Delhi Court July 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.
Dawar Footwear Inds. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Acu)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT345TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). In the impugned Order the benefit of Notification No. 23/98-Cus. dated 2-6-98 was denied to the appellants.2. The appellants made import of one second-hand machine and declared the same in the Bill of Entry as Shoe Stitcher. The Bill of Entry was assessed and the appellants paid duty. Thereafter, the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) claiming the benefit of the Notification No. 23/98-Cus. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the benefit of notification on the ground that the claim was not made before the assessing officer and the appellants had not produced any documents or catalogue of the machine in question to prove their claim.4. The appellants are claiming benefit of Notification No. 23/98-Cus.mentioned at Sri. No. 141, Sri. No. 141 of notification covers outsole Stitching machine. The contention of the appellants is that the machine in question...
Texla Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC601
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner (Customs).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants made an import of T.V. parts and filed a Bill of Entry claiming the classification under Heading 85.29 of Customs Tariff. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that the goods, in question, appeared to be in the form of components which are to be mounted on bare Printed Circuit Board (PCB), which had also been imported. The operation/process, involved is mere shouldering, thus, the imported components, along with PCBs appeared to make specific part of colour T.V. Further, all such parts taken together, appear to attain the essential characteristic of colour T.Vs. and are classifiable under Heading 85.28 of Customs Tariff. Show cause notice also proposed confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority, after invoking the provisions of Rule 2(a) of Interpretative Rules, held that the goods...
Uniforge Bearing Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC779Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 8-8-2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had modified the impugned order-in-original of the Asstt, Commissioner.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ball Bearings, Their factory premises was visited on 3-6-1998 by the Central Excise Preventive Officers. On carrying out the physical stock taking of the finished goods and raw material, the stock of finished goods was found NIL whereas 19680 pcs. of Ball Bearings were found excess and the same was seized. It also revealed that the appellants during the period January to June, 1998 misutilised the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 8,17,206/-. They were found to had no machine for manufacture of the clear and complete Ball Bearings as shown in their RT-12 returns, in their factory located at Patparganj. They were only doing the job work for their other unit at Badarpur, and illegally utilized credit of the disputed amount, during the period January, ...
Monnet Ispat P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC456
1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Monnet Ispat Ltd. the issue involved is whether the benefit of exemption provided under Notification No.50/97-CE dated 1.8.97, is available to the excisable goods, manufactured by them.2. Shri K.K. Gupta, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants manufacture MS ingots falling under Heading 7206.90 starting from the stage of iron ore in the same premises; that MS ingots are manufactured in the induction furnace installed in their factory; that non-alloy ingots were notified under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act imposing duty liability on the basis of Annual Production Capacity under Notification No. 30/97 CE-NT dated 1.8.97; that Explanation (a) to the Notification excluded from the purview of Section 3A, the goods which were manufactured prior to 1.8.97 and cleared after that date; that Notification No. 30/97 was amended by Notification No. 43/97 CE-NT dated 30.8.97 by which the date of coming into force was changed from 1.8.97 to 1.9.97; that...
Gopal Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT212TriDel
1. This is an application for rectification of mistake filed by M/s.Gopal Mills.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the applicants. The applicants have requested in the ROM application that the matter may be decided dispensing with their presence. Accordingly, we take up the application for disposal after perusing the records and hearing Shri Mewa Singh, learned SDK.3. It has been mentioned in the application that the Tribunal while deciding their Appeal vide Final Order No. A/220/2002-NB (D), dated 5-2-2002 [2002 (142) E.L.T. 604 (T)] has completely ignored the various decisions of the co-ordinate Benches against proposition 'A' and 'C cited in the written submissions filed by them; that the Supreme Court decision in the case of Surat Besan and Rice Mills v. Food Corporation of India has also not found mention in the Final Order; that the Order had ignored RT 12 returns submitted subsequently evidencing the duty payment by the applications in terms of Secti...
itc Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC316
1. Heard both sides. The mistake pointed out in the R.O.M. application is a typographical mistake. We are also of the view that it is of no consequence as far as the order is concerned. The mistake is corrected and the relevant sentence in paragraph 15.2 reproduced from the order of the D.G. in paragraph 28 of the order of the Tribunal will be read as follows: As the rule stands today, it is felt that the additional money value consideration cannot be relieved of the duty incidence before adding it to the price and the entire additional money value consideration has to be added to the price for working out the assessable value for the purposes of levy and collection of excise duty on the cigarettes. To be precise, the assessable value (s) of the cigarettes shall be the value (s) on which the company had paid the duty plus the additional money value consideration in respect of the items of expenditure identified in the preceding paras....
Wg. Cdr. R.R.J. Dass (Retd.) Vs. Smt. Satya Bhama Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas878(Delhi); 100(2002)DLT105; 2002(64)DRJ503
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision petition under Sections 397/401of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short,'Cr.P.C.'), 1973, is directed against the order dated4.6.2001, passed by the court of MetropolitanMagistrate, New Delhi, dismissing the application of the petitioner for recalling the order of summoning, on the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act),1881.2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of this petition are that respondent filed complaint under sections 138 and 141 of NI Act, against M/s. Installment Corporation Limited & Ors. and its directors, includingpetitioner, alleging therein that under the agreement dated 15.7.94, complaint deposited with the company of petitioner a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for a period of 24months. The agreement was signed by the petitioner on behalf of the company, in his capacity as the vice-president and the director. There was a breach of the agreement and in discharge of th...
Praveen Kumar S/O Shri Jagpal, Samai Pur, Delhi Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT523
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Praveen Kumar, hereinafter described as the appellant, has filed the present appeal directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 9th March, 2001 and 14th March, 2001 respectively. The learned trial court held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307/325 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereupon he was sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months for causing injuries on the person of Maya Devi. He was further sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for inflicting injuries on the person of Dharamdev for the above said offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was s...
First International Investments Inc. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT858
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This order will dispose of three applications moved by defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC')for vacating ex-parte interim injunction dated 15th May,2002, as well as the application of the plaintiff whereby status quo was ordered to be maintained with regard to shares of defendant No. 2.2. Facts in brief are that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunction, against defendants pleading therein as under:(i) Plaintiff No. 1 (First International) is a company incorporated on 14.2.1995 under the laws ofMauritius; plaintiff No. 2 (Arun Duggal) is the principal officer and duly constituted attorney of plaintiff No. 1.The defendant No. 1, Industrial Finance Corporation Limited (for short, 'IFCL'); defendant No. 2 (Bank of America Overseas Corporation) formerly known as Nations bank Overseas Corporation (for short, 'NBOC')incorporated under the laws of USA; and defendant No. ...
Babbar Vision India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rama Vision Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT556
Devinder Gupta, J.1. This appeal by the defendant is against the order passed on 1.4.1997 by learned Single Judge in is No. 54 of 1995. By the said order, learned Single Judge allowed the defendant's application (IA. 54/95) filed under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure thereby granting leave to the defendant to defend the suit of the plaintiff but subject to the defendant's depositing in Court a sum of Rs. 8,57,500/- within four weeks making it clear that on failure to deposit the amount, the application seeking leave to contest shall stand dismissed.2. In so far as basic facts are concerned, the same are not in dispute. A suit for recovery of Rs. 14,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per month from the date of filing of suit till payment has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, inter alia, alleging that the defendants approached the plaintiff for supply of black and white television picture tubes being manufactured by the plaintiff. Defendant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »