5,51,108.This addition was made by the AO by observing that assesses has not proved that how these amounts have become bad. It was also observed by the AO that assessee has not tried to recover the amount. Accordingly it was held that they have no...
Osnar Paints and Contracts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Buildings Constructi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)53; 2002(3)ARBLR653(Delhi); 98(2002)DLT578; 2002(64)DRJ820
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Disputes having arisen, mechanism for resolution of such disputes provided under the contracts entered into between the petitioner (claimant) and respondent No. 1(objector), was set in motion leading to appointment of respondent No. 2 as sole arbitrator. The arbitrator set out to discharge his adjudicatory function by entering upon reference which culminated into making of the impugned award for an aggregate sum of Libyan Dinar (LD), 19575.00.2. The claimant accepts award inasmuch as adjudication on its claims is concerned. It, however, seeks payment of the awarded sum in Indian currency instead of in Libyan Dinar. Consequently, while seeking the award to be made rule of the court, a prayer is made that the awarded amount may be translated from Libyan Dinar into Indian currency.3. To the objector on the other hand, the award is unacceptable. Assailing the award on a number of grounds, as set out in its objections (IA. 4579/96), it pleads for setting aside the same...
Modern Food Industries (India) Limited Vs. I.K. Malik and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)88; 98(2002)DLT593; 2002(63)DRJ451
Usha Mehra, J.CM No. 774/20021. Appellant Modern Food Industries (India) Limited was a tenant in the premises bearing No. C-17, L.S.C.-I Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The premises consisted of first and Mezzanine floors measuring an area of about 1817 Sq. ft. The tenancy was on month to month basis. The tenancy month commenced from 1st day of each English calendar month. The tenancy period was to expire in July, 1998. The landlords of the property asked the appellant/defendant to vacate the premises. When it was not vacated, legal notice dated 11th July, 1998 was issued. It was got served on the appellant/defendant on 14th July, 1998 thereby terminating the tenancy from the midnight of 31st July, 1998. In the notice it was also made clear that if the appellant/defendant continue to occupy the premises he shall be liable to pay damages/mesne profit @ Rs. 1,25,000/- per month. Appellant/defendant while acknowledging the notice declined to vacate the premises on the plea that th...
Naresh Confectionery Works Vs. JaIn Confectionery
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)504; 98(2002)DLT285; 2002(25)PTC129(Del)
D.K. Jain, J.1. In this suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from carrying on business as manufacturers or vendors of confectioneryitems under the trade mark 'New Kamal/Kamal' in the infringing cartons, the plaintiff, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of confectioneryproducts under the trade mark 'Kamal', has filed an application (IA 9173/01) under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the CPC), for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in confectionery items under theimpugned trade mark 'New Kamal Coconut Bar' or artistic wrapper identical to the plaintiff's trade mark 'Kamal'.2. is No. 2824/02 has been filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, praying for vacation of ad interim injunction granted on 27September 2001.3. This order will dispose of both the applications.4. Plaintiff's case, in brief, is that since the year 1972, it has be...
Gautam Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT348; 2003(66)DRJ38
S.L. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), petitioner is seeking quashing of the complaint (Kalandra), under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act, (for short, 'D.P.Act'), and the proceedings thereon pending trial in the court of ACMM, Delhi.2. The allegations in brief, are that Anti-kidnapping cell of the Police received information that the petitioner, who is working as a beldar (labourer), in the MCD, has been indulging in illegal activities of bringing arms and drugs from the Nepal border; and that some cash and other articles are lying burred in his jhuggi at Vijay Nagar. The information was recorded vide DD No. 7 dated 10.7.97 at P.S. R.K. Puram and was also brought to the notice of Senior Officers. The police visited the jhuggi but it was found locked. The report was kept pending. On 11.7.97 at 6:30 a.m. the police again received information that the petitioner was available at jhuggi. The police party proce...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »