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.
Banmore Cables and Conductors Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT715TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the imposition of penalty under Adjudication Order No. 113/Commr. C. Ex/06, dated 5-8-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. It is seen that the records relating to the above appeal were missing in this Tribunal. Therefore, inspite of repeated representation from the assessee, the appeal could not be posted for hearing.2. While so, the assessee filed a fresh appeal on 7-2-2002 along with application to condone the delay of five years and six months in filing the appeal. The appellant has also produced as Annexure A along with application to condone the delay, copy of the original appeal of 1996 filed by the appellant before this Tribunal records relating to which are found missing. It is not open to appellant to file a fresh appeal in 2002. What is required is only the reconstruction of the original file. Since he has produced a copy of the Memorandum of Appeal E/1541/96 as Annexure A along with the applicat...
Sushil Khanna Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC630
1. The appellant Shri Sushil Khanna is the Director of M/s. Oscar Laboratories (P) Limited, New Delhi. M/s. Oscar Laboratories (P) Limited manufacture P & P Medicines falling under Chapter heading No.3003. The factory premises of M/s. Oscar Laboratories (P) Limited were visited on 4.9.96 by the Preventive Officers of Central Excise, New Delhi. On verification of the records of the firms, it was found that they were availing the modvat credit of duty paid on two inputs namely Dextro Propoxy Hcl and Paracetamol used solely for the manufacture of Sudinol Tablets. It was observed that the input Dextro Propoxy Phone Hcl was not subject to the Central Excise duty but it was subject to State Excise duty. The party had filed the declaration under Rule 57G mentioning the Sudinol Tablets as final product to avail modvat credit on all the inputs used in the manufacture Sudinol Tabs. Further the party while clearing Sudinol Tablets and P & P medicines had not paid any Central Excise duty ...
Maithan Ceramic Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC815
Whether the Tribunal can consider the appeal on merits, when the same has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as having been filed after the period six months from the date of receipt of the Order, in terms of the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal in the case of Mark Auto Industries v.C.C.E., New Delhi 2000 (41) RLT 756 (CEGAT) held that it is well settled position that the order in original merges with the order in appeal passed by the first appellate authority and the appeal against such an order is maintainable before the second appellate authority and when the adjudicating authority order got merged in order passed by the appellate authority whether on merit or on limitation/the said order is open to challenge before the Tribunal.4. The contention of the Revenue is that after considering the above decision of the Tribunal, the Western Regional Bench in...
Krishna Electrical Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT653TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the imposition of penalty under Adjudication order No. 115/Commr. C.Ex./06, dated 5-8-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. It is seen that the records relating to the above appeal were missing in this Tribunal. Therefore, in spite of repeated represervation from the assessee, the appeal could not be posted for hearing.2. While so, the assessee filed a fresh appeal on 7-2-2002 along with application to condone the delay of five years and six months in filing the appeal. The appellant has also produced as Annexure A along with application to condone the delay, copy of the original appeal of 1996 filed by the appellant before this Tribunal records relating to which are found missing. It is not open to appellant to file a fresh appeal in 2002. What is required is only the reconstruction of the original file. Since he has produced a copy of the Memorandum of appeal E/l/540/96 as Annexure A along with the applic...
AlmIn Extrusion Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC496
1. This is an application for rectification of mistake filed under Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Neither the applicant nor its representative is present.2. The application has been filed on 28.5.2002 for rectifying an alleged mistake in an order dated 29,6.1999. Since the application is being filed after the amendment to Section 35C(2) has come into force reducing the period to 6 months, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Apart from the above, we find that there is no merit in the allegation in the application that the order is vitiated by an error apparent on record. What is sought in this application is a reconsideration of the order on merits. It is not permissible under Section 35-C(2). We dismiss the application for the above reasons....
Ambaji Metal Indus. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC796
1. The main issue for consideration in this case is whether the appellants had, as a matter of fact, received the inputs in respect of which they had availed Modvat Credit. In the impugned order, Commissioner has confirmed the allegation that inputs has actually not been received in the factory. Learned Sr. Counsel representing the appellant has pointed out that the finding reached by the Commissioner is without referring to the evidence on record. According to him, the assessee had presented evidence regarding receipt and issue of the raw-materials before the adjudicating authority. In this context he referred to Chart relating to details regarding inputs received, the particulars of supplier, document under which the supply was made lorry receipt showing the transport, entry in the RG 23 A part 1 Register and details of issue of the raw-materials for manufacture. The Counsel in particular referred to the last two columns of the Chart which indicated Chit No. and date for issue of th...
Mr. Dalip Bhatia Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT581; 2002(64)DRJ317
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. On a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925(Probate No. 42/99) for grant of Probate/Letters of Administration, made by the applicant Shri Dalip Bhatia, Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 20.5.82, with a copy thereof annexed, was granted in his favor on 27th of September, 2001, subject to his supplyingrequisite court fee and completion of necessary formalities.2. The applicant has now approached this Court with instant application seeking the requirement of furnishing an Administration Bond and a Surety Bond to be dispensed with, on the plea 'that the petitioner is not only the executor but also the beneficiary and legal heir of the deceased and is t he beneficiary of the property bequeathed to him under the aforesaid will. As such, the petitioner was not to do or carry out any act in compliance and direction under the Will.'3. Section 2.(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 defines an 'executor' to mean a person to whom ...
Shri Devender Lal Mehta Vs. Dharmender Mehta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT437; 2002(64)DRJ367
B.N. Chaturvedi, J. 1. When materialistic outlook predominates one's mind outweighing all other considerations, no bond of relationship is strong enough to withstand its onslaught. This explains the controversy between a husband and his wife in the present context, where the husband, Shri Devender Lal Mehta (plaintiff), in assertion of his ownership rights in relation to the premises No. D-135, Anand Vihar, New Delhi, has to contend with his wife, Smt. Saroj New Delhi, has to contend with his wife, Smt. Saroj Mehta (defendant No. 2) and his son, Dharmender Mehta (defendant No. 1) to secure an unhindered ingress and egress to/from t he suit property and peaceful enjoyment thereof. This apart, he also seeks a permanent restraint order against his son Shri Dharmender Mehta (defendant No. 1) from entering, living in or keeping any of his goods/belongings in the aforesaid premises.2. Needless to mention that both the defendants are presently living in the suit premises. The plaintiff also c...
Jia Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT392; 2002(64)DRJ285
1. These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since question of law and fact, which arise for consideration are same and similar. 2. On 26.9.1980 a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued expressing intention of the Government to acquire land situate in village Jharoda-Kalan at public expense for public purpose, namely, construction of 'Duphia - Chaudani Out Fall Drain 'Simultaneously emergency provisions were invoked and declaration under Section 6 and notification under Section 17 of the Act were issued. Collector Land Acquisition on 6.8.1981 made his award offering compensation to the claimants by classifying land in three categories A, B and C and fixing their respective market value at Rs.3,750/- Rs.3,200/- and Rs.1,800/-per bigha. Feeling dis-satisfied claimants sought references. The reference court by the impugned awards determined the fair market value of categories A and B land at Rs.9,000/- ...
Parvinder Singh (Now Deceased) Vs. Bhai Hospital Trust and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR618(Delhi); 99(2002)DLT310
1. The order passed on 18th January, 2002 by learned Single Judge deciding two preliminary issues is under challenge in this appeal by defendants 1 and 2. The two issues decided by the impugned order as preliminary issues read: (1)Whether the suit is barred and/or is liable to be stayed under the provisions of Section 32 of the Arbitration Act? (2)Whether the suit is barred by principles of rest judicata in view of the award dated 24.5.1984. 2. Learned Single Judge decided both the issues in favor of the plaintiffs holding that the suit in the present form is not barred under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act and is not liable to be stayed and that the award of the arbitrator which was made rule of the court culminating in a decree does not operate as rest judicata so as to bind the plaintiffs vis a vis the nature of the suit that has been filed. 3. In October, 1993 S.No.2428/93 was filed by (1) Bhai Hospital Trust; (2) Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh, the Managing Trustee of the Trust; (3) Sard...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »