Delhi Court August 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.
Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc (Acu)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC79
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 5.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants through the Customs House Agent, M/s, Challenge Cargo Services, filed bill of entry for clearance of 5000 sets of 'Electronic Components for Colour Television Model 2111', at a declared value of Rs. 80,56,026. The goods were supplied by M/s. TCL. Marketing Ltd., Hong Kong. The goods were declared in the Bill of Entry as sets, but the description of the goods was found ambiguous as parts numbers and technical specifications essential to ascertain the value of electronic components were not declared. However, the appellants furnished detailed invoices containing list of different components and their individual value. On scrutiny of the invoices, it revealed that the components declared as sets consisted of components of different specifications. It also revealed that the appellants had imported ...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC632
1. M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 15,58,960 and imposing the penalty of Rs. one lakh.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. have a number of steel plants. While examining the records of Bhilai Steel which is one of the plants of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. It was alleged that the assessee availed modvat credit during the period of the April' 94 and May' 97 on the strength of invalid/unapproved duty paying documents. They were, therefore, called upon to explain as to why duty amounting to Rs,15,58,960 should not demanded from them and why penalty should not be imposed. In reply to the SCN, the appellants submitted that they were getting raw-materials from subsidiary company or sister plant; that there was no dispute that the subject goods were duty paid and were received in the plant for ...
Waryam Steel Castings Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT253TriDel
1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 24-3-01 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had disallowed abatement claim for the period 15-12-97 to 27-3-98.2. The appellants are operating an induction furnace unit in the premises situated at Kanganwal Road, Jugiana, Ludhiana. They manufacture non-alloy steel ingots/billets which are chargeable to duty in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act read with Notification No. 30/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-8-97, as per annual production capacity of the unit. They filed claim for abatement of duty for the period 15-12-97 to 27-3-98 by alleging that one of their induction furnace did not produce goods and remain closed during that period.Their claim was initially decided by the adjudicating authority partly in their favour and partly against them. That order was thereafter challenged by them before the Tribunal and the same was set aside vide order dated 8-3-99. The ma...
Shanti Kumar Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC44
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the appeal filed by Shri Shanti Kumar, present appellants, is not maintainable.3. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., manufacturer of motor vehicles, filed refund claim before the competent authority for refund of Rs. 72,168.00 in view of Notification 6/2000-CE dt. 1.3.2000 which provides concessional rate of duty for cars for physically handicapped persons. The refund claim was rejected by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise on the ground that car was sold to physically handicapped persons whereas the Maruti Udyog Ltd. has cleared the car on full payment of duty and as M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. recovered the amount of duty from their customers, the principle of unjust enrichment is applicable as the burden of duty has been passed on to the customers.4. This order, passed by the Dy. Commissioner, was accepted...
Autolite (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC417
1. M/s. Autolite (India) Limited [in short, M/s. Autolite] are manufacturers of automobile head-lamps falling under Chapter Sub-Heading (CSH) 8512.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. One of the main components of their product is glass lens obtained by a moulding process involving the use of moulds consisting of Dies, Plungers and Rings. A complete mould for glass falls under CSH 8480.10 and parts thereof are classifiable under CSH 8480.90. Under Notification No. 67/95-CE., dated 16-3-95, the Central Government exempted from duty of excise, capital goods as defined in Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 manufactured in a factory and used within the factory of production. During 1-4-1995 - 6-2-98, M/s.Autolite manufactured Dies, Plungers and Rings and cleared the same out of their factory under invoices for captive consumption without payment of duty, claiming exemption under the above Notification. The department detected this activity and investigated th...
Shafiqur Rehman Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC123
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that officers of Customs Department seized the goods of foreign origin i.e. torches. The appellant, who is claimant of the goods, made a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act that the consignment was sent to him for sale in the market on commission basis by one Shri Gopan Singh and has to receive rupee one per torch for selling these goods in Delhi. The goods, in question, are smuggled through Burma border. The adjudicating authority, after issuing the show cause notice to the appellant, confiscated the goods and allowed the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15,000.00 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 on the appellant, 3. The contention of the appellant is that certain cigarettes were also taken into possession alongwith these torches and separate proceedings were initiated in respect of cigarettes, in question, and the Tribunal, vide Fin...
Dy. Cit Vs. Vijay Mehta (Huf)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Delhi)280
"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi, has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,21,652 made on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961." The assessing officer observed that the HUF through its three members, namely, Nanak Mehta, Gautam Mehta and Radhika Mehta in association with some employees had incorporated and were running eleven private limited companies and one limited company. These companies were also doing the business of export of garments as the assessee-HUF was also doing.These companies were profit earning company and had accumulated substantial reserve and surplus and had not declared any dividend since their incorporation in 1987. The details of shareholding of the members of the HUF in these companies, total share capital and the accumulated profit as on 31-3-1990, are enclosed as Annex. I to the assessing officer's assessment order.The assessing officer found that ...
Shri Salekh Chand JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT803; [2003(96)FLR190]; (2002)IIILLJ964Del
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner has in the Petition highlighted the deplorable conditions of the colony Hospital in Delhi and has sought, inter alia, necessary directions to the respondents to improve the working and functioning of these hospitals on the lines of recommendations given by the Committee on upgradiation of these hospitals as per its report submitted in January, 1998. 2. While the aforesaid primary issue raised in the Writ Petition is pending consideration, the petitioner was prompted to file a miscellaneous application being CM. 8163/2002 in view of the threat of strike given by the doctors and the employees of the Government hospitals. Joint Council for Health Employees - an organisation of the employees which had given a call for strike was imp leaded as a party while issuing notice on the said application on 8th...
N.D.M.C. and anr. Vs. Mohd. Shamim and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR155]; (2003)IILLJ81Del
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This writ petition arises out of an order dated 07.12.1984 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,Delhi (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the Tribunal') where by hereunder in exercise of his powers conferred upon him under Section 13-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the said Act') an order dated 08.06.1981 terminating the services of respondent No.2 herein was set aside.2. The respondent No.2 herein was appointed as a Khalasi. He has been working in the Electricity Department of the petitioner herein. The said Department is said to be used to deal with generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. The said establishment allegedly comes within the purview of the provisions of the said Act.Admittedly, there did not exist any certified standing order in relation to the said establishment. According to the respondents, as no certified standing or...
Savla and Associates Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi73; 2003(67)DRJ268
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner has brought the problem created by some car mechanics who were operating from the pavements/road in the close vicinity of the office premises of the petitioner and thereby causing nuisance. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is a proprietary firm carrying on profession of Advocates & Solicitors. Its office is situated in the building facing the main Lajpat Nagar Market road called as Vir Savarkar road. It has at present five lawyers and supporting staff. The petitioner is carrying on its profession at this place for the past seven years. The building is situated next to the park maintained by the residents of the said area. In the month of February, 2002 the petitioner found that some car mechanics started carrying out repairing of cars/vehicles in the close vicinity of his office premises thereby creating a lot of noise and ruckus as heavy implements such a big iron hammers are used by them for denting and painting. Such hard hitting ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »