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.
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC841
1. The appellants manufacture aerated waters falling under Chapter 22.The aerated waters are assessable to excise duty based on maximum retail price (MRP) in terms of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944.The appellants also manufacture PET bottles and captively use them in the manufacture of aerated waters. They filed a declaration under Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 with effect from 1-3-2000 in which they claimed the exemption on the PET bottles under Notf. No.67/95-CE., dt. 16-3-95 as amended. They declared that the entire PET bottles manufactured by them in their factory will be captively consumed as packing material for the final product. The party was however issued a show cause notice dated 26-3-2001 by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-D Division in which it was alleged that the exemption under Notf. No. 67/95-C.E., dt. 16-3-95 was available on the specified capital goods and the inputs manufactured in a factory and used within the factory of produ...
Rinkle Floral Creations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT708TriDel
2. Stay application is allowed. With the consent of both the sides, we proceed to hear the appeal on merits.3. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 6-12-2001 vide which the appeal of the appellants against the order-in-original dated 24-12-1998 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner authorizing the Superintendent to detain the excisable goods, raw material, plant and machinery till the amount equivalent to the value of Rs. 1,43,009/- and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- as confirmed/imposed on them, vide order-in-original dated 28-11-1997, is recovered had been dismissed on the ground that the same is not maintainable under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules.4. The learned counsel has cited before us the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Shree Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur, 2300 (118) E.L.T. 580 (All), wherein it has been ruled that the order regarding the detention of goods and machinery under Rule 230 of the ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Cine Sales Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC685Tri(Delhi)
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents made an import of 8 Channel Stereo Processor and claimed the classification under Heading 8543.89 of the Customs Tariff. The adjudicating authority held that the goods in question are classifiable under Heading 8519.99 of the Customs Tariff and is a restricted item under the EXIM Policy and it requires a specific import licence. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and allowed the release of the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 70,000/- and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was also imposed. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal on the ground that the goods are not classifiable under Heading 8519.99 of the Customs Tariff.4. The contention of the Revenue is that 8 Channel Stereo Processor imported by the respondents was fully compatible with digital formats and was designed to process 70mm & 35mm magn...
Superpack Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC26
1. Arguing the stay petition for the applicants Shri B.L. Narshiman, Ld. Counsel submits that the applicants are manufacturing HDPE bags and sacks. They supplied these bags to various manufacturers of fertilisers. He submits that the applicants arranged for the transport of goods from the factory to the buyer's premises. For this purpose, freight charges are separately indicated in the invoices. No excise duty was required to be paid on the freight charges since the sale of the goods took place at the factory gate. He submits that the applicants took out insurance for the goods in transit from the factory to the buyer's premises. He submits that the Department has sought to charge Central Excise Duty on freight element and for this purpose, they have invoked proviso to Section 11A for demanding duty beyond a period of six months. Ld. Counsel submits that there are a number judgments of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. Ld. Counsel submits that property in the goods passed on to ...
Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd. Vs. Dcm Daewoo Motors Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT21; 2002(64)DRJ481
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'C.P.C.'),petitioners are seeking quashing of the complaint underSections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct (for short 'NI Act') filed by DCM Daewoo Motors Ltd.(respondent No. 1).2. The facts in brief, necessary for disposal of this petition, are that respondent No. 1 filed complaint under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of NI Act, against petitioners, alleging that a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) was advanced by them topetitioner No. 1, as an inter-corporate deposit on 2.11.1995, which was repayable on 29.2.96, along with interest (hereinafter, 'ICD'). Petitioners executed receipt, promissory notes etc. Petitioners failed to return the ICD amount and finally issued four cheques of Rs. 25,00,000/- dated 18.6.96; Rs. 2,61,301/- dated 18.6.96; Rs. 50,00,000/- dated 2.7.96; and Rs. 5,89,726/- dated 2.7.96, totalling Rs. 83,51,027/- drawn on Bank of India, SS...
Pandit Tara Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT258; 2002(64)DRJ372
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 290/99 registered at P.S. Sarai Rohilla, District North on 3.7.99 for offence under Section 420/468/471 IPC.2. The petitioner has alleged that he is a tenant in property bearing No. 19/310, Sant Swami Bagh, Shehzada Bagh, Old Rohtak Road, Delhi 35. Being an old and ailing man of 77 years he had been occupying the property for the last over 45 years and throughout his life he has been actively associated with social work organisations and trade unions and retired as a UDC from Ministry of defense about 20 years ago. Earlier he had been paying rent to Mahant Gian Dass, who was running the trust, which owned the property. After his death his chela Mahant Babu Ram started collected Rent. The petitioner has also appended copies of the rent receipts, alleged to have been executed by Mahant Babu Ram and also alleged that he had applied for license to run factory at the premises for which purpose two rent receipts were also app...
Mohd. Sayed Vs. Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)7; 99(2002)DLT305; 2002(64)DRJ188; 2002(83)ECC294
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. In this revision petition the petitioner-accused seeks setting aside of the order dated 5th February 2002 passed by a Special Judge, NDPS, New Delhi. 2.In the complaint filed under Sections 22(c), 23 and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') by the Customs, the petitioner is alleged to have been found in possession of 3215 Tidigesic Inj. Buprenorphine of 2 ml each on 4th July 2001. In terms of order under challenge the charge under said Section 22(c) was ordered to be framed against the petitioner for possessing 4630 mls Buprenorphine being the total quantity of recovered 3215 ampoules. Out of recovered ampoules, 5 were sent to CRCL, New Delhi for analysis. Copy of the report dated 14th January 2002 at pages 15 and 16 on the file, would reveal that 0.09 ml Buprenorphine per ml was found in the sample ampoules. Having heard Sh. Harjinder Singh for petitioner and Sh. Sunil Sharma for respondent the point which arises for consider...
Shyam Swarup Sharma and anr. Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas668(Delhi); 99(2002)DLT475
1. The petitioners in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are seeking direction (i) to quash the order dated 16.2.2000 passed by Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal in RC No.3/98 arising out of O.A. No.409/96; (ii) order dated 3.3.2000 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi rejecting petitioners' objections and thereby directing the petitioners property to be put to sale; (iii) to release the petitioners' flat B1 and B2 duplex in property bearing No.C-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi, from attachment, sale or similar distress proceedings in RC No.3/98 titled as Canara Bank vs. Sagar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.; and (iv) to quash and set aside the order dated 13.9.2001 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissing petitioners appeal along with all other orders passed subsequent thereto.2. Facts in brief and in so far as they are relevant for deciding the controversy in question are that Canara Bank filed an application (O.A.409...
Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd. Vs. Raghupati Leasing and Finance L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas957(Delhi); 100(2002)DLT38; 2002(64)DRJ332
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This petition under Section 397/401 read withSection 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the order dated 3rd July, 1999 passed by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi dismissing application of the petitioners forrecalling the order of summoning dated 25th July, 1998 under Sections 138 read with Section 142 of NegotiableInstruments Act (for short 'N.I. Act').2. Facts in brief are that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioners alleging that the complainant company, during the course of its business of leasing and financing provided inter-corporate deposit of Rs. 50 lacs (fifty lacs) to the petitioners; and they executed guarantee, promissory note, receipt and other connected documents. The deposit was extended from time to time at their request. It was lastly renewed for 90 days on 7.6.1997. The petitioners issued advance post dated cheque dated 30th September, 1997 drawn o...
Shri Harprat and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ460
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. These nine appeals are being decided by a common judgment since the land situate within the same revenue estate was acquired for the same public purpose and is covered by the same award of the Collector Land Acquisition and the claim is for enhancement in the amount of compensation. RFA No. 84 of 1999 is being taken as the lead case in which comprehensive evidence has been led.2. Subject matter of these appeals is the determination of the amount of compensation payable to the appellants for their lands situate within the revenue estate of Chilla Saroda Bangar, Delhi acquired for Planned Development of Delhi through notification issues under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 17.11.1980. It was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1981. Collector Land Acquisition made his award No. 39/82-83 on 30.9.1982 offering compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per bigha. References were sought. The Ref...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »