Delhi Court July 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.
Kiran Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT212TriDel
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Mac Soft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. were engaged in the manufacture of Bare copper wire and were availing the benefit of small scale exemption. The appellants were also sending the copper wire to one M/s. Succhi Wire Products for conversion of the copper wire into super enamelled wire on job work basis. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for denial of benefit of small-scale exemption notification in respect of specified goods manufactured and cleared in the brand name of another person. As the appellants cleared 5095.175 Kg. of super enamelled wire bearing the brand name of Shakti Imide. Duty of Rs. 1,58,739/- was demanded and proposal for imposition of penalty were also made. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on appellant-firm and penalty of Rs. one lakh was imposed on Mrs. Kiran Gupta, Direc...
Parasrampuria International Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT142TriDel
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 30-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, vide which he has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 44,36,547/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellants under Rule 209 of the Rules.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) situated at Pithampur. The firm is engaged in the manufacture of Cotton Yarn and Polyester/Cotton Yarn falling under Chapter Heading No. 5205.11, 5509.41 & 5206.11 of the CETA and on the basis of the permission granted by the Development Commissioner, Noida Export Processing Zone, Noida, they also cleared the goods in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), On the scrutiny of the invoices issued by them for clearance of goods in DTA, it revealed that they had been clearing Cotton Yarn and Polyester/Cotton yarn on payment of duty @ 8% and 15% adv. respectively, as...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Meenu Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR521(Delhi); 102(2003)DLT732; 2002(64)DRJ192
S.B. Singha, C.J.1. Although nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, with the assistance of the counsel for the respondent this Court has gone through the record. The opposite party was provided a telephone by the petitioner-MTNL. The opposite party had not paid certain dues in respect of the said telephone connection. However, a telephone belonging to the partner of the respondent was sought to be disconnected in terms of Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules.2. Opposite Party filed a suit for perpetual injunction. Petitioner relying and on the basis of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, raised a contention before the learned court below that the suit was not maintainable. The said contention of the petitioner was rejected. Hence this Revision Petition.3. Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act reads thus:--'Arbitration of disputes--7B(i) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, can be chamber tower, appliance or a...
Smt. Renu Jolly and ors. Vs. Shri Vinod Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT261; 2002(64)DRJ467
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The petitioner-tenants have filed this petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) to challenge the eviction order dated 1.7.2000 passed by learned ARC by which an eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was allowed and an eviction order was passed.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14(i)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act against Shri Mit Pal Singh Jolly and Smt. Balwant Kaur, both since deceased, whose LRs. are the present petitioners. According to the respondent the premises in question had been let out to the predecessor in interest of the petitioners for residential purposes but now the respondent bonafide required the same for his own and the residence of his family members. According to the respondent the accommodation available with him consisted of two small rooms, pas...
Bal Kishan S/O Sh. Harbans Lal, New Delhi Vs. Local Health Authority, ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT339; 2002(64)DRJ445
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The only question that requires consideration is as to whether when under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act basically the offence is triable by a Metropolitan Magistrate if he could commit the same to the Court of Sessions or not.2. The above said question arises as a result of the following facts. A complaint with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was filed by local health authority against the petitioner. It was on theassertions that on21st August, 1996food inspector purchased a sample of mustard oil at M/s Bansi Oil Mills, Khanna Market, New Delhi. The petitioner was stated to be present conducting the business. A sample of 375 gms of mustard oil was taken and divided into three parts by the food inspector.One counterpart of the sample was sent to the public analyst and report was received that the sample does not conform to the standard laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration A...
Shri JatIn Behl Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT546
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus, to respondent No. 3 i.e. Moti Lal College (Evening) a college in the south Campus, to permit migration of the petitioner to respondent No. 4 college i.e. Moti Lal Nehru College (Morning). Petitioner was admitted to respondent No. 3 evening college in B.Com (Pass), First Year, in the academic year 2000-2001. It may be noted that the minimum percentage of marks the required for admission to morning college, 1st Year B.Com.(Pass), was over 80%. Petitioner had obtained only 69.75% marks in 12th Class Board Examination. the petitioner not being eligible for admission to morning College, secured admission in the Evening College. Petitioner has passed the first year examination, securing 57.25 marks.2. Petitioner on 13.8.2001, addressed a letter to the Principal of respondent No. 4, i.e. the morning college stating that he had secured 229 marks out of 400 marks in the first year and sought migration from evening college to morning coll...
U.P. Samaj Co-operative Group Housing Society Vs. Delhi Cooperative Tr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT692
Khan, J.1. Petitioner is disputing membership of R-3 and calling in question orders passed by the Registrar and the Cooperative Tribunal respectively affirming his membership.2. Both sides are giving their own versions. The petitioner society asserts that R-3 was not a member as he had not filed any application for membership in terms of Rule 24 and as his membership was not approved by any Society resolution. It is, however, admitted that he was on the waiting list. R-3 on the contrary claims that he had submitted requisite application along with a cheque of Rs. 110/- dated 14.9.1983 which was duly credited to the society's account on 29.1.1983 and where after he was enrolled as a member and had received communications from the society including notices of General Body Meeting till 1986 when his membership was sought to be disputed. He also refers to and relies upon society's letter dated 21.3.1987 whereby he was told that he had defaulted in making a payment of Rs. 25,000/- for allot...
Laxmi Narayan Soni Vs. Roop Chand Soni and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT186
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 31.7.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge in Suit No. 521/95 whereby and whereunder the Court in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC rejected the plaint filed by the petitioner wherein he claimed damages for malicious prosecution against the defendant. The defendant had filed a complaint under Sections 406/420, IPC alleging that the petitioner wanted to cause injury to him whereupon the same was registered as Complaint Case No. 87/87.2. By judgment dated 11.8.1992 the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case by the Judicial Magistrate, Sujan Garh, Rajasthan. Against the said order, the complainant filed a revision petition before the High Court and also filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge. The revision petition was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable. By order dated 27.4.1995 the appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Petitioner f...
Rayman Shoe Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT551TriDel
2. The appeal of the appellants was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order on the ground of limitation.3. The perusal of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) shows that the appeal was filed against the order-in-original passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22-3-2001, after expiry of nine months and eleven days, from the date of receipt of order-in-original by the appellants. Under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) has got no power to condone this much delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, on the face of it, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly valid.3A. The learned counsel has, however, contended that the duty demand for the period April 1998 to December 1998 raised by the Department, was time barred as the show cause notice was issued only on 21-12-1999 without alleging suppressions of material facts, on the part of the appellants, from the department and moreover the department had ea...
San International Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC370
1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,68,34,435.00 and of Rs. 92,179.54 and penalty of Rs. 50,000.00.2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants made import of goods and declared the same as 'artificial fur lining' classifiable under heading 43.04 of Customs Tariff. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants claiming classification of the goods under heading 59.07 of the Customs Tariff. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings and the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 62-63/01 dated 20.2.2001, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration with the direction that the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs will provide an opportunity to both the sides to present their respective cases. In pursuance to the remand order, the present impugned order is passed classifying the goods, in question, under chapter 59 of the Customs Tariff and demand of duty ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »