Delhi Court June 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.
Cce Vs. Anu Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(105)LC734Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether Switches manufactured by the Respondent, M/s. Anu Auto Industries Pvt.Ltd., are classifiable under Sub-heading 8536.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or under Sub-heading 8536.10 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order.2. Shri M.P. Singh, learned D.R., submitted that the Respondents are manufacturing Air-conditioning Switches, Re-circulation Switches, and Fan Switches; that the Asst. Commissioner under Adjudication Order No.263/98 dated 31.8.1998 classified them under Sub-heading 8536.10 as the impugned goods were used in Air-conditioning appliances; that this fact had been admitted by Shri K.K. Chaturvedi, Manager Accounts of the Respondents; that, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order set aside the Adjudication Order on the ground that Sub-heading 8536.10 harbours item "Overload protection or thermal relays, starting relay controls, for refrigerating an...
Bharti Systel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC350Tri(Delhi)
1. It is an application for modification of the interim order passed by this Tribunal vide Stay Order No. 63/2002-A, dated 7-3-2002 directing the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs towards the duty amount. The applicant submits that the issue involved in the present case is dealt with in a Circular No. 625/16/2002-CX., dated 28-2-2002 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs.2. Ld. Counsel for the applicants further submits that at the time of the hearing of the stay application, the above mentioned circular was not placed before this Tribunal. It was under these circumstances the appellant prays for a modification of the order dated 7-3-2002.3. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that in the light of the Circular dated 7-3-2002, the appeal itself can be disposed of.Therefore we proceed to dispose of the appeal.4. The contention raised by the appellant in this appeal is that their sale of telephone sets to the Department of Telecommunication are to be a...
Pranav Vikas (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC786
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order dated 16.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are manufacturer of aluminium skived tubes. They sold those tubes to various manufacturers engaged in the manufacture of car air-conditioners, oil coolers, radiators, water coolers, chillers, refrigerators etc. They claimed concessional rate of duty for the tubes under Serial No. 11 of Notification No. 56/95-CE. Later on, it revealed that they were not entitled to the benefit of this Notification and show cause notice was served on them vide which differential duty for the period 1.4.1995 to 30.4.1996 was demanded and extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11-A of the Act was invoked. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty on the appellants after getting their reply to the show cause notice wherein they reiterated their stand that they were entitled to ...
Dr. Kuldeep Verma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT25
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners numbering 23, who are Doctors, holding MBBS Degrees and are the applicants for admission to MD/MS and MDS courses, had taken All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination-2002, for short (AIPGMEE-2002), conducted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'AIIMS'), respondent No. 2, herein. AIPGMEE-2002 examination is conducted by AIIMS, pursuant to the directions given by the Supreme Court, for admission to 25% seats in various Post Graduate Courses i.e. MD/MS/PG/Diploma and MDS, in medical colleges all over the country.2. Petitioners by this writ petition seek a direction for quashing the results of AIPGMEE, 2002, held on 6th January, 2002. A writ in the nature of mandamus is sought to direct respondent No. 2, to hold the examination afresh. Further, a writ or direction is sought, commanding respondent No. 3, C.B.I. to enquire into what is alleged to be the admission scam relating to leakage and sale of question pape...
Huges Services (Fe) Pte Ltd. and ors. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)300
ORDERPhool Singh, J.M.These appeals, preferred by M/s Huges Service Far East (P) Ltd. as representative assessed of different foreign technicians, are directed against separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals). The assessment year involved in all the cases is 1993-94. Since common issues are involved for adjudication, all the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. First ground raised and common in all the appeals reads as under :'That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in maintaining the addition made by the Income Tax Officer as income from other sources on account of boarding,'3. Learned counsel for the assessed at the very outset contended that the issue in question is squarely covered in favor of assessed by Special Bench decision of Tribunal in the case of Saipem Spa v. Income Tax Officer wherein it has been held that if the accommodation provided was ex necessiate to discharge the duty assigned, it could no...
Voltas Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC359Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Voltas Limited have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur confirming demand of duty amounting to Rs. 24,150/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 6,000/-.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various types of air-conditioning and refrigerating machinery. The appellants entered into a contract with M/s. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. (NFCL) on 31-7-89 for air-conditioning of their project site. The contract involved the supply of equipment and other services such as design, engineering of air-conditioning plant, erection, testing and commissioning of the plant. They utilized the compressors condensers, chillers manufactured by them at its Thane Factory in the execution of the contract together with bought out item. The items of machinery from Thane Factory were cleared on payment of appropriate excise duty.3. The show cause notice issued to the app...
Diplast Plastics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT205TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat Credit was denied to the appellants on the ground that the credit was taken on the strength of original copy of invoice.3. The contention of the appellants is that vide Notification No.2/95-C.E., dated 19-1-95, "duplicate for transporter" copies of invoices were prescribed as valid documents for availing the benefit of credit. The invoices, in question, were issued by the dealers prior to issuance of Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 19-1-95. The contention of the appellants is that as the invoices were issued prior to Notification No. 2/95, the restriction imposed by the notification cannot be applied on the appellants.4. The contention of the Revenue is that when the document is prescribed for availing the benefit of Modvat Credit, the credit cannot be taken on any other non-prescribed document.5. In this case, the credit was taken by the appellants on 21-3-...
Cce Vs. Kalson Automotive P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC356Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by Revenue, is whether the facility of making monthly payment of duty under Rule 173GG(1) of the Central Excise Rules, is available to M/s. Kalson Automotive Pvt. Ltd. 2. Shri M.P. Singh, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that the Respondents manufacture Axil Drive Assembly and discharge Central excise duty without availing the SSI benefit under Notification No.8/2000-CE, dated 1.3.2000; that as they were paying duty on monthly basis instead of on fortnight basis, they were directed by the Assistant Commissioner to pay duty on consignment basis as they had failed to make the full payment of instalments for the third time in succession; that, however, on Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order, ordered that they should be treated as a SSI unit with the provisions of making duty payment on monthly basis as is the case with the SSI units. The learned Departmental Representative, further, submitted that as per Ru...
Swarn Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ144CAT
1. The challenge in this OA filed by nine applicants, is directed against their non-selection as Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police in spite of their having qualified both in the written test as well as in the interview.2. This OA has been heard along with OAs No. 2606/2000, 2701/2000 and 60/2001, as all of them are directed against the same selection and a have few common points. However, separate order is being passed in respect of each OA, on account of specific facts relating to the applicant(s) concerned in each OA.3. Heard Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned Counsel for the applicant who has present along with Mr. Sant Lal, while Mr. Vijay Pandita, learned Counsel along with Ms. Shabana appeared for the respondents.5. Shri Swarn Singh (roll number 237877) and eight others are among those who seek appointment to Delhi Police as Constables (Executive), on the basis of the recruitment test conducted. All of them had filed their applications in response to Notification issued by the Delhi Poli...
Ms. Jayalakshmi Jaitly Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT448; 2002(64)DRJ1
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, Ms. Jayalakshmi Jaitly, has filed this writ petition, seeking quashing of the orders dated 14.9.2001, 12.10.2001, 9.11.2001, 29.11.2001, 11.12.2001, 16.1.2002 and 22.1.2002, passed by the respondent Commission, namely, Justice K. Venkataswami Commission of Inquiry. The above orders are concerned primarily with the authenticity of the tapes, the request for their forensic examination and the order in which the witnesses and 8-B notices are to be examined.2. Petitioner, additionally, seeks an order for referring the alleged unedited camera original tapes of approx 105 hours duration for forensic examination by independent experts or a direction to the Commission to the same effect. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent Commission to examine Mr. Mathew Samuel, Mr. Tarun Tejpal and Mr. Annirudh Bahal, 8-B notices, prior to her examination. Petitioner had also prayed for provision of authentic and accurate transcripts of the tapes by independen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »